HomeMy WebLinkAbout1395-2 GobelIn Re: George S. Gobel,
Respondent
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Nicholas A. Colafella
Mark Volk
05 -014
Order No. 1395 -2
7/22/09
8/4/09
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the
commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent
written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the
Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as
an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was held. The record is
complete.
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.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 2
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That George S. Gobel, a (public official /public employee) [sic] in his capacity as
Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, Allegheny County violated the following provisions
[Sections 1104(a) and 1104(d)] of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when, as Solicitor
for the Borough, he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar
year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year
by May 1, 2004; and when he subsequently backdated Statements of Financial Interests
for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years to give the impression that the forms were
timely filed; and when, in his capacity as Solicitor for the McKeesport Redevelopment
Authority, he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May
1, 2004; and when he subsequently backdated Statements of Financial Interests for the
2002 and 2003 calendar years to give the impression that the forms were timely filed; and
when, in his capacity as Solicitor for the Borough of Port Vue, he failed to file Statements
of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year
by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004, and the 2004 calendar year by
May 1, 2005; and when, in his capacity as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty, he failed to
file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and
when, in his capacity as Solicitor for the City of McKeesport Civil Service Commission, he
failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar year 2000 by May 1, 2001,
and the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002.
§ 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission
no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public
employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is
employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the
year after he leaves such a position. Any other public
employee or public official shall file a statement of financial
interests with the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
(d) Failure to file required statement. - -No public
official shall be allowed to take the oath of office or enter or
continue upon his duties, nor shall he receive compensation
from public funds, unless he has filed a statement of financial
interests as required by this chapter.
65 Pa. C. S. §§ 1104(a), (d).
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
1. On June 14, 2005, a letter was forwarded to George Gobel by the Investigative
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 3
Division of the State Ethics Commission, informing him that a complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail....
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of [Eleanor Zappa], with a
delivery date of June 16, 2005.
2. On November 23, 2005, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to
Gobel by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission, informing him
that the allegations contained in the June 14, 2005, Notice of Investigation were
being amended.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail....
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Gobel.
3. Gobel received notice letters from the State Ethics Commission dated August 29,
2005, and November 21, 2005.
4. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to Gobel on December 9, 2005.
5. Gobel has been licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania since January 7, 1977.
a. Gobel's Attorney Registration Number is 24899.
b. Gobel's license is active.
6. [Respondent served as part -time Solicitor for the following municipalities for the
respective time periods: 1) the Borough of Dravosburg since at least 2000; 2) the
Borough of Port Vue from February 2001 through March 2004; 3) the McKeesport
Redevelopment Authority since November 2001; and 4) the Borough of Liberty from
1990 through December 2001.] Respondent admits that he served as an attorney
for the Civil Service Commission of the City of McKeesport on particular legal
matters but asserts that he was paid hourly and received no retainer fee.
(Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 9; Answer to Investigative Complaint, at
paragraph 9).
7 [Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act] requires the filing of Statements of Financial
Interests by elected and appointed public officials....
a. Forms are to be filed [by May 1 ] each year a person holds public office and
[by May 1 the] year after the person leaves office.
8. Persons who serve as full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are
required to file Statements of Financial Interests in accordance with Section 1104(a)
of the Ethics Act.
a. Gobel's service as a part -time municipal solicitor would require him to file
Statements of Financial Interests.
9. By signing and dating the bottom of the Statement of Financial Interests form, filing
parties attest to the following:
The undersigned hereby affirms that the foregoing
information is true and correct to best of said person's
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 4
knowledge, information and belief; said affirmation
being made subject to the penalties prescribed by 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities)
and the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65
Pa. C. S. § 1109(b).
The following findings relate to the allegations that Gobel failed to timely file
Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough of Dravosburg
( "Dravosburg Borough ") for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years and that
he subsequently filed backdated forms for those calendar years.
10. Gobel has served as Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough for more than 18 years, or
since at least 1987.
11. Gobel was reappointed Solicitor at reorganization meetings of the Dravosburg
Borough Council on the following dates: [January 3, 2000; January 7, 2002; and
January 5, 2004]....
12. [Brenda] Honick, [Secretary of Dravosburg Borough], does not follow -up to make
sure individuals file their [Statement of Financial Interests] forms.
13. Gobel's filing of Statements of Financial Interests became an issue in March 2005,
during the time when candidate nomination petitions were due to be filed for the
upcoming primary election.
a. Gobel had filed petitions challenging the candidacy of several candidates for
Council of the Borough of Liberty.
(1) Gobel was challenging allegedly deficient Statements of Financial
Interests filed by the candidates.
b. Gobel was a Council candidate in the Borough of Liberty in the May 2005
primary election.
14. On March 22, 2005, a private citizen requested copies of Gobel's Statements of
Financial Interests from Dravosburg Borough.
a. The request was made of Brenda Honick [on or about] the same date that a
hearing was scheduled in [an] Allegheny County Court regarding Gobel's
petitions.
15. [In or around March 2005,] Honick contacted Gobel and made him aware of the
request for copies of his Statements of Financial Interests and that she had none in
her files for him.
16. Within a couple of days, Gobel personally provided several completed Statements
of Financial Interests to Honick at the Borough office.
a. Gobel filed forms for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004.
17. When Honick initialed and dated each form, she recorded the date the form was
received as the same date that Gobel had dated the bottom of the form.
a. Gobel did not instruct Honick to date the forms [as] received [on] the date at
the bottom of the form.
18. The forms Gobel had used to file for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 5
were marked with the identification number SEC -1, REV. 01/05.
19. The form Gobel used to file for calendar year 2004 was accurately dated, as it had
been filed before May 1, 2005.
20. Honick did not provide Gobel with the blank SEC -1, REV. 01/05 forms that he used
to file for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
21. Honick contacted Gobel and told him that the comments of another individual had
caused her to be concerned about the "received by" dates that she had recorded on
the forms.
a. Gobel told Honick that she could go ahead and date the forms with the date
that she had received them.
22. Honick did not provide Gobel with the blank forms [with identification number SEC -
1, REV. 01/05] that he used to file for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
23. On March 29, 2005, Gobel filed Statements of Financial Interests with Dravosburg
Borough for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 on [forms with an identification
number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05].
24. Gobel's [Statement of Financial Interests] for calendar year 2004 was filed on a
[form with an identification number of SEC-1, REV. 01/05].
a. Gobel signed and dated the form March 4, 2005.
b. Honick initialed the form as having been received on April 20, 2005.
(1) Honick received the calendar year 2004 form on [March 29, 2005],
the same date that she received the other forms Gobel filed....
25. Respondent admits that his Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar
years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were not timely filed with Dravosburg Borough, but he
asserts that such forms were timely completed. (Investigative Complaint, at
paragraph 27; Answer to Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 27).
26. Gobel filed a [Statement of Financial Interests] for calendar year 2000 on a ... form
which is signed and dated January 24, 2001.
a. Honick initialed the form as having been received on January 26, 2001.
27. Respondent admits that each year from 2001 through 2003, he received several
thousand dollars of income from Dravosburg Borough.
The following findings relate to the allegations that Gobel failed to timely
file Statements of Financial Interests with the City of McKeesport
Redevelopment Authority ( "Redevelopment Authority ") for the 2001, 2002,
and 2003 calendar years and that he subsequently filed backdated forms
for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years.
28. Gobel has served as Solicitor for the Redevelopment Authority since November 15,
2001.
a. Gobel was appointed by the Authority Board at a meeting held on November
14, 2001.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 6
29. By way of letter dated November 15, 2001, the Redevelopment Authority notified
Gobel that he had been retained as Solicitor as of November 15, 2001.
a. Gobel's retainer [was] $500.00 per month and [he received] $90.00 per hour
for legal services.
b. Gobel was paid one -half of his retainer for the month of November 2001.
30. [Johanna Bell, Secretary to the Authority Board] did not provide [Statement of
Financial Interests] forms to Gobel or to the previous Solicitor.
a. Gobel never requested a form from Johanna Bell.
31. In approximately March /April 2005, Gobel filed Statements of Financial Interests for
calendar years 2002 and 2003 with Johanna Bell.
a. Johanna Bell noted that the forms used by Gobel all [had] the same
[identification number of] SEC -1, REV. 01/05.
32. Respondent admits that his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years
2001, 2002, and 2003 were untimely filed with the Redevelopment Authority, but he
asserts that such forms were timely completed and dated with the date on which
Respondent certified the accuracy of the information contained on the forms.
(Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 35(b); Answer to Investigative Complaint, at
paragraph 35(b)).
33. The Statement of Financial Interests filed by Gobel for the 2002 calendar year was
dated February 27, 2003, and filed on a [form with an identification number of] SEC -
1, REV. 01/05.
34. The Statement of Financial Interests filed by Gobel for the 2003 calendar year was
dated March 16, 2004, and filed on a [form with an identification number of] SEC -1,
REV. 01/05.
35. [Gobel's Statement of Financial Interests] for the 2004 calendar [was filed] on a
form [with an identification number of] SEC-1, REV. 01/05.
36. Respondent admits that he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for
calendar year 2001 with the Redevelopment Authority by May 1, 2002.
(Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 39; Answer to Investigative Complaint, at
paragraph 39).
a. Gobel was required to file for calendar year 2001 because of his
appointment date of November 15, 2001.
37. Respondent admits that between 2001 and 2003, he received several thousand
dollars of income from the Redevelopment Authority.
The following findings relate to the allegations that Gobel failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough of Port Vue ( "Port Vue
Borough ") for the 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 calendar years.
38. Gobel served as Solicitor for Port Vue Borough, Allegheny County, from February
2001 through March 2004.
a. Gobel was replaced [in or about] April 2004.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 7
39. A mail slot is designated for the [Port Vue Borough] Solicitor...
40. [Port Vue Borough Secretary MaryAnn] Gubanic does not specifically recall
providing [Statement of Financial Interests] forms to the Solicitor.
41. The only Statement of Financial Interests form on file with Port Vue Borough for
Gobel is for calendar year 2000.
a. The form was signed and dated March 12, 2001.
b. The initials "J.W." and date "3/12/01" are handwritten in the "Official Use
Only" block, indicating the date that the form was received at the Borough
office.
(1) The initials "J.W." are those of Joan Winter, Port Vue Borough
Manager.
42. Respondent admits that he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with Port
Vue Borough for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 by May 1 of each
succeeding year. (Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 45; Answer to
Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 45).
43. Respondent admits that each year from 2001 through 2003, he received several
thousand dollars of income from Port Vue Borough.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Gobel failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests with the City of McKeesport
Civil Service Commission ( "Civil Service Commission ") for the 2000 and
2001 calendar years.
44. Respondent admits that he served as an attorney for the Civil Service Commission
on particular legal matters but asserts that he was paid hourly and was not on
retainer. (Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 47; Answer to Investigative
Complaint, at paragraph 47).
45. Civil Service Commission members have not been provided with blank Statement of
Financial Interests forms for filing by [Patricia Williams, McKeesport City Clerk].
a. Gobel was not provided with Statement of Financial Interests forms by
Williams.
46. Gobel is identified as the Solicitor on the Civil Service Commission letterhead.
47. Gobel submitted an invoice to Patricia Monoyoudis, McKeesport City Administrator,
dated November 30, 2001, for services performed between August 24, 2000, and
November 30, 2001.
a. The invoice totaled $11,947.20.
b. No payments were made to Gobel as Solicitor for the Civil Service
Commission after the November 2001 invoice.
48. Gobel has not filed Statements of Financial Interests as Solicitor for the Civil
Service Commission for calendar years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Gobel failed
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 8
to file a Statement of Financial Interests with the Borough of Liberty
( "Liberty Borough ") for the 2001 calendar year.
49. Gobel served as Solicitor for Liberty Borough, Allegheny County, from at least 1990
through December 2001.
a. Gobel was replaced as Solicitor at the Borough reorganization meeting on
January 7, 2002.
50. [On February 12, 20011 Gobel filed a Statement of Financial Interests with Liberty
Borough for calendar year 2000 [on a form with an identification number of SEC -1,
REV. 01/01].
51. As a candidate for Liberty Borough Council, Gobel filed Statements of Financial
Interests with Liberty Borough prior to the 2003 and 2005 primary elections.
a. [On March 11, 2003, Gobel, as a candidate for Borough Council, filed a
Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2002 on a form with an
identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/03.]
b. Gobel filed a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2004 on May
14, 2005 [on a form with an identification number of] SEC -1, REV. 01/05.
52. Respondent admits that he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for
calendar year 2001 with Liberty Borough by May 1, 2002. (Investigative Complaint,
at paragraph 57; Answer to Investigative Complaint, at paragraph 57).
a. Gobel was required to file a form for calendar year 2001, the last year that
he served as Borough Solicitor.
b. Gobel was required to file a form by May 1 of the calendar year after he left
the position.
53. Respondent admits that in 2001, as Solicitor, he received several thousand dollars
of income from Liberty Borough.
54. [Files of the Administrative Division of the] State Ethics Commission ... [indicate that
Gobel was sent notices] for failing to file Statements of Financial Interests or for
filing deficient Statements of Financial Interests at a time when Gobel was Solicitor
for the South Allegheny School District.
a. The correspondence ... occurred during the time period from 1997 -2000.
b. Gobel served as Solicitor for the South Allegheny School District from
December 6, 1993, through April 22, 1999.
55. [In response to a notification from the State Ethics Commission, Gobel, by letter
dated June 24, 1998, notified the State Ethics Commission] that he had filed a form
for calendar year 1997 with the South Allegheny School District prior to 1998....
56. [In response to a notification from the State Ethics Commission, Gobel filed an
amended Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1996 with the South
Allegheny School District on July 13, 1998.]
57. In a Sworn Statement provided to State Ethics Commission Investigators on
December 8, 2005, Gobel provided the following responses to the allegations:
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 9
a. In regard to the Civil Service Commission, Gobel provided the following:
(1) He did not consider himself the Solicitor and was not aware that he
had been appointed to that position.
(2) He performed legal work as requested for the Civil Service
Commission.
(3)
Other attorneys that performed legal work for the Civil Service
Commission were Bruce Dice and Walter Baczkowski.
b. In regard to the backdating of the forms filed with Dravosburg Borough and
the Redevelopment Authority, Gobel asserted that he timely completed forms
for the years in question and put them into his files.
(1) He forgot to file the forms with the respective municipal entities.
(2) When he was made aware that someone was requesting copies of his
forms from Dravosburg Borough, he checked his files and found the
completed forms that he had not filed with the Borough and the
Redevelopment Authority.
Before filing the forms he transferred the information onto SEC -1 Rev.
01/05 forms, because he believed that he was required to do so
based on the directions on the form of: "Do not use forms printed in
prior years to complete filing requirements for 1998 and all
subsequent years."
(4) He transferred the information without rechecking it.
(5) He dated the SEC -1 REV. 01/05 forms with the same date that he had
originally completed the forms because that was the date he had
originally verified the information on the forms.
(6) He was aware that the form had been revised but was not aware of
the revision dates at the top of the form.
(7) He assumed that anyone would know that he used a current form
because the forms had changed.
(8) He does not believe that he "backdated" the forms.
(9) He was not notified by anyone that requests had been made for
copies of his Statements of Financial Interests at the Redevelopment
Authority.
(10) He filed forms with the Redevelopment Authority in 2005 for the
previous calendar years around the same date that he filed with
Dravosburg Borough.
(11) He did not go back and file Statements of Financial Interests with Port
Vue Borough or Liberty Borough.
(12) He never completed forms for the calendar years in question with Port
Vue Borough or Liberty Borough.
(3)
(13) He forgot to file forms with all of the municipal entities that he
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 10
represented as Solicitor for calendar years 2001 -2004.
(14) He filed forms as a candidate for Liberty Borough Council in 2003 and
2005 for the respective preceding calendar years.
B. Stipulations
58. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Anita Gricar ( "Gricar ") would provide the following
testimony under oath:
a. Gricar is a former member of Council for the Borough Versailles, Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and held that position for at least five and one half
years, last serving on Council in December 2007.
b. Gricar has known Gobel for a number of years and is aware that Gobel has
served as the part -time Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough.
c. Prior to the primary election of 2005, Gobel challenged the Statements of
Financial Interests filings of Linda Salzmann and two other individuals
running for public office in Liberty Borough. Gobel specifically was
challenging the accuracy and completeness of these candidates'
Statements of Financial Interests. As a result of this challenge, on March
29, 2005, an article was published in a local newspaper regarding the
matter.
d. In light of Gobel's challenge, Gricar took it upon herself to obtain copies of
Statements of Financial Interests Gobel had filed in political subdivisions in
which he served as part -time Solicitor.
e. Gricar was aware that Gobel served as the part -time Solicitor for
Dravosburg Borough and the Redevelopment Authority.
f. Gricar first requested copies of Gobel's Statements of Financial Interests
forms filed with Dravosburg Borough on March 22, 2005.
The Secretary for Dravosburg Borough, Brenda Honick, was not in at that
time; however, Gricar did speak with the sewage clerk, who advised her to
put the request for the Statements of Financial Interests in writing.
h. Per the advice received, Gricar put her request in writing and submitted it to
the Borough office. Specifically, Gricar advised that she was requesting
Gobel's Statements of Financial Interests for three years prior to calendar
year 2004, those being calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Following her written request, Gricar appeared at the Dravosburg Borough
Office to inquire whether Gobel's Statement of Financial Interests forms
were available. She was advised that they were not.
Gricar eventually received a telephone call from a Dravosburg Borough
official, informing her that copies of Gobel's Statement of Financial Interests
forms were now available to be viewed /picked -up.
k. Immediately upon receipt of Gobel's Statement of Financial Interests filings,
Gricar noticed that the forms had dates written on the bottom of the forms
that pre -dated the revised 01/05 identification at the top left corner of the
forms.
g.
J.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 11
Gricar subsequently contacted the Dravosburg Borough Secretary, Brenda
Honick, and advised her that in Gricar's opinion, the forms had been
"backdated."
59. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Brenda Honick ( "Honick ") would provide the
following testimony under oath:
a. Honick is employed by Dravosburg Borough as the Borough Secretary/
Treasurer.
b. Honick has held that position for approximately eighteen years.
c. As Secretary /Treasurer, Honick is the Custodian of Records for records and
filings concerning Dravosburg Borough, including the Statement of Financial
Interests filings for all public officials and employees of the Borough.
d. Gobel was appointed as a part -time Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough in at
least 1987 and has held that position through the present.
e. Upon receipt of a filed Statement of Financial Interests, Honick routinely will
write "received," along with Honick's initials and the current date. This
information is written upon the face of the Statement of Financial Interests
form, within the box marked "Official Use."
f. Once received, Honick will file the Statement of Financial Interests forms
according to calendar year.
On or about March 22, 2005, Honick received a written request under the
Right -to -Know Act requesting copies of Gobel's Statement of Financial
Interests forms. (See, ID 10 -1).
h. Honick reviewed the files of Dravosburg Borough and could not locate the
requested documents.
g.
Honick proceeded to notify Gobel of the absence of his filings.
J.
Gobel eventually hand - delivered his calendar year 2001, 2002, and 2003
Statement of Financial Interests forms to Honick, shortly before March 29,
2005.
k. Upon receipt of Gobel's 2001, 2002, and 2003 Statement of Financial
Interests forms, Honick signed, as received, each form with the same date as
was hand - written in the bottom, right -hand corner, as opposed to the date
Honick actually received the filings. (See, ID 10 -2 through ID 10 -5).
Honick utilized the same date as was hand - written in the bottom, right -hand
corner, as opposed to the date Honick actually received the filings, believing
that the "signed" date was the date to be used. Honick utilized that date
because she normally dated the forms as they were given to her, usually on
the same or a date close to the "signed" date.
m. Honick was not intentionally attempting to disguise the fact that the forms
were not filed timely.
n. Honick is not law trained and does not hold a license to practice law in the
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 12
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Honick is not specially trained nor does
she hold any specialized knowledge in regard to the Ethics Act.
o. Within a short time period of receiving Gobel's Statements of Financial
Interests from Dravosburg Borough on or about March 29, 2005, Anita
Gricar, the individual who initially requested Gobel's forms, informed Honick
that Gobel's 2001, 2002, and 2003 Statement of Financial Interests forms as
filed with Dravosburg Borough were, in Gricar's opinion, "backdated."
Upon conclusion of the conversation with Gricar, Honick telephoned Gobel
regarding the fact that his 2001, 2002, and 2003 Statement of Financial
Interests forms contained the wrong date.
Honick proceeded to "stamp" Gobel's 2001, 2002, and 2003 Statement of
Financial Interests forms, as filed with Dravosburg Borough, with the then
current date, March 29, 2005. (See, ID 11 -3 through 11 -8).
r. The hand - written "received by" dates appearing upon Gobel's 2001, 2002,
and 2003 Statement of Financial Interests forms, as filed with Honick/
Dravosburg Borough, are not accurate, as the correct "received by" date is
more appropriately reflected by the date stamped "March 29, 2005."
s. Honick purports that her marking of Gobel's 2001, 2002, and 2003
Statement of Financial Interests forms, as filed with Dravosburg Borough,
with a hand - written "received by" date reflecting a date other than that of
actual receipt, was not done so at the request of or upon instructions by
Gobel, nor did Gobel tell Honick to backdate the "received" date.
p.
q.
60. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Honick does not routinely check or conduct a follow -up review or search to
determine whether public officials and /or public employees of Dravosburg
Borough file annual Statement of Financial Interests forms.
b. Between the years 1996 and 2008, Dravosburg Borough consisted of
numerous individuals who would be considered to be public officials /public
employees as those terms are defined by the Ethics Act.
c. Honick has no independent knowledge as to whether all Dravosburg
Borough public officials and /or public employees, as those terms are defined
by the Ethics Act, have filed Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to
the Ethics Act for calendar years 1996 through 2007.
d. To the best of Honick's recollection, except for the inquiry regarding the
within matter regarding Gobel, a prior request made by a private citizen
(Gricar) in March 2005, and a compliance review conducted by the State
Ethics Commission on May 24, 2005, Honick has not received any inquiries
from the public to view, inspect, or make copies of any Statements of
Financial Interests for any public employee and /or public official of the
Dravosburg Borough. Honick has, on occasion, received inquiries regarding
specific individuals' Statement of Financial Interests filings, however the
requestor has never sought to actually view, inspect, or make copies of said
Statements of Financial Interests. Rather, the inquiry was limited to whether
a specific Statement of Financial Interests had been filed.
e. Upon a search of the records of Dravosburg Borough, Honick was able to
locate within the official files of Dravosburg Borough the following Statement
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 13
of Financial Interests calendar year(s) filings for Gobel:
(1) 2004 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/4/2005, on SEC -1 REV. 01/05;
filed 4/20/2005. (See, ID 11 -9 through 11 -10).
(2) 2005 — signed and dated by Gobel, 4/28/06, on SEC -1 REV. 01/06;
filed May 1, 2006. (See, ID 11 -11 through 11 -12).
2006 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/14/07, on SEC -1 REV. 01/07;
filed March 16, 2007. (See, ID 11 -13 through 11 -14).
(4) 2007 — signed and dated by Gobel, 1/29/2008, on SEC -1 REV. 01/08;
filed February 5, 2008. (See, ID 11 -15 through 11 -16).
2000 — signed and dated by Gobel, 1/24/01, on SEC -1 REV. 01/01;
filed January 26, 2001. (See, ID 11 -17).
f. Honick, as Custodian of Records for Dravosburg Borough, would
authenticate the following as true and correct copies of documents held
within the official files of Dravosburg Borough:
(1) ID 10, pages 1 -5.
(2) ID 11, pages 1 -17.
61. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Debra L. Helderlein ( "Helderlein ") would provide
the following testimony under oath:
a. Helderlein is employed by Liberty Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
b. Specifically, Helderlein is employed as Secretary /Treasurer.
c. As Secretary /Treasurer, Helderlein is the Custodian of Records for records
and filings concerning Liberty Borough, including the Statement of Financial
Interests filings for all public officials and employees.
d. Gobel was appointed as the part -time Solicitor for Liberty Borough in
approximately 1978 and served continuously in that capacity until December
2001.
(3)
(5)
e. Upon a search of the records of Liberty Borough, Helderlein was able to
locate within the official files of Liberty Borough the following Statement of
Financial Interests calendar year(s) filings for Gobel:
(1) 1994 — signed and dated by Gobel, 4/24/97, on SEC -1 REV. 01/95;
filed May 12, 1997.
(2) 1995 — signed and dated by Gobel, 4/24/97, on SEC -1 REV. 01/96;
filed May 12, 1997.
1996 — signed and dated by Gobel, 10/6/97, on SEC -1 REV. 01/92;
filed October 9, 1997. (See, ID 15 -2).
(4) 1996 (Amended) — signed and dated by Gobel, 6/25/1998, on
SEC -1 REV. 01/98; filed July 1, 1998. (See, ID 15 -3).
(3)
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 14
(5)
(6) 1998 - signed and dated by Gobel, 6/28/1999, on SEC -1 REV.
01/98; filed July 19, 1999. (See, ID 15 -5).
1999 - signed and dated by Gobel, 6/2/2000, on SEC -1 REV.
01/99; filed June 6, 2000. (See, ID 15 -6).
(8) 2000 - signed and dated by Gobel, 2/12/2001, on SEC -1 REV.
01/01; filed February 13, 2001. (See, ID 15 -7).
2001 — no form located as of October 21, 2005. (See, ID 15 -1).
2001 subsequently signed and dated by Gobel, 5/22/07, on SEC -1
REV. 01/07; filed 5/22/07. (See, ID 15 -13 through 15 -14).
(7)
(
1997 - signed and dated by Gobel, 6/15/1998, on SEC -1 REV.
01/98; filed June 17, 1998. (See, ID 15 -4).
(10) 2002 - signed and dated by Gobel, 3/11/2003 on SEC -1 REV.
1/03 (Candidate); filed March 11, 2003. (See, ID 15 -8).
(11) 2004 - signed and dated by Gobel, 3/4/2005, on SEC -1 REV.
01/05 (Candidate); filed March 4, 2005. (See, ID 15 -9 through ID 15-
10).
(12) 2004 - signed and dated by Gobel, 3/4/2005, on SEC -1 REV.
01/05 (Public Official); filed June 6, 2005. (See, ID 15 -11 through D
15 -12).
(13) 2005 - signed and dated by Gobel, 4/28/2006, on
1/05 (Part -Time Solicitor — Zoning Hearing Board);
2006.
(14) 2005 - signed and dated by Gobel, 7/17/2006, on
01/06 (Public Official); filed July 17, 2006.
(15) 2006 - signed and dated by Gobel, 3/6/2007, on
01/07 (Candidate); filed March 5, 2007.
SEC -1 REV.
filed May 1,
SEC -1 REV.
SEC -1 REV.
SEC -1 REV.
(16) 2006 - signed and dated by Gobel, 3/14/2007, on
1/07 (Public Official); filed March 28, 2007.
(17) 2007 - signed and dated by Gobel, 1/3/2008, on SEC -1 REV.
01/08 (Public Official and Part -Time Employee); filed March 13,
2008.
62. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Helderlein does not routinely check or conduct a follow -up review or search
to determine whether public officials and /or public employees of Liberty
Borough file annual Statement of Financial Interests forms.
b. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the government of Liberty Borough
consisted of numerous individuals who would be considered to be public
officials /public employees as those terms are defined by the Ethics Act.
c. Helderlein has no independent knowledge as to whether all Liberty Borough
public officials and /or public employees, as those terms are defined by the
Ethics Act, have filed Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to the
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 15
Ethics Act for calendar years 1996 through 2007.
d. To the best of Helderlein's recollection, except for the inquiry regarding the
within matter by the State Ethics Commission regarding Gobel, and a
request made by the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, in conjunction with an elections petition filing (Objection to
Nomination Petition of Linda A. Salzmann filed by George S. Gobel, Esquire,
March 2005), Helderlein has not received any inquiries from the public to
view, inspect, or make copies of any Statements of Financial Interests for
any public employee and /or public official of Liberty Borough, throughout the
duration of her employment with the Borough.
e. Helderlein, as Custodian of Records for Liberty Borough, would authenticate
ID 15, pages 1 -14, as true and correct copies of documents held within the
official files of Liberty Borough.
63. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Patricia Williams ( "Williams ") would provide the
following testimony under oath:
a. Williams is employed by the City of McKeesport ( "McKeesport "), Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
b. Specifically, Williams' employment title for McKeesport is City Clerk.
c. As City Clerk, Williams is the Custodian of Records for records and filings
concerning McKeesport, including the Statement of Financial Interests filings
for McKeesport, including all public officials and employees of the Civil
Service Commission.
d. Upon a search of the records of McKeesport and the Civil Service
Commission, Williams was unable to locate within the official files of
McKeesport and the Civil Service Commission any of the following
Statement of Financial Interests calendar year(s) filings for Gobel:
(1) 2000 — no form on file as of November 15, 2005 (see, ID 14), 2000
subsequently filed on 5/23/2007 (Public Official(Former) — Attorney,
Part -Time (As Needed)(Under Protest); signed and dated by Gobel,
5/22/07, on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 17 -5 through 17 -6).
(2) 2001 — no form on file as of November 15, 2005 (see, ID 14), 2001
subsequently filed on 5/23/2007 (Public Official(Former) — Attorney,
Part -Time (As Needed)(Under Protest); signed and dated by Gobel,
5/22/07, on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 17 -7 through 17 -8).
e. In regard to her knowledge of the internal operating procedures of the Civil
Service Commission, Williams would provide the following:
(1) Williams has no independent knowledge that Gobel has ever been
appointed as the Solicitor or part -time solicitor for the Civil Service
Commission, with the exception of the information set forth in ID 14
and ID 17 -1 through 17 -4.
(2) Between the time period 1996 and 2007, other lawyers performed
legal services for the Civil Service Commission (as, for example, legal
services to litigate personnel lawsuits).
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 16
The Civil Service Commission does not meet on a regular basis but
only meets as needed" or as circumstances warrant.
(4) Williams has attended "some" of the Civil Service Commission
meetings, but she does not serve as the secretary nor take meeting
minutes.
(3)
Williams does not recall being present at a Civil Service Commission
meeting with Gobel.
(6) Williams has no knowledge regarding the payment of retainer fees to
lawyers representing the Civil Service Commission and believes that
services are rendered on an as needed" basis.
(5)
64. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Williams does not routinely check or conduct a follow -up review or search to
determine whether public officials and /or public employees of the Civil
Service Commission file annual Statement of Financial Interests forms.
b. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the Civil Service Commission consisted
of numerous individuals who would be considered to be public
officials /public employees as those terms are defined by the Ethics Act.
c. Williams has no independent knowledge as to whether all Civil Service
Commission public officials and /or public employees, as those terms are
defined by the Ethics Act, have filed Statements of Financial Interests
pursuant to the Ethics Act for calendar years 1996 through 2007.
d. Williams was not aware that Civil Service Commission Board Members, or
any attorney who performed legal services for the Civil Service Commission,
were required to file Statement of Financial Interests forms.
e. Williams, as custodian of the records for McKeesport and the Civil Service
Commission, would authenticate the following as true and correct copies of
documents held within the official files of McKeesport and the Civil Service
Commission.
(1) ID 14.
(2) ID 17, pages 1 -8.
65. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Johanna Bell ( "Bell ") would provide the following
testimony under oath:
a. Bell is employed by the City of McKeesport ( "McKeesport "), Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
b. Per her duties, Bell is assigned to the City of McKeesport Redevelopment
Authority ( "Redevelopment Authority ") and the Community Development
Department.
c. Bell has held this same position since approximately 1985.
d. Per Bell's duties and responsibilities with the Redevelopment Authority, Bell
is the Custodian of Records for records and filings concerning the
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 17
Redevelopment Authority, including the Statement of Financial Interests
filings of Redevelopment Authority members and employees.
e. Bell is the only person who maintains the Redevelopment Authority's files
concerning Statements of Financial Interests.
f. Gobel was appointed as the part -time Solicitor for the Redevelopment
Authority on November 14, 2001, and he has continued to hold that position
through the present. (See, ID 24 -1 through ID 24 -4).
At some point prior to the primary election of 2005, possibly in April, Bell
received Gobel's 2002, 2003, and 2004 Statement of Financial Interests
filing forms — all filed on the same day.
h. Prior to 2005, Bell did not initial or otherwise date any Statement of Financial
Interests forms upon receipt.
Bell does not maintain any documentation regarding the dates Statements of
Financial Interests are filed by public officials /employees of the
Redevelopment Authority, separate and apart from the forms themselves.
g.
J.
At no time did Gobel ever make a request for blank Statement of Financial
Interests forms from Bell.
k. Upon a search of the records of the Redevelopment Authority, Bell was only
able to locate within the official files of the Redevelopment Authority the
following Statement of Financial Interests calendar year(s) filings for Gobel:
(1) 2001 — no form located, subsequently filed on 5/22/2007 (public
Official and Part -Time Solicitor); signed and dated by Gobel, 5/22/07
on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 12 -8 through 12 -9).
(2) 2002 — signed and dated by Gobel, 2/27/03 on SEC -1 REV. 01/05.
(See, ID 12 -4 through ID 12 -5).
2003 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/16/04 on SEC -1 REV. 01/05.
(See, ID 12 -6 through ID 12 -7).
(4) 2004 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/4/05 on SEC -1 REV. 01/05.
(See, ID 12 -2 through ID 12 -3).
2005 — signed and dated by Gobel, 4/28/06 on SEC -1 REV. 01/06
(received May 1, 2006). (See, ID 12 -10 through 12 -11).
(6) 2006 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/14/07 on SEC -1 REV. 01/07
(received March 21, 2007). (See, ID 12 -12 through 12 -13).
2007 — signed and dated by Gobel, 1/31/08 on SEC -1 REV. 01/08
(received February 4, 2008). (See, ID 12 -14 through 12 -15).
To the best of Bell's recollection, except for the inquiry regarding the within
matter by the State Ethics Commission regarding Gobel, and a prior request
made by a private citizen (Gricar) in March 2005 relating to Gobel's
Statements of Financial Interests, Bell has not received any inquiries from
the public to view, inspect, or make copies of any Statements of Financial
Interests for any public employee and /or public official of the Redevelopment
Authority, throughout the duration of her employment with McKeesport.
(3)
(5)
(7)
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 18
66. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Bell does not routinely check or conduct a follow -up review or search to
determine whether public officials and /or public employees of the
Redevelopment Authority file annual Statement of Financial Interests forms.
b. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the Redevelopment Authority consisted
of numerous individuals who would be considered to be public
officials /public employees as those terms are defined by the Ethics Act.
c. Bell has no independent knowledge as to whether all Redevelopment
Authority public officials and /or public employees, as those terms are defined
by the Ethics Act, have filed Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to
the Ethics Act for calendar years 1996 through 2007.
d. Bell, as Custodian of Records for the Redevelopment Authority, would
authenticate the following as true and correct copies of documents held
within the official files of the Redevelopment Authority:
(1) ID 12, pages 1 -15.
(2) ID 24, pages 1 -4.
67. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Joan Winters ( "Winters ") would provide the
following testimony under oath:
a. Winters is employed by the Borough of Port Vue ( "Port Vue Borough "),
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
b. Specifically, Winters is the Manager of Port Vue Borough, a position she has
held since January 2001.
c. Winters is the Custodian of Records for records and filings concerning Port
Vue Borough, including the Statement of Financial Interests filings for Port
Vue Borough Council members and other public officials and employees.
d. Gobel was appointed as the part -time Solicitor for Port Vue Borough in
February 2001 and held that position until March 2004.
e. Upon a search of the records of Port Vue Borough, Winters was only able to
locate within the official files of Port Vue Borough the following Statement of
Financial Interests calendar year(s) filings for Gobel (see generally ID 13 -1
through ID 13 -2):
(1) 2000 — signed and dated by Gobel, 3/12/01 on SEC -1 REV. 01/01.
(See, ID 13 -2).
(2) 2001 — no form located as of June 9, 2005 (see ID 13 -1), 2001
subsequently filed 5/22/2007 on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 13 -3
through 13 -4).
2002 — no form located as of June 9, 2005 (see ID 13 -1), 2002
subsequently filed 5/22/2007 on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 13 -5
through 13 -6).
(3)
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 19
(4) 2003 — no form located as of June 9, 2005 (see ID 13 -1), 2003
subsequently filed 5/22/2007 on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 13 -7
through 13 -8).
(5) 2004 — no form located as of June 9, 2005 (see ID 13 -1), 2004
subsequently filed 5/22/2007 on SEC -1 REV. 01/07. (See, ID 13 -9
through 13 -10).
f. To the best of Winter's recollection, except for the inquiry regarding the
within matter by the State Ethics Commission regarding Gobel, Winters has
not received any inquiries from the public to view, inspect, or make copies of
any Statements of Financial Interests for any public employee and /or public
official of Port Vue Borough, throughout the duration of Winters' service as
Borough Manager.
68. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Winters does not routinely check or conduct a follow -up review or search to
determine whether public officials and /or public employees of Port Vue
Borough file annual Statement of Financial Interests forms.
b. Between the years 1996 and 2008, the government of Port Vue Borough
consisted of numerous individuals who would be considered to be public
officials /public employees as those terms are defined by the Ethics Act.
c. Winters has no independent knowledge as to whether all Port Vue Borough
public officials and /or public employees, as those terms are defined by the
Ethics Act, have filed Statements of Financial Interests pursuant to the
Ethics Act for calendar years 1996 through 2007.
d. Winters, as Custodian of Records for Port Vue Borough, would authenticate
ID 13, pages 1 -10, as true and correct copies of documents held within the
official files of Port Vue Borough.
69. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Cynthia A. Lynch ( "Lynch ") would provide the
following testimony under oath:
a. Lynch is employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State Ethics
Commission, as Director for Administration.
b. Lynch has been employed by the State Ethics Commission as Director of
Administration since approximately October 25, 1999.
c. As Director of Administration, Lynch is the official custodian of certain
records held by the State Ethics Commission, specifically those relating to
the administration of the Statement of Financial Interests filings and non -
investigative notice of non - compliance process.
d. As Director of Administration, Lynch is also knowledgeable of all aspects
regarding the administrative functions of the State Ethics Commission,
including record management and the administrative elements of annual
Statement of Financial Interests audits /compliance reviews conducted by the
State Ethics Commission.
e. Per her duties as Director of Administration, and as the official custodian of
the above -noted records for the State Ethics Commission, Lynch would
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 20
provide the following regarding Gobel's failure to timely file a 1997 calendar
year Statement of Financial Interests:
(1) On June 19, 1998, Gobel was issued an official NOTICE from the
State Ethics Commission regarding a purported failure to file his 1997
calendar year Statement of Financial Interests, regarding his position
as Solicitor for the South Allegheny School District. (See, ID 16 -1
through ID 16 -3).
(2) Prior to the June 19, 1998, NOTICE from the State Ethics
Commission, Gobel filed his 1997 Statement of Financial Interests
form with the South Allegheny School District on or about June 15,
1998. (See, ID 16 -5).
By correspondence dated June 24, 1998, Gobel notified the State
Ethics Commission that he had filed his 1997 Statement of Financial
Interests form with the South Allegheny School District on June 15,
1998, and he enclosed a copy of said form with his correspondence.
(See, ID 16 -4 through ID 16 -5).
f. Per her duties as Director of Administration, and as the official custodian of
records for the State Ethics Commission, Lynch would provide the following
regarding Gobel's deficient filing of a 1996 calendar year Statement of
Financial Interests:
g.
(3)
(1) On June 23, 1999, Gobel was issued an official NOTICE from the
State Ethics Commission regarding a purported deficient filing of a
1996 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests with respect to
his position as Solicitor for the South Allegheny School District. (See,
ID 16 -7 through ID 16 -11).
(2) By correspondence dated June 28, 1999, Gobel "strongly [took]
exception to [the] Notice and categorically den[ied] [a violation of the
Ethics Act]." Gobel specifically informed the State Ethics Commission
that he was already in compliance with the Ethics Act, in that he filed
Amended Statements of Financial Interests with the South Allegheny
School District on or about July 13, 1998, and he included a copy of
said filing with his correspondence. (See, ID 16 -12 through ID 16-
21).
On July 1, 1999, Lisa M. Felty, Administrative Assistant with the State
Ethics Commission, forwarded correspondence to Gobel informing
him that he was in compliance regarding his 1996 calendar year
Statement of Financial Interests, dated 6/25/1998 on form SEC -REV.
01/98, [filed] with the South Allegheny School District on or about July
13, 1998. (See, ID 16 -16).
On May 1, 2000, Gobel was issued an initial Notice from the State Ethics
Commission regarding the purported deficient filing of a 1998 calendar year
Statement of Financial Interests form with respect to his position as Solicitor
for the South Allegheny School District. (See, ID 25 -1 through 25 -3).
(1) By correspondence dated June 2, 2000, Gobel notified the State
Ethics Commission that he had filed his 1998 Statement of Financial
Interests form with the South Allegheny School District on Form SEC -
REV. 01/98 on August 10, 1999, and he enclosed with his
correspondence a copy of the Statement of Financial Interests form
(3)
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 21
h. As Director of Administration, Lynch is responsible for administering the
printing of Statements of Financial Interests for any given calendar year.
(1) Lynch would provide information that the State Ethics Commission
annually contracts with a third -party vendor to print Statement of
Financial Interests forms, utilizing a proof provided by the State
Ethics Commission.
J.
that he filed for calendar year 1998 with the South Allegheny School
District. (See, ID 26 -1 through 26 -4).
(2) On June 5, 2000, Gobel was issued a Final Notice regarding Notice
of Intent to Commence Civil Penalty Proceedings by the State Ethics
Commission with respect to a purported deficient filing of a 1998
calendar year Statement of Financial Interests form with the South
Allegheny School District. (See, ID 27 -1 through 27 -3).
By correspondence dated June 9, 2000, the State Ethics Commission
forwarded correspondence to Gobel confirming filing of the 1998
Statement of Financial Interests form with the South Allegheny School
District. (See, ID 28 -1 through 28 -2).
(3)
(2) The "proof" provided by the State Ethics Commission contains
alteration(s) to the form which were not included on any given year's
prior format; the most notable change is the "Revision Date" clearly
printed on each Statement of Financial Interests form, usually in the
format "SEC -1 REV.[month] /[year]."
Statement of Financial Interests forms generated for calendar year
2002 contain the revision date "01/02." (See, ID 19 -1 through ID 19-
3).
Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2001, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2002, contained a Revision Date of
January 2002.
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2001 Statement of Financial
Interests forms was Eagle Progressive. (See, ID 23 -1).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2001 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 14, 2001. (See, ID 23 -1).
Per a separate contract with Digital Ink, 2001 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by no earlier than December 14,
2001. (See, ID 23 -1).
(4) The earliest possible date an individual would have had access to
[form] SEC 1 REV. 01/02 was December 14, 2001. (See, ID 23 -1).
Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2002, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2003, contained a Revision Date of
January 2003. (See, ID 20 -1 through ID 20 -3).
(3)
(3)
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2002 Statement of Financial
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 22
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -1).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2002 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 18, 2002. (See, ID 23 -1).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2002 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than December 18, 2002. (See, ID 23 -1).
(3)
(4) The earliest possible date an individual would have had access to
[form] SEC 1 REV. 01/03 was December 18, 2002. (See, ID 23 -1).
k. Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2003, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2004, contained a Revision Date of
January 2004. (See, ID 21 -1 through ID 21 -3).
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2003 Statement of Financial
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -1).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2003 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 8, 2003. (See, ID 23 -1).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2003 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than December 5, 2003. (See, ID 23 -1).
(4) The earliest possible date an individual would have had access to
[form] SEC 1 REV. 01/04 was December 5, 2003. (See, ID 23 -1).
Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2004, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2005, contained a Revision Date of
January 2005. (See, ID 22 -1 through ID 22 -6).
(3)
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2004 Statement of Financial
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -1).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2004 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 17, 2004. (See, ID 23 -1).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2004 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than December 17, 2004. (See, ID 23 -1).
(4) The earliest possible date an individual would have had access to
[form] SEC 1 REV. 01/05 was December 17, 2004. (See, ID 23 -1).
m. Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2005, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2006, contained a Revision Date of
January 2006.
(3)
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2005 Statement of Financial
Calendar Year
Entity
Shipping Date
Quantity
2003
Allegheny County
Board of Elections
December 8, 2003
3,000
2004
Allegheny County
Board of Elections
December 17, 2004
3,000
2005
Allegheny County
Board of Elections
December 20, 2005
3,000
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 23
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -2).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2005 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 20, 2005. (See, ID 23 -2).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2005 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than December 20, 2005. (See, ID 23 -2).
n. Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2006, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2007, contained a Revision Date of
January 2007.
(3)
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2006 Statement of Financial
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -2).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2006 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on December 22, 2006. (See, ID 23 -2).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2006 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than December 22, 2006. (See, ID 23 -2).
o. Statements of Financial Interests concerning calendar year 2007, which
were to be filed on or before May 1, 2008, contained a Revision Date of
January 2008.
(1) The printing vendor for calendar year 2007 Statement of Financial
Interests forms was Digital Ink. (See, ID 23 -2).
(2) Printed versions of calendar year 2007 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were delivered to the State Ethics Commission's
Harrisburg office on January 8, 2008. (See, ID 23 -2).
Per the same contract with Digital Ink, 2007 Statement of Financial
Interests forms were mailed directly from Digital Ink to all municipal
subdivisions and County Elections Boards throughout Pennsylvania
by no earlier than January 3, 2008. (See, ID 23 -2).
(3)
(3)
70. The parties have stipulated to the following:
a. Statements of Financial Interests were shipped to the Allegheny County
Board of Elections, by the printing contractor, on the following dates and in
the quantities shown below:
2006
Allegheny County
Board of Elections
December 22, 2006
4,000
2007
Allegheny County
Board of Elections
Between January 3,
2008, and January 7,
2008
4,000
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 24
(1) The Allegheny County Board of Elections and political subdivisions of
Pennsylvania are not restricted as to how many Statements of
Financial Interests forms they may disseminate. Additionally,
individuals may obtain copies of blank Statement of Financial
Interests forms via the State Ethics Commission's internet web
address.
(2) There is no fee associated with filing annual Statements of Financial
Interests forms nor is a fee charged to receive blank Statement of
Financial Interests forms.
b. Pursuant to the authority granted the State Ethics Commission via the Ethics
Act, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission has not
conducted a compliance review regarding the filing of Statements of
Financial Interests for the political subdivisions of the City of McKeesport;
the City of McKeesport Redevelopment Authority; the Borough of Liberty
(Allegheny County); and /or the Borough of Port Vue, between 2003 and
2008. The State Ethics Commission does not possess any records or
documents regarding compliance reviews conducted prior to calendar year
2003.
(1) In light of the fact that the State Ethics Commission has not
conducted a compliance review for the City of McKeesport; the City of
McKeesport Redevelopment Authority; the Borough of Liberty
(Allegheny County); and /or the Borough of Port Vue, between 2003
and 2008, public officials /public employees who would otherwise be
required to file annual Statements of Financial Interests may not have
filed and are therefore not in compliance with the filing requirements
of the Ethics Act.
c. After receipt of the Complaint in the instant matter, and pursuant to the
authority granted the State Ethics Commission via the Ethics Act, the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted a
compliance review regarding the filing of Statements of Financial Interests in
the Borough of Dravosburg, on or about May 2, 2005.
(1) For purposes of the compliance review conducted May 24, 2005, at
the Borough of Dravosburg, thirty -two (32) individuals' Statements of
Financial Interests were reviewed.
(2) Six (6) of the thirty -two (32) reviewed had properly filed for calendar
years 2002, 2003, and 2004.
Nineteen (19) individuals were sent a first and /or second Notice letter
by the State Ethics Commission, of which all nineteen(19) individuals
responded by filing Statements of Financial Interests, remedying any
missing /deficient filings.
(4) Six (6) individuals were deemed to not be public officials /public
employees as defined by the Ethics Act, and as such no further action
(3)
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 25
(5)
was undertaken by the State Ethics Commission.
None of the individuals who were sent first /second Notice letters were
lawyers.
(6) Of the nineteen (19) individuals who had not filed or filed deficient
forms, no forms were incorrectly dated or marked with a date other
than the actual received date.
d. Lynch, as Director of Administration, would authenticate the following as true
and correct copies of documents held within the official files of the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission:
(1) ID 16, pages 1 through 16.
(2) ID 19, pages 1 through 3.
(3) ID 20, pages 1 through 3.
(4) ID 21, pages 1 through 3.
(5) ID 22, pages 1 through 6.
(6) ID 23, pages 1 through 2.
(7) ID 25, pages 1 through 3.
(8) ID 26, pages 1 through 4.
(9) ID 27, pages 1 through 3.
(10) ID 28, pages 1 through 2.
71. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Robert P. Caruso ( "Caruso ") would provide the
following testimony under oath:
a. Caruso is employed by the State Ethics Commission as Deputy Executive
Director /Director of Investigations.
b. Caruso has been employed by the State Ethics Commission for in excess of
thirty (30) years.
c. As Deputy Executive Director /Director of Investigations, Caruso is
knowledgeable of all aspects regarding investigations of the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission.
d. On April 15, 2005, John J. Contino, Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission, authorized the initiation of a preliminary inquiry. (See, ID 2).
e. On June 14, 2005, John J. Contino, Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission, authorized the initiation of a full investigation. (See, ID 3).
f. On June 14, 2005, a letter was forwarded to Gobel by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that the Investigative
Division had undertaken an investigation into certain allegations set forth in
said correspondence. (See, ID 4 -1 through ID 4 -2).
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 26
(2) The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Elanor Zappa, with
a delivery date of June 16, 2005. (See, ID 4 -4).
On November 23, 2005, correspondence was forwarded to Gobel by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that the
allegations contained in the June 14, 2005, Notice of Investigation were
being modified. (See, ID 5 -1 through ID 5 -3).
(1) Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7004 0750 0002 8074
7681. (See, ID 5 -4).
(2) The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Gobel. (See, ID 5-
6).
h. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Gobel advising him of the general
status of the investigation; specifically, notice letters were sent on the
following dates:
(1) August 29, 2005 (See, ID 8 -1).
(2) November 21, 2005 (See, ID 8 -2).
(3) February 6, 2006 (See, ID 8 -3).
(4) April 24, 2006 (See, ID 8 -4).
(5) July 19, 2007 (See, ID 8 -5).
(6) October 1, 2007 (See, ID 8 -6).
(7) March 3, 2008 (See, ID 8 -7).
(8) May 19, 2008 (See, ID 8 -8).
(9) August 4, 2008 (See, ID 8 -9).
(10) October 20, 2008 (See, ID 8 -10).
i. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to Gobel on December 9, 2005.
(See, ID 6 -1 through ID 6 -16).
Following the Opinion and Order of Commonwealth Court issued April 9,
2007, Gobel was provided on May 10, 2007, with written correspondence
regarding: "File No. 05 -014, Detailed Notice of Deficiencies and Penalties for
Failure to File or for Filing a Deficient Statement of Financial Interests."
(See, ID 7 -1 through ID 7 -40).
72. The parties have stipulated that Caruso, as Deputy Executive Director /Director of
Investigations, would authenticate the following as true and correct copies of
documents held within the official files of the Investigative Division of the State
Ethics Commission:
g.
J.
a. ID 2.
(1) Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7004 0750 0002 8074
6592. (See, ID 4 -6).
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 27
b. ID 3.
c. ID 4, pages 1 through 6.
d. ID 5, pages 1 through 4, and page 6.
e. ID 6, pages 1 through 16.
f. ID 7, pages 1 through 40.
g. ID 8, pages 1 through 10.
73. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Gobel would provide the following testimony
under oath on direct examination:
LEGAL EXPERIENCE /BACKGROUND
a. Gobel has been a practicing attorney continuously in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania since January 1977 and is currently a member in good
standing as an attorney with, and has a license to practice law in, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court of the
Western District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.
b. Gobel is a 1973 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh, with an
undergraduate degree in Economics, and a 1976 graduate of Georgetown
University Law Center, where he earned his Juris Doctorate.
c. Gobel has never been subject to a formal disciplinary proceeding by the
Disciplinary Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Supreme
Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or any other court with
jurisdiction in the United States.
d. Gobel has never been arrested or convicted of a crime.
e. Gobel has been a part -time Solicitor in numerous political subdivisions since
1978 and is currently the part -time Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, the City
of Clairton, Borough of Brentwood, Redevelopment Authority of the City of
McKeesport, South Allegheny School District, and the Borough of Versailles,
all of which are located within Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
f. Gobel is currently, and has been since July 2006, an elected Councilman for
the Borough of Liberty, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
g.
INITIAL CONTACT WITH THE STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
REGARDING DRAVOSBURG BOROUGH
On June 10, 2005, at approximately 11:45 a.m., Gobel initiated telephone
contact regarding the instant matter with the State Ethics Commission in
response to a request of Deputy Executive Director Robert Caruso of the
State Ethics Commission.
h. With regard to the Statements of Financial Interests in question in the instant
matter, and particularly those regarding Dravosburg Borough, Gobel
informed the Investigator for the State Ethics Commission that he completed
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 28
all of the forms in a timely manner and signed and dated them, but as an
oversight and because of the relocation of his business office, he had not
timely filed them with Dravosburg Borough.
Gobel told the Investigator that all of the completed, signed, and dated forms
were in his office file, which was in an unsorted box because Gobel had
moved his business office from 616 West Fifth Avenue, McKeesport, PA
15132 to 526 E. Bruceton Road, Pleasant Hills Borough, Pittsburgh, PA
15236.
j. Gobel further informed the Investigator that he had been contacted by the
Secretary of Dravosburg Borough a few months earlier and had been told
that someone had asked for his Statements of Financial Interests.
k. Gobel then told the Borough Secretary that he had completed the forms but
had just forgotten to file them.
Gobel noted in his conversation with the Investigator for the State Ethics
Commission that he had previously filed Statements of Financial Interests
with Dravosburg Borough.
m. During his telephone conversation with the Investigator for the State Ethics
Commission, Gobel told the Investigator that after retrieving the completed
Statements of Financial Interests from his file in an unsorted box in his
office, he had intended to file them immediately with the Dravosburg
Borough Secretary, but after reviewing the current 2005 Statement of
Financial Interests forms issued by the State Ethics Commission, Gobel
noted the instruction on the current form that older forms could no longer be
used for filing in 2005. Based on the current instruction on the form, Gobel
transferred the information word - for -word from his previously filled out
Statements of Financial Interests for 2001, 2002, and 2003 to new Statement
of Financial Interests forms with a revision date in the upper left -hand corner
of 01/05, and he placed a date on the new forms identical to the date on his
previously completed forms because he was affirming the information on the
forms as to the date that he had originally corroborated and checked the
information.
n. Gobel believed, and told the Investigator, that it was appropriate to use the
original date on the Statement of Financial Interests forms because that was
the date that he affirmed the information he had originally recorded. Gobel
did not again confirm the accuracy of the information on each of the
completed forms for the years of 2001, 2002, and 2003 for Dravosburg
Borough as of the date that he filed them in March 2005.
o. Gobel told the Investigator that he was familiar with State Ethics Commission
proceedings with regard to pursuing individuals who failed to file Statements
of Financial Interests because of his own previous experience with the State
Ethics Commission. Gobel was aware that individuals who had not filed
were issued a letter and given an opportunity to file, and that if such an
individual filed after such notice no further action was warranted against
him /her by the State Ethics Commission, because Gobel had been subject to
previous notices from the State Ethics Commission that he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interest and would be given 20 days in which to do
so. Gobel filed his Statement of Financial Interests forms on each and every
occasion when he was given such prior notice by the State Ethics
Commission, and no further action was taken against him by the State Ethics
Commission.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 29
Gobel is not certain where he received the 01/05 revised Statement of
Financial Interest forms that he filed with Dravosburg Borough. Those forms
could have been obtained from any other municipality for which he was
Solicitor at the time, or from the Allegheny County Department of Elections
where Gobel had previously received blank forms. Gobel was aware that the
Allegheny County Department of Elections had unlimited Statement of
Financial Interest forms because Gobel had picked up such blank forms
there on many prior occasions.
Over many years, Gobel has been active in many election campaigns, both
for himself and other individuals, and he has many times stopped by the
Allegheny County Department of Elections to pick up Statement of Financial
Interest forms for completion and filing by other individuals running for
political office who Gobel was supporting.
r. Either during the period of time from 2001 through 2005, or previously,
Gobel was Chairman of the Liberty Borough Democratic Committee and was
aware and responsible for seeing that any candidates for office in Liberty
Borough completed and timely filed Statement of Financial Interest forms so
that they could seek public office in Liberty Borough.
s. After transferring the information from the old and previously completed
Statement of Financial Interests forms that he had located in his office file to
the new forms with a revision date of 01/05 and filing them with Dravosburg
Borough, as well as with the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
McKeesport, Gobel ripped up and threw away the old and original Statement
of Financial Interests forms which he had completed.
t. As of the date of his telephone call with the State Ethics Commission on
June 10, 2005, Gobel was not aware that he could be fined for not filing or
otherwise subjected to sanctions for not timely filing Statement of Financial
Interests forms because, based on his prior experience with the State Ethics
Commission, he had personal knowledge that if he did not timely file
Statement of Financial Interest forms, he would merely be subject to notice
of lack of filing by the State Ethics Commission and then given 20 days in
which to file the proper Statement of Financial interests forms.
P.
q.
u. Gobel further believed that if he filed such Statement of Financial Interests
forms after 20 days notice, he was in full compliance with the law because
he previously had been so informed of same by the State Ethics
Commission.
v. With regard to timely filing of Statement of Financial Interests forms in
conjunction with candidate filings, Gobel was aware that if a candidate did
not timely file his Statement of Financial Interests forms with the Elections
Department and the municipality in which he /she was seeking public office,
he /she would be removed from the ballot and there was no grace period
afforded a candidate under the various court decisions in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania relating to the Ethics Act.
w. Based on Gobel's knowledge and his prior experience with the State Ethics
Commission, Gobel believed that if he had put the date at the bottom of his
Statement of Financial Interests forms as of the exact date of filing of the
forms with Dravosburg Borough, then he would still be in compliance with the
Ethics Act even though the filings were late, based on his prior experiences
with and notices from the State Ethics Commission.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 30
x. At the time that he filed his Statements of Financial Interests in question with
Dravosburg Borough and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
McKeesport, Gobel believed that there was no requirement of the State
Ethics Commission, either by statute or regulation, that any date be put on
the forms.
y.
When he dated his Statement of Financial Interests forms for 2001, 2002,
and 2003 for Dravosburg Borough and the Redevelopment Authority of the
City of McKeesport and filed them, Gobel had no intent to create the
deception or impression that he [had filed] the forms on the date that he had
inserted in the bottom right -hand corner of each form.
z. In filing his Statement of Financial Interest forms with Dravosburg Borough in
2005 for years 2001, 2002, and 2003, Gobel would have used his originally
completed forms with the dates inserted in the bottom right -hand corner, and
would not have transferred the information to the new forms with a revision
date of 01/05, unless there was an instruction to do so contained on the
revised 01/05 forms. On those forms, it is specifically stated that filings for
prior years could not be [done] on any old forms, but could only be [done] on
the forms with a revision date of 01/05.
aa. Gobel has filed all required Statement of Financial Interests forms with any
municipalities for which he acts or has acted as part -time Solicitor for all
years through calendar year 2007, with a most recent filing date for calendar
year 2007 of May 1, 2008.
bb. Gobel has never served as Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission, but he
has provided legal services to the Civil Service Commission of the City of
McKeesport on an "as- needed" basis.
cc. To the best of Gobel's knowledge, he is not aware that the Civil Service
Commission has ever named a Solicitor or part -time Solicitor for itself but
over the years, it has utilized his legal services; the legal services of Bruce
Dice, Esquire; the legal services of Walter Baczkowski, Esquire; and
perhaps those of other attorneys.
dd. The title "Solicitor" beneath his signature on documents was inserted in error
by his Secretary, and he should have been titled "Special Hearing Counsel,"
or "Special Counsel."
ee. Gobel signed a letter dated March 3, 2005, to Mary Ann Popovich, Chairman
of the Civil Service Commission, regarding certain legal services provided by
Gobel to the Civil Service Commission, over the title "Special Hearing
Counsel for the Civil Service Commission of the City of McKeesport." (See,
ID 30 -3 through 30 -4).
ff. In providing special legal services to the Civil Service Commission, Gobel
never received a monthly retainer fee, or a retainer fee in any other manner,
for his legal services to the Civil Service Commission, and he was only paid
as he performed legal services.
During the time that Gobel provided special legal services to the Civil
Service Commission, Mary Ann Popovich was Chairwoman of the Civil
Service Commission.
gg .
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MCKEESPORT
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 31
hh. From at least as far back as December 10, 2001, and until just recently,
Gobel provided no legal services to the Civil Service Commission. As of
December 10, 2001, the Civil Service Commission hired Walter Baczkowski,
Esquire, and not Gobel, to provide special counsel services to the Civil
Service Commission. (See, ID 30 -5).
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF MCKEESPORT
ii. As with Dravosburg Borough, Gobel had timely completed his Statement of
Financial interests forms for the Redevelopment Authority, but they were not
timely filed because they were in a file in an unsorted box in his new office
location after he relocated his office from 616 West Fifth Avenue,
McKeesport, PA 15132 to 526 E. Bruceton Road, Pleasant Hills Borough,
Pittsburgh, PA 15236.
As with Dravosburg Borough, Gobel transferred the information from the
previously completed Statement of Financial Interests forms for the years of
2001, 2002, and 2003 to the new Statement of Financial Interests forms with
a revision date of 01/05 and then filed them with the Redevelopment
Authority sometime around the end of March 2005 or early April 2005.
kk. Prior to filing his Statement of Financial Interests forms with the
Redevelopment Authority, Gobel received no call to do so from anybody at
the Redevelopment Authority, including but not limited to Johanna Bell.
74. The parties have stipulated that if called to testify as a witness before the State
Ethics Commission in this matter, Gobel would provide the following testimony
under oath on re- direct examination:
a. Whenever Gobel presented himself at the Borough Office for Liberty
Borough with Statements of Financial Interests for filing as the part -time
Borough Solicitor, whether between 1990 and 2000 or any other time, Gobel
did not make any statements, or provide any instructions, to Linda
Salzmann, a /k/a Linda Zebroski, the Borough Secretary, that the Statement
of Financial Interests forms were to be marked or otherwise noted by her
with a date other than the actual date of receipt of such Statements by Linda
Salzmann, a /k/a Linda Zebroski.
b. Further, at any time when he presented himself at the Borough Office for
Liberty Borough with Statements of Financial Interests for filing as the part -
time Borough Solicitor, whether between 1990 and 2000 or any other time,
Gobel was never questioned by Linda Salzmann, a /k/a Linda Zebroski, as to
the date she should note or mark as the date of her receipt of the Statement
of Financial Interests forms, and he never told Salzmann that she should
place a date on the forms other than the dates on which they were actually
filed.
c. Whenever he filed Statement of Financial Interests forms with Liberty
Borough between 1990 and 2000, or any other time, Gobel did not have any
conversation with Linda Salzmann, a /k/a Linda Zebroski, or any other person
in the Borough Office, regarding how or what receipt date should be
indicated or marked on the forms.
C. Testimon
75. Linda Salzmann ( "Salzmann ") is a former Borough Secretary for Liberty Borough
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 32
and a former Member of Council for Liberty Borough.
a. Gobel was Solicitor for Liberty Borough throughout Salzmann's employment
as Borough Secretary from 1991 until approximately November 2000.
b. As Borough Secretary, Salzmann was the custodian of records for
Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Borough.
c. At some time in the mid- 1990s, Gobel asked Salzmann to stamp and initial
several Statements of Financial Interests in the box marked "Official Use
Only" with a date that was earlier than the current date.
d. Salzmann stamped the Statements of Financial Interests with the earlier date
at Gobel's request.
e. Salzmann was elected to Borough Council in 2001, and at the Borough
reorganization meeting on January 7, 2002, she voted to replace Gobel as
Borough Solicitor.
f. Salzmann initially sought reelection as a Borough Council Member in 2005,
however Gobel challenged the Statement of Financial Interests filed by
Salzmann on the basis that it was deficient.
Although the court did not rule in Gobel's favor, Salzmann nevertheless
withdrew her candidacy for Liberty Borough Council because of stress.
76. On cross - examination, Gobel provided the following testimony:
a. In or about November 2001, Gobel sent a letter to the City of McKeesport
Redevelopment Authority that expressed his interest in providing services to
the Authority as a solicitor, and in a resume accompanying said letter, Gobel
listed the McKeesport Civil Service Commission as one of his solicitorships.
b. Listing the McKeesport Civil Service Commission as one of his solicitorships
was a little bit of embellishment for the purpose of getting the solicitorship
with the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority.
c. When Gobel was informed by the Secretary for Dravosburg Borough that his
Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar years 2001, 2002, and
2003 were not on file, he located the forms that he had completed for those
years in boxes in his office.
d. Before filing his Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar years
2001, 2002, and 2003 with Dravosburg Borough, Gobel transferred the
information from the old forms to new forms with a revision date of 01/05
because of the instruction on the new form to not use forms printed prior to
2005 to complete filing requirements for 1998 or any subsequent year.
g.
D. Exhibits
77. ID 3 is a Memorandum dated June 14, 2005, which provides that on said date, John
J. Contino, Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission, authorized the
initiation of a full investigation in relation to Gobel, File No. 05 -014.
78. ID 4 consists of a Notice of Investigation issued to Gobel by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission on June 14, 2005.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 33
79. ID 6 consists of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report issued to Gobel in this
matter by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission on December 9,
2005.
80. ID 8 consists of Status Reports issued to Gobel by the Investigative Division of the
State Ethics Commission in this matter on the following dates: August 29, 2005;
November 21, 2005; February 6, 2006; April 24, 2006; July 19, 2007; October 1,
2007; March 3, 2008; May 19, 2008; and August 4, 2008.
81. ID 17, page 2 is a letter dated November 30, 2001, from Gobel to the City
Administrator of the City of McKeesport, by which Gobel identifies himself as
Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission of the City and bills the City for legal
services rendered from August 24, 2000, through November 29, 2001.
82. ID 17, pages 3 -4 is a letter dated December 11, 2001, from Gobel to Walter
Baczkowski, Esquire, in which Gobel identifies himself as Solicitor for the Civil
Service Commission of the City.
83. ID 24 consists of: (a) a letter dated November 7, 2001, from Gobel to the Chairman
of the Redevelopment Authority of the City Of McKeesport, in which letter Gobel
expresses interest in being appointed as Solicitor for said Authority and identifies
himself as Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission of the City of McKeesport; and
(b) Gobel's resume, which lists the Civil Service Commission of the City of
McKeesport as one of Gobel's solicitorships.
84. ID 30, page 5 is a letter dated December 10, 2001, from the Chair of the Civil
Service Commission of the City of McKeesport to Gobel, which letter provides that
said Commission has voted to retain a different attorney as Special Counsel to
defend against a lawsuit.
85. Respondent's Exhibit A consists of minutes of the reorganization meeting of Liberty
Borough held Monday, January 7, 2002, at which meeting Borough Council
appointed Patricia Liptak McGrail, and not Respondent, as Solicitor.
86. Respondent's Exhibit B is a Statement of Financial Interests filed by Respondent for
calendar year 1994 as Solicitor for Liberty Borough.
87. Respondent's Exhibit C is a Statement of Financial Interests filed by Respondent for
calendar year 1995 as Solicitor for Liberty Borough.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent George S. Gobel (hereinafter also
referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Gobel," and "Gobel "), in his capacity as Solicitor
for various political subdivisions, has been subject to the financial disclosure requirements
of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.,
and specifically, Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
The allegations are that Gobel violated Sections 1104(a) and 1104(d) of the Ethics
Act when, as Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, Allegheny County, he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the
2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004, and
when he subsequently backdated SFIs for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar years to
give the impression that the forms were timely filed; and when, as Solicitor for the
McKeesport Redevelopment Authority, he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May
1, 2004, and when he subsequently backdated SFIs for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 34
to give the impression that the forms were timely filed; and when, as Solicitor for the
Borough of Port Vue, he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the
2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004, and the 2004
calendar year by May 1, 2005; and when, as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty, he failed
to file an SFI for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002; and when, as Solicitor for the City
of McKeesport Civil Service Commission, he failed to file SFIs for the 2000 calendar year
by May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002.
Sections 1104(a) and (d) of the Ethics Act provide as follows:
§ 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission
no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public
employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is
employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the
year after he leaves such a position. Any other public
employee or public official shall file a statement of financial
interests with the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
(d) Failure to file required statement. - -No public
official shall be allowed to take the oath of office or enter or
continue upon his duties, nor shall he receive compensation
from public funds, unless he has filed a statement of financial
interests as required by this chapter.
65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1104(a), (d).
§ 1102. Definitions
"Solicitor." A person elected or appointed to the office
of solicitor for the political subdivision.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Pursuant to Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, a person who is a full -time or part -
time solicitor for a political subdivision is required to file a Statement of Financial Interests
for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he
leaves it.
Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides that no public official shall be allowed to
take the oath of office, enter or continue upon his duties, or receive compensation from
public funds unless he has filed a Statement of Financial Interests as required by the
Ethics Act.
We shall now summarize the relevant facts.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 35
As a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania, Gobel has served as Solicitor for a number
of political subdivisions in Western Pennsylvania. As a Solicitor, Gobel is required to file
SFIs pursuant to Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
The State Ethics Commission annually contracts with a printing company to produce
SFI forms each December in preparation for the filings that are due in the following year.
The SFI forms printed in a particular year are marked with a specific identification number
in the upper left hand corner.
Borough of Dravosburq ( "Dravosburq Borough ")
Gobel has served as part -time Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough since at least 1987.
In March 2005, Gobel, who was a candidate for Council of Liberty Borough, filed petitions
in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas challenging allegedly deficient SFIs filed by
several other candidates for Council of Liberty Borough. On March 22, 2005, Anita Gricar
( "Gricar "), a private citizen, requested copies of Gobel's SFIs from Brenda Honick
( "Honick "), the Secretary /Treasurer of Dravosburg Borough. Honick subsequently
contacted Gobel and made him aware of the request for copies of his SFIs. Honick also
informed Gobel that none of the requested SFIs were in her files.
Within a couple of days after Honick notified Gobel of the request for copies of his
SFIs, Gobel personally filed SFIs for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 with Honick at
the Dravosburg Borough office. Although all three SFIs were actually filed on March 29,
2005, the SFIs were signed with the following dates: February 14, 2002, for calendar year
2001; February 27, 2003, for calendar year 2002; and March 16, 2004, for calendar year
2003. Gobel also filed an SFI for calendar year 2004 that was accurately dated. All of the
SFI forms had an identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05. However, SFI forms with an
identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05 were not available until December 17, 2004.
Honick did not provide Gobel with the forms that he used to file his SFIs.
Even though Gobel did not request or instruct Honick to do so, she dated each SFI
form as received by Dravosburg Borough with the date that Gobel had placed on the form
rather than the actual filing date of March 29, 2005. When Honick later contacted Gobel
about the "received by" dates that she had recorded on the SFIs, Gobel told her that she
could date the forms with the actual date on which she had received them.
Gobel admits that his SFIs for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were not timely
filed with Dravosburg Borough. See, Fact Finding 25; Brief of Respondent, at 18. Gobel
testified that he timely completed the forms for the years in question but as an oversight
and because of the relocation of his business office, he did not file the forms with
Dravosburg Borough. Gobel claims that when he was made aware that someone was
requesting copies of his SFIs from Dravosburg Borough, he checked his files and found
the completed forms in an unsorted box in his office files. Gobel asserts that before filing
the SFIs with Dravosburg Borough, he transferred the information onto new forms with an
identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05 because of the instructions on the current form
not to use forms printed in prior years to complete the SFI filing requirements. Gobel
contends that for each calendar year, he dated the newly completed SFI form with the
same date that he had signed the previously completed SFI form because that was the
date on which he had verified the information on the previously completed form. Gobel
claims that when he dated his SFI forms for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 for
Dravosburg Borough and filed them, he had no intent to create the deception or
impression that he had filed the forms on the date which he had inserted in the bottom
right -hand corner of each form.
City of McKeesport Redevelopment Authority ( "Redevelopment Authority ")
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 36
Gobel has served as Solicitor for the Redevelopment Authority since November 15,
2001. Because Gobel was appointed as Solicitor in November 2001, he was required to
file an SFI for calendar year 2001 by May 1, 2002. However, Gobel admits that he failed
to file an SFI for calendar year 2001 by May 1, 2002. See, Fact Finding 36. Gobel
subsequently filed an SFI for calendar year 2001 on May 22, 2007.
In approximately March or April of 2005, Gobel filed SFIs for calendar years 2002
and 2003 with Johanna Bell, Secretary to the Board of the Redevelopment Authority. The
SFI for the 2002 calendar year was dated February 27, 2003, and the SFI for the 2003
calendar year was dated March 16, 2004. Both SFI forms had an identification number of
SEC -1, REV. 01/05. SFIs with such identification number were not available until
December 17, 2004.
Gobel admits that his SFIs for calendar years 2002 and 2003 were not timely filed
with the Redevelopment Authority. See, Fact Findings 32, 36; Brief of Respondent, at 19.
Gobel testified that, as with his Dravosburg Borough SFIs, he had timely completed his
SFIs for the Redevelopment Authority for calendar years 2002 and 2003 but had not filed
them. Gobel testified that his Redevelopment Authority SFIs were also in a file in an
unsorted box in his relocated office. Gobel testified that, as with his Dravosburg Borough
SFIs, he transferred the information from the previously completed SFIs to new SFIs with
an identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05.
Borough of Port Vue ( "Port Vue Borough ")
Gobel served as Solicitor for Port Vue Borough from February 2001 through March
2004. The only SFI on file with Port Vue Borough for Gobel is for calendar year 2000.
Gobel admits that he failed to file SFIs with Port Vue Borough for calendar years 2001,
2002, 2003, and 2004 by May 1 of each respective succeeding year. See, Fact Findings
42, 57(b)(11 -12). Gobel subsequently filed SFIs for calendar years 2001, 2002, 2003, and
2004 with Port Vue Borough on May 22, 2007.
Borough of Liberty ( "Liberty Borough ")
Gobel served as Solicitor for Liberty Borough from at least 1990 through December
2001. At the Borough reorganization meeting on January 7, 2002, a different attorney was
appointed to serve as Solicitor for Liberty Borough. Gobel was required to file an SFI for
calendar year 2001, the last year he served as Solicitor for Liberty Borough, by May 1,
2002. However, Gobel admits that he failed to file an SFI for calendar year 2001 with
Liberty Borough by May 1, 2002. See, Fact Findings 52, 57(b)(11 -12). Gobel
subsequently filed an SFI for calendar year 2001 with Liberty Borough on May 22, 2007.
City of McKeesport Civil Service Commission ( "Civil Service Commission ")
Gobel testified that he has never served as Solicitor for the Civil Service
Commission, but he has provided legal services to the Civil Service Commission on an as
needed basis. Gobel asserts that in providing such services, he was paid hourly and was
not on retainer. On or about November 30, 2001, Gobel submitted an invoice to the
McKeesport City Administrator for services performed for the Civil Service Commission
between August 24, 2000, and November 30, 2001. No payments were made to Gobel
after the November 2001 invoice. Gobel testified that in November 2001, he sent a letter
to the Redevelopment Authority expressing his interest in providing services to the
Redevelopment Authority, and the resume which he enclosed with his letter listed the Civil
Service Commission as one of his solicitorships as a little bit of embellishment. Gobel
claims that his secretary erroneously identified him as Solicitor instead of "Special Hearing
Counsel" for the Civil Service Commission on a letter that Gobel sent to the City of
McKeesport. Gobel did not file SFIs with the Civil Service Commission for calendar years
2000 and 2001 by May 1 of each respective succeeding year.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 37
Having summarized the relevant facts, we shall now determine whether the actions
of Gobel violated Sections 1104(a) and 1104(d) of the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to
the allegations, due process requires that we not depart from the allegations. Pennsy v.
Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must
be based upon clear and convincing proof. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). Clear and convincing
proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a
clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In Re:
Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998) (Citation omitted).
It is clear that pursuant to Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, Gobel was required to
annually file an SFI by May 1 containing information for the prior calendar year with each
political subdivision for which he was elected or appointed as Solicitor.
The first two allegations are that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act
when: (1) he failed to file SFIs with Dravosburg Borough for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May
1, 2004, and when he subsequently backdated SFIs for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 calendar
years to give the impression that the forms were timely filed; and (2) when he failed to file
SFIs with the Redevelopment Authority for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the
2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004, and
when he subsequently backdated SFIs for the 2002 and 2003 calendar years to give the
impression that the forms were timely filed.
Gobel admits that his SFIs for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 were not timely
filed with either Dravosburg Borough or the Redevelopment Authority. The record
establishes that when Gobel filed SFIs with Dravosburg Borough for calendar years 2001,
2002, and 2003 on March 29, 2005, the dates placed on those SFIs did not reflect the
actual filing date. Similarly, when Gobel filed SFIs with the Redevelopment Authority for
calendar years 2002 and 2003 in or about March 2005, the dates placed on those SFIs did
not reflect the actual filing date. Gobel testified that after he found completed SFIs in his
office files for the calendar years at issue, he construed the instructions on the current SFI
form to mean that he had to copy the information from the previously completed SFI forms
onto new SFI forms with an identification number of SEC -1, REV. 01/05. Gobel further
testified that when he transferred the information onto the new SFI forms, he copied the
original signing dates because those were the dates when he had verified the information
on the previously completed forms. Gobel asserts that he had no intent to create the
deception or impression that he had filed the forms on the dates which he had inserted in
the bottom right -hand corner of the forms.
Based upon the record before us, we do not find Gobel's testimony regarding his
state of mind as to the dating of the above - referenced SFIs to be incredible.
Accordingly, we hold that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to file SFIs with Dravosburg Borough for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the
2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004. We
further hold that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file
SFIs with the Redevelopment Authority for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the
2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004
As to the allegations that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when: (1)
as Solicitor for Port Vue Borough, he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar year by May
1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004,
and the 2004 calendar year by May 1, 2005; and (2) when, as Solicitor for Liberty Borough,
he failed to file an SFI for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, Gobel admits that he
failed to file SFIs with the aforesaid Boroughs by May 1 of the years at issue. See, Fact
Findings 42, 52, 57(b)(11 -12). We hold that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 38
Act when, as Solicitor for Port Vue Borough, he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar
year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar year by
May 1, 2004, and the 2004 calendar year by May 1, 2005. We further hold that Gobel
violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when, as Solicitor for Liberty Borough, he failed
to file an SFI for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002.
We next consider the allegation that Gobel violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics
Act when, as Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission, he failed to file SFIs for the 2000
calendar year by May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002. The Ethics
Act defines the term Solicitor as a "person elected to or appointed to the office of solicitor
for the political subdivision." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Although Gobel was identified as
Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission on a letter that he sent to the City of McKeesport
and on a resume that he submitted to the Redevelopment Authority, Gobel testified that he
was paid hourly for the legal services he rendered to the Civil Service Commission and
was not on retainer. There is no evidence of record to establish that Gobel was "elected or
appointed" as Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission. Accordingly, we find that Gobel
did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs with the Civil
Service Commission for the 2000 calendar year by May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar
year by May 1, 2002, based upon an insufficiency of evidence to establish that Gobel was
Solicitor for the Civil Service Commission.
Turning to the allegation that Gobel's actions violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics
Act, Section 1104(d) prohibits a public official, but not a solicitor, from performing his
duties or being compensated unless he has filed an SFI as required by Section 1104(a) of
the Ethics Act. Accordingly, we hold that Gobel did not violate Section 1104(d) of the
Ethics Act when, in his capacity as Solicitor for Dravosburg Borough, the Redevelopment
Authority, Port Vue Borough, and Liberty Borough, he performed his duties and received
compensation from public funds despite failing to file SFIs as required by Section 1104(a)
of the Ethics Act.
In its Closing Statement /Brief, the Investigative Division requests that this matter be
referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency for review and to the Disciplinary
Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
In his Closing Statement /Brief, Gobel raises the following legal arguments.
In reciting the procedural history of this matter, Gobel notes that by Interlocutory
Order issued November 7, 2007, this Commission denied Gobel's "Motion to Dismiss and
Strike Investigative Complaint Findings 5, 9, and 30 through 64 of the Investigative
Complaint Issued by the State Ethics Commission on December 9, 2005." Gobel further
notes that by Interlocutory Orders issued August 25, 2008, the Hearing Officer denied the
following Motions filed by Gobel: (1) "Motion to Strike Irrelevant and Prejudicial Statements
from Investigative Complaint and Request for Hearing "; (2) "Motion to Preclude Testimony
at Time of Hearing of Prejudicial and Irrelevant Statements and Request for Hearing "; (3)
"Motion to Compel Production of Documents and, If Necessary, Request for Hearing "; (4)
"Motion for Request for Evidentiary Hearing Before Full State Ethics Commission "; (5)
"Motion for Recusal of Hearing Officer "; and (6) "Motion to Compel Identification of
Particular Criminal Act Respondent is Accused of Committing and, if Necessary, Request
for Hearing" Gobel additionally notes that by Interlocutory Orders issued December 8,
2008, this Commission denied the following Motions filed by Gobel: (1) "Motion for Recusal
of Six (6) Members of the State Ethics Commission from Participating in all Further
Proceedings in the Within Matter and, in Furtherance Thereof, Motion for Dismissal "; (2)
"Motion to Dismiss for Investigative Misconduct and Violation of Confidentiality Provisions
of State Ethics Act by Investigatory [sic] Division of the State Ethics Commission "; and (3)
"Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Investigative Complaint and Request for Hearing Before
Entire State Ethics Commission."
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 39
Gobel first argues that he was denied due process of law because the aforesaid
Motions were denied without this Commission affording him a hearing with respect to each
Motion.
The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard `at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
(1976). Some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a
property interest. Id.
When Gobel filed the aforesaid Motions, both Gobel and the Investigative Division
were given the opportunity to file memoranda in support of their respective positions.
Such afforded the parties an opportunity to be heard which was appropriate for those
stages of the proceedings. When Gobel's Motions were denied at those stages of the
proceedings, none were denied with prejudice. Gobel was certainly free to raise any
Motion(s) again. Gobel has been provided the full protection of due process through a full
evidentiary hearing, and to the extent that Gobel continues to raise issues contained within
the aforesaid Motions, such issues are addressed below.
Second, Gobel argues that any reference in the allegations as to the "backdating" of
any SFIs by him is prejudicial as there is no provision in the Ethics Act or in this
Commission's Regulations that requires any date to be placed on an SFI. We reject this
argument because: (1) Section 1105(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(a), provides
that the SFI shall be filed on the form prescribed by this Commission and that all
information requested shall be provided to the best of the knowledge, belief and
information of the filer; and (2) Gobel himself acknowledges that the SFI form instructs the
filer to "enter the current date."
Third, Gobel contends that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to grant Gobel's
objection to allegedly prejudicial and irrelevant testimony of Linda Salzmann pertaining to
SFIs filed by Gobel with Liberty Borough in or about 1995. We reject this argument
because the testimony was relevant to establish that Gobel, as Solicitor for Liberty
Borough, was aware that he was required to file SFIs with Liberty Borough.
Fourth, Gobel asserts that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to provide him with
access to the original Complaint filed in this matter or the identity of the Complainant.
Gobel further argues that he was denied due process of law because he was not given an
opportunity to examine the original Complaint. We reject these arguments because
pursuant to Section 1108(h) of the Ethics Act and Section 21.22(b) of this Commission's
Regulations, Gobel is not entitled to access to the original Complaint filed in this matter or
the name of the Complainant. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(h); 51 Pa. Code § 21.22(b).
Fifth, Gobel contends that due to the Hearing Officer's erroneous and improper
denial of some of Gobel's various requests for subpoenas /subpoenas duces tecum for
testimony /documents, he was precluded from having available at the time of the hearing in
this matter information necessary to support his defense. We reject this argument
because Gobel has not identified how any of the testimony /documents for which he was
denied subpoenas /subpoenas duces tecum would have been relevant to this matter in any
respect. See, Section 21.24(a)(8) of this Commission's Regulations, 51 Pa. Code §
21.24(a)(8) (the hearing officer has the power to issue subpoenas and shall be satisfied
that the documents, records or testimony sought are relevant and are not protected by
privilege).
Lastly, Gobel argues that the Investigative Division failed to notify him at least every
90 days as to the status of the investigation in this matter, as required by Section 1108(c)
of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(c). Specifically, Gobel asserts that the Investigative
Division provided a status report to him on October 1, 2007, but did not provide the next
status report to him until March 3, 2008. Pursuant to Section 1108(c) of the Ethics Act and
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 40
Section 21.5 of this Commission's Regulations, 51 Pa. Code § 21.5, following the
commencement of an investigation, this Commission shall advise the complainant and the
person who is the subject of the investigation of the status of the investigation at least
every 90 days, until the investigation is terminated or a findings report is issued. On June
14, 2005, the Investigative Division issued notice to Gobel of the commencement of the
investigation in this matter. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report in this matter was
issued on December 9, 2005, and Gobel admits that he was notified of the status of the
investigation in this matter at least every 90 days from the initiation of such investigation
until the issuance of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. Neither the Ethics Act
nor this Commission's Regulations would require the Investigative Division to issue status
reports to a subject of an investigation at any time following the issuance of a findings
report. Therefore, there is no support for this argument.
To the extent that he has not already done so, Gobel is directed to file, by no later
than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, accurate
and complete SFIs: (1) for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 with Dravosburg Borough;
and (2) for calendar years 2002 and 2003 with the Redevelopment Authority, providing full
disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward a copy of each such filing to this
Commission for compliance verification purposes.
Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances, it is our determination that
no further action is warranted in this case.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Respondent George S. Gobel ( "Gobel "), in his capacity as Solicitor for various
political subdivisions, has been subject to the financial disclosure requirements of
the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et
seq., and specifically, Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
2. Gobel, as Solicitor for the Borough of Dravosburg ( "Dravosburg Borough "), violated
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of Financial
Interests ( "SFIs ") for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar
year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004.
3. Gobel, as Solicitor for the City of McKeesport Redevelopment Authority
( "Redevelopment Authority "), violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar
year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004.
4. Gobel, as Solicitor for the Borough of Port Vue ( "Port Vue Borough "), violated
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar
year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar
year by May 1, 2004, and the 2004 calendar year by May 1, 2005.
5. Gobel, as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty ( "Liberty Borough "), violated Section
1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file an SFI for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002.
6. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs
with the City of McKeesport Civil Service Commission for the 2000 calendar year by
May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, based upon an
insufficiency of evidence to establish that Gobel was Solicitor for the City of
McKeesport Civil Service Commission.
Gobel, 05 -014
Page 41
7. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when, as Solicitor for
Dravosburg Borough, the Redevelopment Authority, Port Vue Borough, and Liberty
Borough, he performed his duties and received compensation from public funds
despite failing to file SFIs as required by Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
In Re: George S. Gobel,
Respondent
ORDER NO. 1395 -2
File Docket: 05 -014
Date Decided: 7/22/09
Date Mailed: 8/4/09
1 Respondent George S. Gobel ( "Gobel "), as Solicitor for the Borough of Dravosburg
( "Dravosburg Borough "), violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed
to file Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for the 2001 calendar year by May
1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by
May 1, 2004.
2. Gobel, as Solicitor for the City of McKeesport Redevelopment Authority
( "Redevelopment Authority "), violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar
year by May 1, 2003, and the 2003 calendar year by May 1, 2004.
3. Gobel, as Solicitor for the Borough of Port Vue ( "Port Vue Borough "), violated
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs for the 2001 calendar
year by May 1, 2002, the 2002 calendar year by May 1, 2003, the 2003 calendar
year by May 1, 2004, and the 2004 calendar year by May 1, 2005.
4. Gobel, as Solicitor for the Borough of Liberty ( "Liberty Borough "), violated Section
1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file an SFI for the 2001 calendar year by
May 1, 2002.
5. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFIs
with the City of McKeesport Civil Service Commission for the 2000 calendar year by
May 1, 2001, and the 2001 calendar year by May 1, 2002, based upon an
insufficiency of evidence to establish that Gobel was Solicitor for the City of
McKeesport Civil Service Commission.
6. Gobel did not violate Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when, as Solicitor for
Dravosburg Borough, the Redevelopment Authority, Port Vue Borough, and Liberty
Borough, he performed his duties and received compensation from public funds
despite failing to file SFIs as required by Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act.
7 To the extent that he Has not already done so, Gobel is directed to file, by no later
than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order, accurate and
complete SFIs: (1) for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 with Dravosburg
Borough; and (2) for calendar years 2002 and 2003 with the Redevelopment
Authority, providing full disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward a
copy of each such filing to this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
a. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair