The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1531 GlennIn Re: Joseph Glenn, Respondent File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Mark Volk 08 -016 Order No. 1531 8/3/09 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 possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The averments in the Investigative Complaint are admitted and are set forth as the following Findings. 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. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Joseph Glenn, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as a member of Rochester Borough Council, Beaver County violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a business with which he is associated by participating in discussions and decisions of Borough Council to award contracts and /or direct business to Khitomer Computer Services, a business with which he is associated, and when such contracts were in excess of $500.00 and awarded without an open and public process; when he participated in the issuance of payments to the business with which he is associated; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose direct /indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for 2006 and 2007 calendar years; when in his capacity as a member of the Rochester Community Network/Rochester Community Network Authority Board of Directors he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or Khitomer Computer Services, a business with which he is associated, by participating in the award of contracts and /or directing business to Khitomer Computer Services a business with which he was associated, and when such contracts were in excess of $500.00 and awarded without an open and public process, when he participated in actions as a Board member to approve payments to Khitomer Computer Services from Rochester Community Network/Rochester Community Network Authority accounts by signing checks as an authorized signatory, and when, as an Authority Board member he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007; when in his capacity as a member of the Rochester Area Digital District Authority he created accounts in the name of the Authority which he then utilized, as an authorized signatory over the accounts, to issue payments to Khitomer Computer Services a business with which he is associated for services provided to the Authority and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004 for the Authority; and when in his capacity as the Network Supervisor for Rochester Area School District, he used the authority of his office to recommend Khitomer Computer Services a business with which he was associated as the preferred vendor for computer related services to be supplied to Rochester Area School District, and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 in his position; and when in his capacity as a member of Rochester Borough Council and the Rochester Area Digital Authority he directed funds be issued to the Rochester Events Committee which were then disbursed to his company, Khitomer Computer Services. § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa. C. S. § 1103(a). § 1103. Restricted activities (f) Contract. —No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and Glenn, 08 -016 Page 3 public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f). § 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. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a). § 1105. Statement of financial interests (b) Required information. —The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (5) The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics or common law privileges. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5). § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or Glenn, 08 -016 Page 4 employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa. C. S. § 1102. II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Joseph Glenn violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998). 2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on April 11, 2008. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On June 9, 2008, a letter was forwarded to Joseph Glenn, by the Investigative 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, no. 7007 0220 0001 4375 2907. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Joseph Glenn, with a delivery date of June 12, 2008. 5. On September 5, 2008, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 6. The Commission issued an order on September 22, 2008, granting the ninety day extension. 7 On November 12, 2008, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed an application for a second ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 8. The Commission issued an order on December 4, 2008, granting the ninety day extension. 9. On May 29, 2009, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to Joseph Glenn by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that the allegations contained in the June 9, 2008, Notice of Investigation were being amended. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7006 2150 0002 5372 5515. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Joseph D. Glenn, with a delivery date of June 2, 2009. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 5 10. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Joseph Glenn in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Act advising him of the general status of the investigation. 11. The Investigative Complaint /Findings Report was mailed to the Respondent on June 4, 2009. 12. Joseph Glenn has served as a member of Rochester Borough Council, Beaver County from at least 1999 to the present. a. Glenn has held the following positions on Borough Council: 1. Council President from February 7, 2005, through December 31, 2007. 2. Chairman of the Public Administration Committee from at least 2002 through 2004. 3. Library Board in 2005 and 2006. b. Glenn also served as a Borough representative to the following: 1. Rochester Area Digital District Authority (RADDA) — 2003 to the present. 2. Rochester Community Network Authority (RCNA) — December 2005 to December 2007. 3. Rochester Events Committee (REC) — 2004 to present. 13. Rochester Borough is governed by a seven - member council. a. Council members receive $65.00 a month for their service on Council. 1. Regular meetings are held twice per month. aa. Regular meetings are held the first and third Mondays of the month. 2. Special meetings are held occasionally throughout the year. b. Glenn did not always receive his monthly Councilman salary. 14. Voting at Rochester Borough meetings occurs via group aye or nay vote after a motion is made and seconded. a. Abstentions or dissenting votes are specifically documented in the minutes. 1. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each subsequent meeting. 15. Monthly bill lists were to be provided to Council for action. a. Bill lists were to be provided to Council at the second meeting of the month. 1. Bills detailed for approval were those bills received by Council subsequent to the second meeting held during the previous month. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 6 b. Monthly bill lists have not been consistently provided to Council during Glenn's tenure as a Council member. c. As a result of not consistently being provided with bill lists, Council did not always vote to approve the bills. 1. Bills were paid whether or not Council voted to approve them. d. Bill lists were only sporadically submitted to or approved by Council between 2003 and 2008. 16. From at least the early 1990s to approximately 2003, Committee Chairmen were provided with invoices for review and signature of approval. a. Committee Chairmen were given invoices that fell under their purview for review. 1. Invoices related to building repairs or computer repairs were reviewed by the Public Administration Committee Chairman. b. Invoices were reviewed and signed by the Committee Chairmen prior to the vote to approve the bill lists. 1. Those invoices provided to Committee Chairmen were listed on the bill lists for approval by Council. c. Invoices have not been provided to Committee Chairmen since approximately 2003. 1. Bills were approved sporadically by a vote of Council only since approximately 2003. d. While Glenn was Council President, Council rarely voted to approve bills for payment. 17. Glenn in his capacity as Council President generated a memo to Borough staff and Council dated December 20, 2005, directing that no purchases be made without his authorization. Glenn's memo noted as follows: "Effective immediately there will be absolutely no purchases made without the authorization of Council President, Joseph Glenn. A purchase order must be filled out in the Administrative Office during regular working hours and at that time the purchase order will be delivered to Mr. Glenn for his approval." a. Subsequent to Glenn issuing this directive no purchases were made without Glenn's knowledge or consent. 18. Signature authority over Borough accounts was held by the Mayor, Council President, the Secretary /Treasurer, and the Borough Manager. a. Borough checks could be signed by any three of the four aforementioned individuals. b. Facsimile stamps were used by the Borough if approved signatories were not available to physically sign Borough checks. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 7 1. A facsimile stamp for Glenn's signature was on file at the Borough during his tenure as Council President. 2. The stamp was not utilized without Glenn's authorization. 19. Borough checks issued to pay the bills were usually generated and signed prior to any Council action to approve the bills. a. Council would be provided with a check register at the second meeting of the month as documentation of bills paid. 1. The check register detailed those checks issued throughout the month. 2. The check registers contained the Borough check numbers, the amounts of the checks, and the entities to whom the checks were issued. 20. Khitomer Computer Services (hereafter KCS) is a computer company located in Rochester, PA. a. KCS was established on January 29, 1998. b. KCS is owned by Glenn and operated out of Glenn's residence ([residence address]). 1. Jeff Simmons also resides at the above address and has been active in KCS. c. PA Department of State records indicate that the purpose of KCS is to provide "computer service and repair." 21. Pennsylvania Department of State records confirm Joseph Glenn submitted an application for fictitious name on or about January 29, 1998, which contained the following: Entity: Khitomer Computer Services Nature of business: Computer service and repair Business address: 487 Harmony Avenue Rochester, PA 15074 Individuals interested in the business: Joseph D. Glenn Signature of applicant: Joseph D. Glenn 22. Between 2003 and 2007 Glenn used the authority of his public positions as a Council member, Council president, and member of the Rochester Digital District Authority (RDDA), Events Committee (REC), and Rochester Community Network Authority (RCNA) to direct business to KCS and payments to himself. a. Glenn was the only member of Borough Council with any computer expertise and Council followed his lead in any computer related purchases, including following his recommendations that KCS be utilized for Borough computer needs. 1. Glenn subsequently directed purchases be made from KCS. b. Glenn controlled the Boards of the RADDA, REC, and RCNA and was able to direct purchases from KCS or direct payments be made to KCS. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 8 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT GLENN USED THE AUTHORITY OF HIS COUNCIL POSITION TO DIRECT /AUTHORIZE PURCHASES BY THE BOROUGH FROM KCS RESULTING IN A PRIVATE PECUNIARY BENEFIT TO HIM AND KCS. 23. KCS was utilized by the Borough to provide computer services and equipment from at least September 7, 1999, to July 2, 2007. a. Glenn participated in Borough actions to utilize KCS for computer related repairs by participating in discussions regarding KCS, voting for the Borough to contract with KCS, and authorizing Borough checks be issued to KCS. 1. Glenn's use of his public position for the financial benefit of KCS included participating in Council actions to authorize contracts with KCS, recommending KCS for contracts, voting to award contracts, and authorizing payments be made to KCS. b. Glenn's use of his public position to award contracts to KCS occurred while he was the primary owner of KCS. 24. Borough records document that in 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007, monthly maintenance service was provided to the Borough by KCS. a. No maintenance service agreements between the Borough and KCS exist in Borough records. b. No record exists that a monthly maintenance agreement was put out for public bid. c. Borough minutes document no monthly maintenance service being approved by a vote and /or discussed by Council. 25. Council routinely relied on Glenn to oversee aspects of the Borough's computers and maintenance due to Glenn's expertise. a. Council did not discuss computer related issues in detail because it was assumed that Glenn would handle the situation and do what was best for the Borough. 1. If computer related issues were discussed by Council, Glenn would participate in those discussions suggesting the use of KCS. b. Council members were aware that Glenn was associated with KCS and /or active in the computer service profession. c. Glenn was the only Council member with a background in computer sales and service. 26. The monthly maintenance service was never put out for public bid even though the service exceeded the $500.00 threshold each year. 27. The following chart documents KCS invoices on file with the Borough regarding payment of a monthly maintenance service: Invoice # Invoice Date Invoice Amount Description of Charge Approved by 719 5 -4 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. May 2003 Joseph Glenn 729 6 -2 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement - June 2003 Joseph Glenn 739 7 -5 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. July 2003 Joseph Glenn 744 8 -4 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement August 2003 Joseph Glenn 762 9 -3 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement September 2003 Not approved 775 10 -1 -03 $150.00 October Maint. Agreement Joseph Glenn 789 11 -4 -03 $150.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement - November 2003 Joseph Glenn 812 1 -27 -04 $0.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement January 2004 ($150.00), Cell Phone Reimbursement (- $150.00) Not approved 1005 7 -20 -06 $1,050.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement Jan -July 2006 ($1,050.00) Not approved 1017 11 -25 -06 $750.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement August- December 2006 ($750.00) Not approved 1023 1 -28 -07 $1,050.00 Monthly Maint. Agreement Jan 07- June 07 ($1,050.00) Not approved Tota : $3,900.00 Khitomer Invoice Number Approved at Meeting of Glenn's Vote 719 5 -19 -03 Yes 729 6- 16 -03, 7 -21 -03 Yes 739 None Not voted on 744 None Not voted on 762 9 -2 -03 Yes 775 None Not present 789 11 -17 -03 Yes 812 1 -20 -04 Yes 1005 None Not voted on 1017 None Not voted on Glenn, 08 -016 Page 9 a. Out of the eleven invoices on file, Glenn approved six for payment in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. 1. Invoices Glenn approved in his capacity as Chairman totaled $900.00. 2. The remaining invoices were not approved b. The two invoices in 2006 and 2007 were not approved by the Administration Committee Chairman; however per Glenn's memo of December 20, 2005, no purchases could be made without his authorization. c. Deductions from invoices for cell phone reimbursement [were] made by Glenn because the Borough was paying for Glenn's personal cellular telephone contract. 1. Glenn deducted cellular telephone charges from some invoices submitted to the Borough. 28. Borough meeting minutes reflect that Glenn voted to approve five of the eleven invoices related to the monthly maintenance service, as shown below: Check # Check Date Check Amount Signatures Paid Khitomer Invoice # 029827 5 -22 -03 $222.50 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 719 029925 8 -13 -03 $436.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 729, 739 030019 11 -21 -03 $748.99 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 744, 762,775, 789 n/a n/a $0.00 No payment made 812 31380 8 -21 -06 $1,229.80 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1005 31511 12 -14 -06 $1,449.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1017 31755 6 -13 -07 $1,360.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1023 812 Total: $5,446.29 No Invoice # Amount Related to Agreement Approve as Chairman Vote to Approve Bill Glenn Signed Check 719 $150.00 Yes Yes No 729 $150.00 Yes Yes No 739 $150.00 Yes No Vote Taken No 744 $150.00 Yes No Vote Taken No 762 $150.00 No Yes No 775 $150.00 Yes Not Present No 789 $150.00 Yes Yes No 812 $150.00 No Yes No 1005 $1,050.00 No No Vote Taken Yes 1017 $750.00 No No Vote Taken Yes 1023 $1,050.00 No No Yes Total: $4,050.00 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 10 1023 None Not voted on a. Six of eleven invoices were not voted on by Council. 29. Glenn's signature appears on three of the six Borough checks issued to KCS for computer related services, as shown below: a. Out of the $5,446.29 in payments made to KCS by the Borough, $3,900.00 was related to the monthly maintenance agreement for Borough computers. 1. The balance of $1,546.29 was related to other services provided by KCS. b. Glenn signed checks totaling $4,038.80 to Khitomer. 30. Glenn approved all eleven of the KCS invoices to be paid by either approving the invoices as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, voting to approve the bills to be paid, or by authorizing checks to be issued to KCS for payment of the monthly maintenance service, as shown below: 31. KCS has maintained a bank account at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank) Check Number Date Deposited 029827 5 -23 -03 029925 8 -14 -03 030019 11 -24 -03 31380 8 -21 -06 31511 12 -15 -06 31755 6 -13 -07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 11 since approximately 2003. a. KCS's bank account number is )0000(X5705. b. Both Glenn and Jeff Simmons sign checks issued from KCS's bank account. 1. Only one signature is required on KCS checks. 2. Both Glenn and Simmons have signature authority for this account. 32. Payments issued to KCS by the Borough which related to the computer related service were deposited into KCS's bank account on the following dates: 33. In approximately the early 2000s the Borough utilized KCS to create a Borough website. a. The web site was created to inform the community of Borough related events. b. The web site was in existence from the early 2000s to mid 2007. c. KCS maintained the web site without charge from the early 2000s through 2005. 34. At the April 19, 2004, Borough meeting, Council approved KCS to maintain the Borough's web site for a monthly fee of $125.00. a. The motion passed via an 8 -0* vote with Glenn voting to approve the motion. *[Cf., Fact Finding 13 as to the number of Borough Council Members.] b. Minutes do not indicate what services would be provided by KCS for the $125.00 monthly fee. c. The contract was awarded to KCS without competitive bid. 1. No other quotes were solicited or contractors considered. 2. The decision to use KCS was based on Glenn's recommendation. 35. No invoices from KCS for website services were on file with the Borough until 2006. 36. In 2006 and 2007, Borough records reflect that KCS invoiced the Borough on three occasions for website maintenance. 37. The monthly maintenance services provided by KCS, Glenn's company, exceeded $500.00 annually, as shown below: Invoice # Invoice Date Invoice Amount Description of Charge Approve d by 1005 7 -20 -06 $179.80 Web Page Maint. Jan -July 2006 ($875.00), Cell Phone Reimbursement Jan -July 2006 (- $620.20), Add Cell Charge for Text Messaging (- $75.00) No One 1017 11 -25 -06 $257.00 Web Page Maint. August -Dec. 06 ($775.00), Cell Phone Reimbursement (- $443.00), Add. Cell Phone Reimbursement Text Messages (- $75.00) No One 1023 1 -28 -07 $480.00 Web Page Maint. Jan 07- June 07 ($1,050.00), Cell Phone Reimbursement Jan 07- June 07 (- $570.00) No One Total: $916.80 Year Amount Charged per Month Yearly Total 2006 $125.00 (first 7 months), $155.00 last 5 months) $1,650.00 2007 $175.00 (first 6 months), no invoice(s) for the rest of the year $1,050.00 (first 6 months) Glenn, 08 -016 Page 12 38. Only three KCS invoices are on file with the Borough in regards to the web site maintenance, as shown below: 39. Although the Borough authorized a $125.00 monthly fee for website maintenance, KCS charged the Borough $155.00 per month for website services for the period August 2006 through December 2006 (Invoice No. 1017). a. KCS (Glenn) charged the Borough $775.00 for the (5) month period ($775 5 = $155.00 /month). b. KCS charged the Borough an extra $30.00 per month for the months of August through December 2006. 1. Council did not authorize the increase in payment per month for web page maintenance. 40. KCS (Glenn) continued to overcharge the Borough for website maintenance for the period January -June 2007. a. KCS charged the Borough $1,050.00 of invoice 1023 for "Web Page Maint. Jan 07 - June 07 ($1,050.00)." 1. $1,050.00 _ 6 months (Jan - Jun) = $175.00 /month. 2. KCS charged the Borough an extra $50.00 per month for the months of January through June 2007. aa. Council did not authorize the increase in payment per month for web page maintenance. 41. KCS invoices 1005, 1017 and 1023 were not approved by the Administration Committee Chairman; however, Glenn was Council President during the time that the invoices were submitted and per Glenn's memo dated December 20, 2005, no purchases could be made without his authorization. Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by Paid Khitomer Invoice # 31380 8 -21 -06 $1,229.80 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1005 31511 12 -14 -06 $1,449.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1017 31755 6 -13 -07 $1,360.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1023 Total: $4,038.80 Check No. Date Deposited 31380 8/21/06 31511 12/15/06 31755 6/13/07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 13 42. Borough meeting minutes reflect that none of KCS's three invoices related to providing monthly web page maintenance service were approved for payment by any vote of Council. a. Glenn was President of Council at the time the invoices were submitted. 43. Glenn's signature appears on all three Borough checks issued to pay KCS for services which included fees for the monthly web page maintenance service, as shown below: a. Out of the $4,038.80, $916.80 was related to the monthly maintenance service. b. No invoices or other records exist for the reason for the remaining $3,122.00 being paid to KCS. c. Checks containing Glenn's signature totaled $4,038.80 in payment to Khitomer. 44. The three payments authorized by Glenn were deposited to the KCS account at Sky Bank as follows: 45. In or about May 2005 Borough Council was considering replacing computer systems for Borough employees. 46. At the May 9, 2005, meeting Council voted to approve the purchase of five computer systems and a server for $7,020.00. a. The motion was made by Council member Kislock and seconded by Council member Miller. 1. The motion was approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote. 2. Minutes note that Glenn abstained from the vote. b. No company was identified as the vendor to provide the computers and server. c. The project was discussed by Council prior to the vote to make the purchase. 1. During Council's review of the potential computer purchase, Glenn Glenn, 08 -016 Page 14 participated in the discussions and was in favor of KCS being utilized by the Borough. 2. Council routinely relied on Glenn to oversee those aspects of the Borough related to computers due to Glenn's expertise. 47. No records exist that the computer and server purchases were publicly advertised for bid. a. No records exist that any bids were received prior to Council action to authorize KCS to provide the computer systems. b. There was no discussion in the minutes of any bids received, bidders or amounts of bids. 1. The standard practice of the Borough was that bids received are usually documented in the minutes by indicating companies submitting bids and the amount of each bid. 48. Borough check #030745 dated May 3, 2005, in the amount of $7,050.00 was issued to KCS for payment of the computers and server. a. The check contained the signature stamps of Glenn, Cathy Smith, and Ed Piroli. b. The check was issued six days before Council's vote to approve the purchase of the computers and server. 1. Council approved the project to be completed at a cost of $7,020.00, not $7,050.00. 49. Borough check #030745, in the amount of $7,050.00, was deposited into KCS's bank account at Sky Bank on May 13, 2005. 50. The May 2005 bills were not approved for payment by Council at the May 9, 2005, meeting. 51. Borough Council also utilized KCS in May 2005 to perform wiring services in relation to the computer purchase. 52. The May 9, 2005, Borough Council meeting minutes document that Council voted to authorize KCS to complete a "wiring" project for the borough at a cost of $6,135.75. a. KCS was selected to complete the project via a 6 -0 -1 vote. 1. Minutes note that Glenn abstained from the vote. b. The "wiring" was for connecting the five computers and server as well as other equipment. c. The project was discussed by Council prior to the vote to select KCS. d. During the discussions regarding the wiring project, Glenn participated in the discussion and advocated that KCS be utilized by the Borough. 1. No other companies were discussed or considered. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 15 e. Council routinely relied on Glenn to oversee those aspects of the Borough related to computers due to Glenn's expertise. 1. Council did not discuss computer related issues in detail because it was assumed that Glenn would handle the situation and do what was best for the Borough. 53. Although the May 9, 2005, minutes reflect that KCS was the lowest bidder for the project, no documentation exists that any public bidding occurred. a. Bids were not on file with the Borough documenting KCS's bid and /or competitors' bids. b. No record exists that the wiring project was advertised in any local newspapers or other venues. c. Council members did not review any bids or receive other bids for this project. 54. Borough check #030743 dated May 3, 2005, in the amount of $6,135.75 was issued to KCS for payment of the wiring project. a. The check contained the signatures of Glenn, Cathy Smith, and Ed Piroli stamped on it. b. The check was issued six days prior to Council's vote to approve the project. c. A KCS invoice documenting the charge was not on file at the Borough. 55. The May 2005 bills were not approved at either the May 9, 2005, or June 2005 Council meeting. 56. Borough check #030743 was deposited into KCS's bank account at Sky Bank on May 13, 2005. 57. In addition to charging the Borough for Borough computer and equipment services, KCS billed the Borough for services provided to the Rochester Police Department. a. KCS has been maintaining the Police Department's computer equipment since at least the late 1990s. b. No record exists that any purchases or service contracts were put out for bid. c. Council did not vote to authorize KCS to perform any services. 58. Either Chief Joe DeLuca or Officer Sam Piccinni contacted Glenn when the Police Department was in need of computer services. a. Glenn /KCS was contacted due to the Council practice of using KCS for Borough computer needs. b. DeLuca and Piccinni believed that KCS was providing services at no cost to the Borough as no bills /invoices were ever provided by Glenn /KCS. c. DeLuca believed that Glenn was repairing computer equipment as a Council member who was donating time /equipment to the Borough due to the Borough's poor financial situation. Invoice # Invoice Date Invoice Amount Description of Charge 714 5 -22 -03 $72.50 Toner Cartridge for Lexmark E+ 405721 718 4 -1 -03 $299.99 E321 20PPM Laser 8MB 600DBI USB PAR 736 6 -20 -03 $349.00 Extended 3 Year Warranty for Lexmark Dotmatrix 2480 KCS #406229 737 6 -20 -03 $136.00 Optra E321 Toner Cartridge 6,000 Page Yield 781 10 -15 -03 $89.00 Lexmark Photo Conductor Unit Optra E+ 790 11 -5 -03 $59.99 Toner for HP LaserJet 969 7 -19 -05 $1,197.00 Wireless Access Point, 108Mbps Wireless USB 2.0 Adaptor, Prosafe Wireless Outdoor Antenna, Antenna Cable- Extension, Antenna Cable, Wireless System for Police Cruisers 979 8 -8 -05 $278.00 PCMCIA Internal PCI Adaptor No # 6 -19 -06 $1,528.00 3 Year Onsite Extended Warranty - OPTRA T, 3 Year Onsite Extended Warranty - C510 No # 6 -19 -06 $270.00 Toner Cartridges for OPTRA Printer 1012 8 -30 -06 $460.85 Toner Cartridges - OPTRA T634 -T612 1018 11 -25 -06 $442.00 Printer Error on Mark Murhy's and not able to Logon to Crimestar Station, Repair Station for Dave Mosura, S. Piccinini Station errors on operating system, Laptop work 2 Laptops, Install Network Card on Laptop and Configure for Wireless Net 1019 12 -2 -06 $85.00 Install and configure video recording software on server for folding cells - 2 hours 1022 1 -28 -07 $65.00 Download and install spyware program- remove spyware from OSLICK station 1029 5 -2 -07 $260.00 Reinstall officer Shanes computer, Install printer and Crimestar Onsite, Reinstall officer Hackers computer, Install and configure remote computer from East Rochester Boro 1031 5 -6 -07 $380.00 First hour, Police Server Crashed - nonrepairable installed and configured replacement server and reconfigured workstations 1035 7 -22 -07 $165.00 Repair PD Monitor Fee Total: $6,137.33 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 16 59. KCS routinely invoiced Rochester Borough for computer equipment and supplies beginning in 2003 and continuing until or about August 2007. a. Some of the invoices included services provided to the police department. b. Some invoices were in excess of $500.00. 1. No record exists of those purchases being put out for bid. 60. Seventeen KCS invoices were on file with the borough for services provided between May 22, 2003, and July 22, 2007, as outlined below: a. No record exists of any Borough official authorizing the services or equipment for which KCS invoiced the Borough. b. After December 2005, Glenn, in his capacity as Council President, authorized all purchases made by the Borough. Khitomer Invoice # Approved at Meeting of Glenn's Vote 714 5 -19 -03 Yes 718 4 -21 -03 Yes 736 6 -16 -03 Yes 737 6 -16 -03 Yes 781 10- 20 -03* Not present 790 Not approved No # Not approved No # Not approved 969 Not approved 979 Not approved 1012 Not approved 1018 Not approved 1019 Not approved 1022 Not approved 1029 5 -7 -07 Yes 1031 5 -7 -07 Yes 1035 7 -2 -07 Yes Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signatores Paid Invoice # 029704 4 -24 -03 $299.99 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 718 029827 5 -22 -03 $222.50 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 714 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 17 61. KCS invoice number 969 dated 7 -19 -05 in the amount of $1,197.00 was for wireless computer equipment for the Borough Police Department. a. No records exist that Council ever discussed the purchasing of the wireless computer equipment. b. The purchase of the equipment for police cruisers was not put out for bid. 62. [An] unnumbered KCS [invoice] dated 6 -19 -06 in the amount of $1,528.00 was for two three -year extended warranties for computer equipment. a. No record exists that Council ever discussed obtaining extended warranties on computer equipment. b. The warranties purchased from KCS were not put out for bid and were made at the recommendation of Glenn. 63. Only seven of the seventeen KCS invoices from May 22, 2003, to July 22, 2007, were submitted to Council for approval. a. The remaining ten invoices were paid without Council approval *. b. Glenn voted to approve all seven invoices which were approved by Council as indicated below: *[Cf., Fact Findings 63 a and 63 b regarding the number of invoices paid without Council approval.] 64. Glenn's signature appears on seven of the twelve Borough checks issued to pay KCS for services provided from May 22, 2003, to July 22, 2007, as shown below: 029886 6 -26 -03 $349.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 736 029925 8 -13 -03 $436.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 737 030019 11 -21 -03 $748.99 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 781, 790 31313 6 -27 -06 $1,798.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 6/19/06 invoices 31386 8 -25 -06 $460.85 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1012 31407 9 -12 -06 $1,055.35 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 969, 979 31511 12 -14 -06 $1,449.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1018 31684 5 -4 -07 $980.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1019, 1022, 1029 31755 6 -13 -07 $1,360.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1031 31809 7 -24 -07 $165.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 1035 Total: $9,324.68 Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signatores 29594 2 -12 -03 $300.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 29675 4 -2 -03 $748.09 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 29739 4 -29 -03 $150.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030159 4 -8 -04 $495.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030236 5 -6 -04 $495.60 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030297 6 -7 -04 $286.96 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030321 6 -28 -04 $3,500.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030496 11 -16 -04 $300.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli Check Number Date Deposited 029704 4 -25 -03 029827 5 -23 -03 029886 6 -27 -03 029925 8 -14 -03 030019 11 -24 -03 31313 6 -27 -06 31386 8 -25 -06 31407 9 -13 -06 31511 12 -15 -06 31684 5 -4 -07 31755 6 -13 -07 31809 7 -24 -07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 18 a. Checks signed by Glenn totaled $7,268.20 in payment to KCS. 1. $2,557.00 of the $7,268.20 related to other services provided by KCS for the Borough. 65. Payments issued to KCS by the Borough for services /products outlined in finding no. 60 were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: 66. Rochester Borough issued 27 other checks totaling $28,757.98 to KCS during the time period of February 12, 2003, through May 22, 2007, for which no invoices exist. a. Glenn's signature appears on 16 of the checks issued to KCS. 67. The following reflects the 27 Borough checks issued to KCS from February 12, 2003, to May 22, 2007, without invoices being submitted for payment and Glenn's actions to authorize checks: Borough Check # Approved at Meeting of Glenn's Vote 29594 Not voted on None 29675 4 -21 -03 Yes 29739 4 -21 -03 Yes 030159 Not voted on None 030236 Not voted on None 030297 Not voted on None 030321 Not voted on None 030496 Not voted on None 030506 Not voted on None 030526 Not voted on None 030577 Not voted on None 030606 Not voted on None 030653 Not voted on None 030708 Not voted on None 030766 Not voted on None 030769 Not voted on None 030770 Not voted on None 030795 Not voted on None 030820 Not voted on None 030829 Not voted on None 030834 Not voted on None 030839 Not voted on None 030852 Not voted on None 031012 Not voted on None 031025 Not voted on None 031426 Not voted on None 031715 5 -7 -07 Yes 030506 11 -22 -04 $5,510.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030526 12 -21 -04 $1,779.20 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030577 2 -4 -05 $475.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030606 3 -9 -05 $1,827.45 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030653 4 -7 -05 $3,000.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030708 4 -25 -05 $1,125.64 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030766 5 -11 -05 $258.99 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030769 5 -12 -05 $358.26 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030770 5 -13 -05 $2,500.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030795 5 -23 -05 $212.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030820 6 -7 -05 $87.98 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030829 6 -17 -05 $797.37 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030834 6 -21 -05 $454.23 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030839 6 -27 -05 $1,630.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 030852 7 -8 -05 $910.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 031012 12 -13 -05 $104.21 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 031025 12 -22 -05 $1,000.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 031426 9 -20 -06 $359.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 031715 5 -22 -07 $93.00 Joseph Glenn, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli Tota : $28,757.98 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 19 68. Only three of the 27 checks outlined in finding no. 67 were approved by Council. 69. The following confirms payments approved by Council without invoices being submitted by KCS. Ck No. Ck Date Ck Amt. Signatories Disposi- tion Inv. No. Inv. Date Associated with 29827 5 -22 -03 $222.50 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited 719 5 -4 -03 Mo. Maint. 030496 11 -17 -04 030506 11 -23 -04 030526 714 5 -22 -03 Equip. 29925 8 -13 -03 $436.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited 729 6 -2 -03 Mo. Maint. 030820 6 -8 -05 030829 6 -18 -05 030834 739 7 -5 -03 Mo. Maint. 030852 7 -8 -05 031012 12 -14 -05 031025 737 6 -20 -03 Equip. 30019 11 -21 -03 $748.99 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited 744 8 -4 -03 Mo. Maint. 762 9 -3 -03 Mo. Maint. 775 10 -1 -03 Mo. Maint. 789 11 -4 -03 Mo. Maint. 781 10 -15 -03 Equip. 790 11 -15 -03 Equip. n/a n/a n/a n/a No 812 1 -27 -04 Mo. Maint. Payment 31380 8 -21 -06 $1,229.80 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1005 7 -20 -06 Mo. Maint., Web Page 31511 12 -14 -06 $1,449.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1017 11 -25 -06 Mo. Maint., 1018 11 -25 -06 Web Page Police 31755 6 -13 -07 $1,360.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1023 1 -28 -07 Mo. Maint., 1031 5 -6 -07 Web Page Police 30743 5 -3 -05 $6,135.75 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No n/a Wiring Invoice Project 30745 5 -3 -05 $7,050.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No n/a 5 Comp. & Check Number Date Deposited 29594 2 -13 -03 29675 4 -4 -03 29739 5 -1 -03 030159 4 -8 -04 030236 5 -7 -04 030297 6 -7 -04 030321 6 -28 -04 030496 11 -17 -04 030506 11 -23 -04 030526 12 -21 -04 030606 3 -10 -05 030708 4 -26 -05 030766 5 -13 -05 030769 5 -13 -05 030795 5 -24 -05 030820 6 -8 -05 030829 6 -18 -05 030834 6 -22 -05 030839 6 -27 -05 030852 7 -8 -05 031012 12 -14 -05 031025 12 -22 -05 031426 9 -21 -06 031715 5 -24 -07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 20 70. Payments issued to KCS by the Borough were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: 71. The Borough made payments to KCS totaling $46,523.21 between May 2003 and May 2007 which were authorized by Glenn: Glenn, 08 -016 Page 21 Invoice Server 29704 4 -24 -03 $299.99 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited 718 4 -1 -03 Equip. 29886 6 -26 -03 $349.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited 736 6 -20 -03 Equip. 31407 9 -12 -06 $1,055.35 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 969 979 7 -19 -05 8 -8 -05 Police Equip. 31313 6 -27 -06 $1,798.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No* No* 6 -19 -06 6 -19 -06 Equip. Equip. 31386 8 -25 -06 $460.85 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1012 8 -30 -06 Equip. 31684 5 -4 -07 $980.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1019 1022 1029 12 -2 -06 1 -28 -07 5 -2 -07 Police Police Police 31809 7 -24 -07 $165.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited 1035 7 -22 -07 Police 29594 2 -12 -03 $300.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 29675 4 -2 -03 $748.09 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 29739 4 -29 -03 $150.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30159 4 -8 -04 $495.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30236 5 -6 -04 $495.60 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30297 6 -7 -04 $286.96 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30321 6 -28 -04 $3,500.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30496 11 -16 -04 $300.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30506 11 -22 -04 $5,510.00 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30526 12 -21 -04 $1,779.20 G.W., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30606 3 -9 -05 $1,827.45 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30708 4 -25 -05 $1,125.64 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30766 5 -11 -05 $258.99 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30769 5 -12 -05 $358.26 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30795 5 -23 -05 $212.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30820 6 -7 -05 $87.98 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30829 6 -17 -05 $797.37 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30834 6 -21 -05 $454.23 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30839 6 -27 -05 $1,630.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 30852 7 -8 -05 $910.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 31012 12 -13 -05 $104.21 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 31025 12 -22 -05 $1,000.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 31426 9 -20 -06 $359.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown 31715 5 -22 -07 $93.00 J.G., C.S., E.P. Deposited No Invoice n/a Unknown $46,523.21 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 21 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 22 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT GLENN USED THE AUTHORITY OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE ROCHESTER DIGITAL DISTRICT AUTHORITY FOR THE PRIVATE PECUNIARY BENEFIT OF HIMSELF AND /OR KCS. 72. Joseph Glenn has served as a member of the Rochester Area Digital District Authority (RADDA) from April 21, 2003, to the present. a. Rochester Borough Council appointed Glenn to the Authority on April 21, 2003. b. Glenn served as President of the Authority from at least May 22, 2003, to May 15, 2004. 73. On February 5, 2003, Glenn, in his capacity as an employee of Rochester Area School District, and Robert De Marco, former Rochester Area School District Technology Director, were directed by the Rochester Area School District Board of Directors to meet with representatives of Rochester Borough Council to discuss the Digital District initiative. a. A Digital District is an area that is selected to be educated and equipped with computer related training so that disadvantaged residents and economically distressed communities will have access to information technology and related training. b. Glenn was employed as a Network Supervisor for the school district at that time. 1. De Marco was Glenn's immediate Supervisor. 2. Glenn was a member of Borough Council in 2003. 74. At the time that Glenn and De Marco met with Borough Council, the Rochester Area School District was operating the Beaver County Community Technology Center (BCCTC). a. The BCCTC was established to provide computer training to the community. b. De Marco was the school district official with oversight responsibilities for the operations of the BCCTC. 75. Borough Council meeting minutes dated March 17, 2003, confirm that Council adopted Borough Resolution 3 -2003 to create the Rochester Area Digital District Authority. a. The purpose of the RADDA was to foster high - technology business and workforce in Beaver County through education and development of appropriate facilities, telecommunications, and high -speed Internet access. b. The RADDA was established by support from borough representatives and school district representatives. c. Glenn participated in the unanimous Council vote to approve Resolution 3- 2003. 76. Articles of Incorporation for RADDA were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on or about May 15, 2003. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 23 a. The Authority office was listed as 300 West Park, Rochester, PA 15074. 1. 300 West Park, Rochester, PA 15074 was the former location of the Rochester Borough Building. b. The incorporators of the Authority were documented as Glenn, Tim LaHue, and Evelyn Reda. 1. Reda and Lahue were Borough citizens who were requested by Glenn to become affiliated with the RADDA. c. An additional provision attached to the Articles of Incorporation details that: "None of the assets of this Corporation shall at any time inure to the private benefit of any officer, director, or other person involved in its leadership, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of 501(c)(3) purposes." 77. As of May 22, 2003, the following were identified members of the Authority: Name Position Joseph Glenn President Timothy LaHue Vice President Mary Ann Mike Secretary Evelyn Reda Treasurer David Kuder Executive Director Jeff Simmons Member Ed Piroli Advisory Council Robert De Marco Advisory Council Sandy Graves Advisory Council a. The most active individuals of the Authority initially were Glenn and De Marco due to their computer expertise. b. Glenn eventually replaced Reda as Treasurer of the board with Del Oxley. 1. Oxley is employed by the Rochester School District as a first grade teacher. 78. The last known office of the RADDA was the 2nd floor of the Rochester Borough building located at 350 Adams Street, Rochester, PA 15074. 79. The Authority was governed by a five - member board. a. The only active member was Glenn. b. The Board met infrequently and only informally. 80. Minutes of meetings of the RADDA were only sporadically recorded and often were incomplete. a. Meetings held followed no set schedule (i.e. bi- weekly, monthly, etc.). 1. Over the life of the Authority, the Board of Directors met Glenn, 08 -016 Page 24 approximately five times. b. Meetings held were informal and did not follow Robert Rules of Order. 81. Bills regarding the expenditure of Authority funds were not reviewed or approved by vote of the RADDA Board. a. No bill list was generated for Board review. b. Invoices issued to the Authority for payment were not provided to Authority members for review. c. No bidding or quote process was followed by the RADDA when making purchases. 82. Signature authority over Authority accounts was held by the President and Secretary /Treasurer. a. Both signatures were required on RADDA checks. b. Facsimile stamps were not utilized by the Authority. 83. On January 24, 2004, the Rochester Area School District Board of Directors authorized the transfer of assets of the BCCTC to the RADDA. a. After the RADDA assumed all of the functions of the BCCTC, De Marco became less active in RADDA activities. 1. Glenn, as a member of Council and President of the RADDA, assumed a more active role. 2. Glenn did not seek or want input from De Marco. 84. On or about June 1, 2004, Glenn, as RADDA President, applied for a U.S. Department of Education Community Technology Centers grant. a. Glenn requested $269,724.00 in federal funds to be provided to create the Rochester Area Community Technology Center. 85. The purpose of the Rochester Area Community Technology Center was to improve the academic performance of low achieving students in grades 9 -12, to improve the technology skills of economically disadvantaged and /or low achieving students. 86. The grant application detailed "assurances" regarding the applicant's responsibilities. a. One of the assurances documented was that the applicant "will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain." b. Glenn signed the assurances section of the application on June 1, 2004, certifying that safeguards would be implemented to prohibit conflicts of interest. 1. No such safeguards were ever implemented by Glenn. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 25 87. In the application Glenn identified three entities that would be involved in the creation of the Rochester Area Community Technology Center: a. Rochester Borough. b. Rochester Area School District. c. Khitomer Computer Services. 1. Glenn did not identify his association with KCS anywhere in the application. 88. A May 27, 2004, letter generated by Jeffrey Simmons on behalf of KCS was included in the application to the U.S. Department of Education. a. Simmons is affiliated with KCS, shares signature authority over KCS accounts with Glenn, and shares a residence with Glenn. 89. The letter authored by Simmons indicated the following: "Dear Sir or Madam: Khitomer Computer Services will support the Rochester Area Digital District Authority in its Community Technology Center project for 2004 -2005. The CTC will provide high school students the opportunity to gain valuable instruction in reading and mathematics during after school hours as well as relevant job skill assessment and training. Parents and other adults in the community will likewise benefit from CTC's technology training programs as they seek the skills required in the information economy. Khitomer will make an in -kind contribution of professional services - computer repair and maintenance - valued at $20,000.00. We encourage the Department of Education to support this project. It will provide our underserved students equitable access to much needed learning opportunities." 90. In mid to late 2005, the RADDA was awarded the U.S. Department of Education Community Technology Centers grant. a. The U.S. Department of Education approved RADDA to receive $259,724.00. 91. On September 8, 2005, a bank account for RADDA was created at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank) by Glenn and Oxley. a. The bank account number for RADDA is )0000(X5395. b. Glenn, Del Oxley (Treasurer), and Linda McPherson (Vice President) were identified on bank records as having signature authority over the RADDA account. 1. Linda McPherson was an employee of the Rochester School District who was recruited by Glenn to participate in the RADDA. 2. McPherson played no role in any decisions of the RADDA. 92. The U.S. Department of Education issued direct deposits to RADDA's bank account Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 302 10 -13 -05 $19,503.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 313 11 -9 -05 $2,213.98 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 314 11 -17 -05 $234.14 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 325 12 -20 -05 $637.95 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 326 12 -20 -05 $93.40 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 331 12 -29 -05 $2,500.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 332 1 -6 -06 $79.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 352 3 -27 -06 $4,311.15 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 365 4 -13 -06 $5,688.85 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 373 5 -25 -06 $3,500.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 389 7 -7 -06 $97.50 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 393 7 -26 -06 $998.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 394 8 -2 -06 $1,995.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 402 8 -15 -06 $995.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 409 8 -25 -06 $250.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 412 9 -26 -06 $66.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 416 10 -2 -06 $1,848.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn Total: $45,010.97 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 26 beginning in October 2005 and ending in April 2007. a. RADDA received a total of $259,724.00 in federal funding. 93. RADDA bank account records reflect that $45,010.97 in Authority checks was issued directly to KCS between October 13, 2005, and October 2, 2006. a. Glenn signed all seventeen of the checks issued to his business. 94. Glenn authorized payments to be issued to KCS from the U.S. Department of Education, USDOE grant even though grant provisions prohibit such payments and Glenn's associate provided correspondence to the USDOE stating that KCS would not be paid. 95. Although Oxley's signature appears on all 17 checks, Oxley was unaware that RADDA checks were being issued to KCS. a. Oxley was not provided invoices to document charges incurred by the Authority. 96. Glenn maintained the RADDA check book at his office at the School District. a. No other RADDA Board member had access to the checkbook. b. Glenn or Glenn's District secretary provided Oxley with blank checks to sign. 1. Glenn's District secretary informed Oxley that Glenn needed a number of blank checks signed. c. Glenn also informed Oxley that checks issued from the RADDA account were for renovations to the Rochester Borough building. 1. Glenn never informed Oxley that KCS was being paid. 97. Glenn did not seek input from other RADDA members in regards to computer Invoice # Invoice Date Invoice Amount Description of Charge No # 10 -12 -05 $19,503.00 15 A -U266 PM800 P4 See Attached, 2 PC Expanions 986 10 -19 -05 $1,065.70 1 Peachtree Nonprofit 2006, 1 Payroll Tax Update 2005 -2006 1007 7 -26 -06 $998.00 Lexmark C522n- Printer - color - laser - legal, A4 -dpi x 1200 dpi -up to 20 ppm (mono) / up to 20 ppm (color) - capacity: 250 sheets -USB, 10 1016 10 -1 -06 $1,848.00 4 Toner Cartridge Black 1500 Pages, 4 Toner Cartridge cyan 1500 Pages, 4 Toner Cartridge Magenta 1500 pages, 4 Toner Cartridge Yellow 1500 Pages Check Number Date Deposited 302 10 -14 -05 313 11 -9 -05 314 11 -17 -05 325 12 -20 -05 *326 12 -20 -05 331 12 -29 -05 332 1 -9 -06 352 3 -29 -06 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 27 related purchases. a. Members of RADDA did not know that Authority funds were utilized to make purchases from KCS. b. Purchases from KCS were not approved by the RADDA Board. 98. Only four KCS invoices were on file at the Authority to document charges to the Authority totaling $23,414.70 as shown below: 99. Bids and /or quotes were not obtained prior to purchases in excess of $500.00 being made from KCS by Glenn. a. No KCS bids and /or quotes were on file at the Authority. b. No other vendors were considered prior to Glenn making purchases from KCS. 100. Authority members were never provided with any quotes from KCS, KCS invoices, or RADDA checks issued to KCS. a. RADDA members did not discuss the use of KCS and /or the necessity of computer repairs /equipment. b. RADDA members never voted to authorize any payments to KCS. c. Glenn never informed RADDA members that he was making purchases from KCS. 101. The payments issued to KCS by the Authority totaling $45,010.97 (finding no. 93) were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 310 10 -31 -05 $5,000.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 327 12 -22 -05 $5,846.75 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 341 2 -1 -06 $1,655.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 366 4 -27 -06 $1,500.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn Total: $14,001.75 365 4 -13 -06 373 5 -30 -06 389 7 -7 -06 393 7 -27 -06 394 8 -2 -06 402 8 -15 -06 409 9 -18 -06 412 9 -26 -06 416 10 -3 -06 Check Number Date Deposited 310 10 -31 -05 327 12 -22 -05 341 2 -1 -06 366 4 -27 -06 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 28 *Forty cents of the check was not deposited into KCS's bank account. 102. Payments were also issued from the RADDA account no. )0000(X5395 directly to Glenn. a. Payments occurred between October 31, 2005, and April 27, 2006. 103. RADDA general bank account records reflect that an additional $14,001.75 in Authority funds were issued directly to Glenn, in Glenn's name, as shown below: a. As reflected in the above chart, Glenn signed all of the checks issued to him. b. Glenn did not hold a position within the Authority for which payment was required to be made. c. No invoices were ever submitted by Glenn documenting what services Glenn provided to warrant payment. d. Grant provisions prohibit anyone affiliated with the RADDA from profiting from the grant. 104. None of the payments issued to Glenn were ever discussed or approved by the RADDA Board. a. All payments were authorized solely by Glenn. b. No invoices were ever submitted to the RADDA. 105. All of the RADDA checks issued to Glenn were deposited into his personal bank account (acct. no. )0)00(X0359) over which Glenn has signature authority, as shown below: 106. Glenn also established a RADDA payroll account at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank) on October 28, 2005. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 29 a. The bank account number for RADDA payroll is )0000(X1291. b. Glenn and Oxley were identified on bank records as having signature authority over RADDA payroll finances. 1. Two signatures are required on Authority checks. c. A payroll account was established to pay individuals for teaching computer classes on behalf of the Authority. 107. Two payroll checks were issued to KCS totaling $2,844.50 in 2007 for which no record exists of services provided. a. All services provided by KCS were to be in -kind as indicated in Simmons' letter to the USDOE. 108. RADDA payroll check #171 dated January 30, 2007, was issued to KCS in the amount of $169.50. a. The check was signed by Glenn. b. Oxley's name appears on the check as an authorized signatory. 1. The signature on the check is not Oxley's. c. No invoice exists at the Authority documenting services provided by KCS that would merit payment in the amount of $169.50. d. The payment was not approved by action of the RADDA Board of Directors. 109. Authority check #171 was deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on January 30, 2007. 110. RADDA payroll check #172 dated February 14, 2007, was issued to KCS in the amount of $2,675.00. a. The check was signed by Glenn. b. Oxley's name appears on the check as an authorized signature. 1. Oxley did not sign the check. 2. The signature is not Oxley's. 111. No invoice exists at the Authority documenting services provided by KCS that would merit payment in the amount of $2,675.00. a. It is unknown why a general expense was paid out of the payroll account. 112. Authority check #172 was deposited into KCS's bank account on February 14, 2007, for which Glenn has signature authority. 113. Glenn, in his official position, authorized payments from RADDA accounts to KCS and himself totaling $61,857.22 as follows: KCS: $45,010.97 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 30 Glenn: $14,001.75 KCS Payroll Acct: $ 2,844.50 $61,857.22 a. None of the payments were authorized by the RADDA. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT GLENN USED HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE ROCHESTER COMMUNITY NETWORK AUTHORITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIMSELF AND /OR KCS. 114. On September 6, 2005, Rochester Borough Council authorized the advertisement of a public hearing to be held to create the Rochester Community Network Authority (RCNA). a. On November 7, 2005, Council voted that the public hearing be held on December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. 115. On December 19, 2005, Council adopted Borough Ordinance #11 -05 and the Articles of Incorporation for the RCNA. a. The Articles of Incorporation indicate that The Community Network Authority was organized by the Borough of Rochester, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, under the Municipality Authorities Act of May 2, 1945, P.L. 382, as amended for the purpose of establishing a community facilities authority and to oversee adult and student education, police and fire training, within the Rochester Borough Community Center, administration of the Rochester Borough Theater Facility and to further the creation of a Digital District and supporting facility within the Municipal Authorities Act of May 2, 1945, P.L. 382, as amended or is in existence in the Borough. b. The Articles of Incorporation further indicate the name, address, and length of terms for the Authority members as follows: Name Address Term Length Terri Timpano [address] 1 year Sam Piccinni [address] 2 years Marlene Kislock [address] 3 years Jeff Simmons [address] 4 years Joseph Glenn [address] 5 years 116. Joseph Glenn served as a member of the RCNA from December 19, 2005, to approximately December 30, 2007. a. Glenn served as President of the Authority during his entire tenure. b. Glenn, along with Simmons, made the bulk of decisions on how the RCNA would operate. 117. Authority By -Laws outline the duties and responsibilities of the Authority President as follows: "Shall preside at all meetings of the Board of the Authority, except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Board of the Authority. The Chairman shall sign all contracts, deeds, and other instruments made by the Authority. At each meeting, the Chairman shall submit such recommendations and information as may be proper concerning the business, affairs, and policies of the Authority." Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 336 12 -16 -05 $500.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 380 6 -14 -06 $165.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 382 6 -22 -06 $650.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 383 6 -22 -06 $466.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 387 7 -6 -06 $3,200.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn Glenn, 08 -016 Page 31 118. The last known location of the RCNA was the 2nd floor of the Rochester Borough building located at 350 Adams Street, Rochester, PA 15074. 119. The five member[s] [of the] board of RCNA are not compensated for their service. 120. Meeting minutes on file at the Borough building for RCNA were sporadic and /or incomplete. a. Meetings held followed no set schedule (i.e. bi- weekly, monthly, etc.). 1. Over the duration of the Authority (December 2005 to December 2007), the Board of Directors met approximately five times. b. Meetings held were informal and did not follow Robert Rules of Order. c. Most decisions regarding any RCNA function or activity were made by Glenn. 121. Bills regarding the expenditure of Authority funds were not voted on for approval. a. No bill lists were generated for review by the Board. b. Invoices issued to the Authority for payment were not provided to Authority members for review. 1. Several invoices submitted to the RCNA for payment were on file at the last known location of RCNA. c. Bids and /or quotes were not obtained by the Authority prior to making purchases. d. Glenn determined how RCNA funds could be spent. 122. Signature authority over Authority accounts was held by the President and Secretary /Treasurer. a. Both signatures were required on RCNA checks. b. Facsimile stamps were not utilized by the Authority. 123. The RCNA essentially provided identical services as the RADDA. a. Individuals involved with both the RADDA and the RCNA considered both entities to be one and the same. 124. Funding for the RCNA came in the form of payments from the RADDA. 125. RADDA financial records confirm that nine RADDA checks totaling $8,117.95 were issued to the RCNA, as shown below: Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 1086 3 -13 -06 $1,570.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1099 4 -28 -06 $1,003.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1103 5 -9 -06 $567.20 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1114 6 -6 -06 $165.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1143 9 -25 -06 $759.78 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1157 11 -4 -06 $825.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1176 1 -22 -07 $152.25 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1183 2 -19 -07 $183.59 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1192 3 -29 -07 $156.79 Jeff Simmons, Del Jeanine Oxley 1194 4 -3 -07 $400.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1195 4 -5 -07 $200.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1200 4 -13 -07 $165.28 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1213 6 -1 -07 $158.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1214 7 -25 -07 $300.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn Total: $6,605.89 386 7 -3 -06 $767.24 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 405 8 -25 -06 $150.00 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 428 12 -18 -06 $2,004.14 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn 434 4 -23 -07 $215.57 Del Jeanine Oxley, Joseph Glenn Total: $8,117.95 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 32 a. Glenn's and Oxley's signatures appear on all nine checks. b. The payments to the RCNA were not authorized by a vote of the RADDA Board of Directors. 1. Oxley was unaware of the purpose for the payments from RADDA to the RCNA. 2. Oxley signed checks at Glenn's direction. 126. RADDA checks issued to RCNA were deposited into RCNA's bank account maintained at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank). a. The bank account number for RCNA is )0000(X6488. b. Glenn and Oxley were identified as having signature authority over RCNA finances. 127. RCNA bank account records reflect that $6,605.89 in Authority funds was issued to KCS after Glenn directed that deposits be made from the RADDA account, as shown below: a. As reflected in the above chart, Glenn signed 13 of 14 checks totaling $6,449.10. b. Jeff Simmons, Glenn's associate in KCS, signed one of the checks issued to KCS even though he did not have signature authority over this account. 128. Oxley was unaware that RCNA checks were being issued to KCS. a. Oxley was not provided invoices detailing charges by KCS necessitating any payment to KCS. Invoice # Invoice Date Invoice Amount Description of Charge None 4 -28 -06 $1,003.00 1 10/100 rack mount 32 port switch, 1 wide angle camera tense [sic] for police dept. cells, 1 view commander recording software None 5 -9 -06 $567.20 2 HI yield print cartridges, 4 printheads for HP Check Number Date Deposited 1086 3 -13 -06 1099 4 -29 -06 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 33 b. Glenn maintained the RCNA check book at his office at the District. c. Glenn or Glenn's District secretary provided Oxley with blank checks to sign. 1. Glenn's District secretary indicated to Oxley that Glenn needed a number of blank checks signed. d. Glenn informed Oxley that checks issued from the RCNA account were for renovations to the Rochester Borough building. e. Oxley signed checks only at Glenn's direction. 129. Only two KCS invoices were on file at the Authority documenting charges to the Authority, as shown below: a. Neither invoice was reviewed or approved for payment by a vote of the RCNA Board of Directors. b. Both payments were authorized solely by Glenn. c. Payments were made by RCNA check no. 1099 on April 28, 2006, in the amount of $1,003.00 and check no. 1103 [in the amount of] $567.20 issued on May 9, 2006. 1. Glenn signed both checks. 2. Oxley signed the checks at Glenn's direction. 130. Authority members never saw any bids in the name of KCS, KCS invoices, or Authority checks issued to KCS. a. Authority members did not discuss the use of KCS and /or the necessity of computer repairs /equipment. 131. Bids and /or quotes were not obtained prior to purchase[(s)] being made from KCS by Glenn. a. No KCS bids and /or quotes were on file at the Authority. b. All purchases from KCS were authorized by Glenn in his capacity as RCNA Board President. 132. Payments issued to KCS by the Authority were deposited into KCS's bank account for which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: 1103 4 -9 -06 1114 6 -7 -06 1143 9 -25 -06 1157 11 -6 -06 1176 1 -22 -07 1183 2 -20 -07 1192 3 -29 -07 1194 4 -4 -07 1195 4 -5 -07 1200 4 -13 -07 1213 7 -10 -07 1214 7 -25 -07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 34 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT GLENN USED HIS PUBLIC POSITION TO DIRECT PAYMENTS FROM THE ROCHESTER EVENTS COMMITTEE TO KCS. 133. Glenn has been a member of the Rochester Events Committee (REC) since at least 2004. a. Glenn served with Jeff Simmons (President), Marlene Kislock (Secretary), and Dorothy Hartzell (member). 134. Simmons was part of a group that included Glenn that initially developed the concept of the Rochester Events Committee and discussed the concept with Borough Council. a. Glenn was a member of Council at the time of Simmons' presentation and was in favor of forming the committee. 135. The purpose of the Committee was to organize events for the Rochester Community such as concerts, Fourth of July celebrations, etc. a. The REC's other goals were to rehabilitate the local theatre and operate the cafe in the Borough building. b. The Committee utilized Glenn's residence and the Borough cafe located on the first floor of the Borough building to conduct meetings and transact business. 136. Prior to the Committee operating in Rochester, the members of the Committee approached Council asking for permission to operate on behalf of the Borough. a. Council approved the Rochester Events Committee to operate within and on behalf of the Borough at a public meeting. b. The committee was an official committee of the Borough. 137. On March 29, 2004, Simmons and Kislock opened a bank account at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank) in the name of Rochester Events Committee. a. Both Simmons and Kislock had signature authority over the Committee's finances. b. Only one signature is required on Rochester Events Committee checks. Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 1073 2 -6 -06 $1,000.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1104 5 -9 -06 $600.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1133 7 -24 -06 $145.00 Del Oxley, Joseph Glenn 1158 11 -4 -6 $250.00 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley 1173 1 -17 -07 $50.00 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley 1177 1 -24 -07 $110.72 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley 1178 2 -5 -07 $216.78 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley 1181 2 -7 -07 $300.00 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley Total: $2,672.50 Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 30418 8 -31 -04 $1,000.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 30559 1 -27 -05 $306.79 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 30659 4 -12 -05 $3,500.00 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli 30819 6 -7 -05 $162.89 George Walker, Cathy Smith, Ed Piroli Total: $4,969.68 Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 304 10 -4 -05 $16,370.00 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley 315 11 -17 -05 $3,064.45 Joseph Glenn, Del Oxley Total: $19,434.45 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 35 c. The Committee does not utilize facsimile stamps. 138. Rochester Events Committee financial records reflect that the Committee received $27,076.63 in funding from public entities Glenn was affiliated with, as an elected public official, as a member or President of the Board of directors. a. Rochester Borough b. Rochester Area Digital District Authority 1. Glenn signed both checks issued to the Events Committee as an authorized signatory on RADDA's behalf. c. Rochester Community Network Authority 1. Glenn signed all checks issued to the Events Committee as an authorized signatory on RCNA's behalf. d. All of the entities listed are associated with Rochester Borough. e. No record exists of Rochester Borough, RADDA and RCNA ever taking any action to authorize funding for the REC. 139. Of the $27,076.73* in funding received by the REC from entities Glenn was affiliated with, $9,188.80 (approximately 34 %) was paid to Glenn's company, KCS. *[sic]. [The amount is $27,076.63 as per Fact Finding 138.] a. These payments were made without the knowledge and consent of other Check # Check Date Check Amount Check Signed by 102 4 -22 -04 $251.00 Jeff Simmons 103 4 -27 -04 $208.01 Jeff Simmons 109 5 -21 -04 $90.00 Jeff Simmons 115 6 -10 -04 $300.00 Jeff Simmons 132 8 -17 -04 $313.00 Jeff Simmons 136 8 -27 -04 $175.00 Jeff Simmons 140 10 -20 -04 $257.66 Jeff Simmons 141 10 -25 -04 $150.00 Jeff Simmons 144 11 -12 -04 $350.00 Jeff Simmons 149 11 -17 -04 $132.00 Jeff Simmons 158 12 -27 -04 $144.88 Jeff Simmons 183 4 -14 -05 $265.45 Jeff Simmons 226 9 -1 -05 $100.00 Jeff Simmons 228 9 -7 -05 $106.35 Jeff Simmons DD 10 -3 -05 $2.00 N/A 243 12 -12 -05 $604.08 Jeff Simmons 244 12 -21 -05 $340.00 Jeff Simmons 255 3 -13 -06 $1,570.00 Jeff Simmons 274 7 -25 -06 $267.00 Jeff Simmons TSFR 10 -13 -06 $869.00 N/A 286 11 -24 -06 $986.00 Jeff Simmons 290 12 -26 -06 $179.00 Jeff Simmons 296 1 -2 -07 $129.89 Jeff Simmons 309 3 -26 -07 $105.13 Jeff Simmons 321 5 -14 -07 $189.35 Jeff Simmons 328 6 -28 -07 $154.00 Jeff Simmons 329 7 -10 -07 $200.00 Jeff Simmons 335 7 -19 -07 $175.00 Jeff Simmons 353 8 -20 -07 $200.00 Jeff Simmons 359 9 -6 -07 $375.00 Jeff Simmons Total: $9,188.80 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 36 REC committee members. 140. Rochester Events Committee bank account records confirm that $9,188.80 in Committee funds were issued to KCS, as shown below: Key: DD = Direct Deposit TSFR= Transfer a. As reflected above, Simmons, an individual associated with KCS, issued all of the checks to KCS. b. Kislock did not sign any of the checks issued to KCS by Simmons. 1. Kislock was unaware that Committee funds were being utilized to make payments to KCS. 141. On November 17, 2007, Simmons opened an additional bank account (acct. no. )0)0(X6019) at National City in the name of the Rochester Events Committee. a. Simmons had sole signature authority over the Committee's finances and this account. Check # Check Date Check Amount Signed by 371 12 -30 -07 $50.00 Simmons 373 1 -10 -08 $100.00 Simmons Glenn, 08 -016 Page 37 142. Rochester Events Committee financial records maintained at National City reflect that the Committee received funding from various sources (i.e. businesses, individuals, etc.) a. Funding received from various sources totaled $5,302.27. b. Funding provided was in the form of a donation, not for services rendered. c. Simmons utilized account no. )0000(X6019 to make purchases of a personal nature. 143. Personal expenses authorized by Simmons to be made from account no. )0000(X6019 totaled a minimum of $2,495.15, which included purchases for the following: Pet Supplies Cash Fast Food /Restaurant Automobile Cellular Telecommunications Satellite TV Online Games Online Chat Pharmacy Items Engravings Insurance a. At the time Simmons authorized these personal expenses, he was maintaining residence with Glenn. b. The personal expenses outlined above are similar, and in some cases identical, to personal expenses made from the KCS bank account. 144. At least 47% of funds deposited into account no. )0000(X6019 were utilized for personal expenses. 145. Two checks issued from account no. )0000(X6019 were made out to KCS, as detailed below: 146. The Committee did not conduct formal meetings in which meeting minutes were taken. a. Committee meetings were informal and were usually conducted at households of those associated with the Committee. 147. The Committee did not put services out for public bid and /or obtain quotes. a. All decisions to make purchases from KCS were made by Glenn and Simmons. 148. No invoices were ever submitted by KCS to the Rochester Events Committee for Check Number Date Deposited 102 4 -22 -04 103 4 -27 -04 109 5 -21 -04 115 6 -10 -04 132 8 -17 -04 136 8 -30 -04 140 10 -20 -04 141 10 -25 -04 144 11 -12 -04 149 11 -17 -04 158 12 -27 -04 183 4 -14 -05 226 9 -1 -05 228 9 -20 -05 DD($2.00) 10 -3 -05 243 12 -12 -05 244 21 -21 -05 [sic] 255 3 -13 -05 274 7 -25 -06 TRSF 10 -13 -06 286 11 -25 -06 290 12 -26 -06 296 1 -2 -07 309 3 -26 -07 321 5 -16 -07 328 6 -28 -07 329 7 -10 -07 335 7 -19 -07 353 8 -20 -07 359 9 -6 -07 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 38 payment. 149. Payments issued to KCS totaling $9,188.80 by the Committee were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: 150. Concerts were occasionally held for the public at the Beaver County Times Riverfront Stage located in Rochester, PA. 151. In the fall of 2005, the Committee was involved in organizing the Count Basie Orchestra Concert to be held on September 17, 2005, in conjunction with Rivertown Productions Inc. a. The Committee was involved in preparing food and collecting fees associated with sponsoring the event. 152. Tickets were sold at various entities within the community including the Borough building. a. Ticket prices ranged from $5.00 to $35.00 depending on seat location. b. Check or credit card payments were accepted. 1. If a check was issued to pay for tickets, the check was to be made Name of Payee Amount Paid Transaction Date Post Date to KCS Account John Bandish $70.00 8 -18 -05 8 -22 -05 Barbara Stiefel $30.00 8 -18 -05 8 -22 -05 Noel Skapik $45.00 8 -18 -05 8 -22 -05 Laura Langett $70.00 8 -24 -05 8 -26 -05 Barbara McElhaney $30.00 8 -26 -05 Unknown Carol Greiner $30.00 8 -26 -05 Unknown Karen Wolf $20.00 8 -29 -05 Unknown Joan Emke $30.00 8 -29 -05 Unknown Valerie Swan $70.00 8 -29 -05 Unknown Jim Lawrence $30.00 8 -31 -05 9 -1 -05 Tony Mannerino $30.00 9 -2 -05 9 -7 -05 Mary Dorn $30.00 9 -4 -05 9 -7 -05 Jim Lawrence $30.00 9 -5 -05 9 -7 -05 Delbert Palmer $75.00 9 -5 -05 9 -7 -05 Judy Henderson $15.00 9 -6 -05 9 -8 -05 David Hershberger $30.00 9 -6 -05 9 -8 -05 Glen Godwin $30.00 9 -6 -05 Unknown Laura Betschart $45.00 9 -7 -05 9 -8 -05 Bob Lacour $30.00 9 -7 -05 9 -8 -05 Richard Snedden $30.00 9 -7 -05 9 -8 -05 Melissa Snodgrass $30.00 9 -8 -05 9 -9 -05 Judy Kokolif $30.00 9 -8 -05 9 -9 -05 Dorothy Negley $45.00 9 -8 -05 9 -9 -05 Karl Jackson $15.00 9 -8 -05 9 -9 -05 Dennis Weber $30.00 9 -9 -05 9 -12 -05 Carol Klingensmith $20.00 9 -12 -05 Unknown Williams Cornelius $60.00 9 -12 -05 9 -13 -05 Raymond Venezie $30.00 9 -12 -05 Unknown John Roethlisberger $30.00 9 -13 -05 9 -14 -05 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 39 payable to the Events Committee. 2. Credit card transactions were processed by KCS. 153. If a credit card was utilized to pay for a ticket, KCS issued an invoice and a receipt to the cardholder as documentation that payment was made regarding the Count Basie Concert. a. The KCS invoice indicated that "A local computer business is processing credit cards for us. Your statement will show charges to: Khitomer Computer Services." b. The receipt provided to payees identified KCS's Merchant ID# as 4458016000001675. 154. KCS bank statements confirm that numerous credit card payments processed by KCS were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority. 155. The following chart compares credit card invoices to direct deposits received by KCS identifying "458016000001675 MERCHANT SERVI." Diane Leneve $30.00 9 -13 -05 9 -14 -05 Joe Koval $70.00 9 -13 -05 9 -14 -05 Shari Barberine $30.00 9 -14 -05 9 -15 -05 Cynthia Newsome $20.00 9 -14 -05 9 -15 -05 Total: $1,210.00 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 40 a. As reflected by the above chart, invoices on file at the Borough confirm that of the $1,210.00 paid to KCS for concert tickets, $950.00 could be positively identified as being deposited into KCS's bank account. 156. KCS made no payment to the Rochester Events Committee in the amount of $950.00. 157. Glenn, as a public official, participated in actions resulting in funding being provided to the REC which was then used to issue payments to Glenn's business KCS totaling $10,138.80. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT AS NETWORK SUPERVISOR/IT DIRECTOR FOR THE ROCHESTER SCHOOL DISTRICT, GLENN USED HIS POSITION TO AUTHORIZE PURCHASES FROM KCS. 158. Glenn has been employed by the Rochester Area School District for approximately twenty years. a. Glenn served as the Network Supervisor from June 24, 2002, to 2006. 1. Glenn, as Network Supervisor, reported to De Marco, Technology Director, Rochester Area School District. b. Glenn became Technology Director after De Marco retired in the summer of 2006. c. Glenn is currently serving as Technology Director and Network Supervisor for Rochester Area School District. 159. Glenn, as Network Supervisor, is responsible for performing the following duties, as outlined by his district job description: a. Assists the Director of Information Systems in arranging and managing ongoing professional and community technology training programs; District, institutional and organizational visitations; presentations and demonstrations from vendors; Free Net Operations; and, the District's annual Family Technology Night. b. Assigns work duties and assignments to Network Technicians. c. Maintains an accurate and up -to -date inventory database of all District Technology assets. d. Serves as a "help desk" consultant to all District faculty, staff, and administration. e. Performs maintenance and repair to District technology hardware and software. Additionally, physically connects and administers all District computers and computer networks. This responsibility shall include, but not Glenn, 08 -016 Page 41 be limited to, the authority to write maintenance and repair Purchase Order Requests pending the written approval (signature) of the Director of Information Systems. f. Serves as Network Supervisor at the "root" access level for all District networks. Additionally, serves as the "Technical Contact" for all District registered domains and IP addresses. This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the authority to act as liaison between the District and the District's Internet Access Provider(s); and, to assign all district IP addresses in manner consistent with good network operating practices. In consultation with the Director of Information Systems, supervises and maintains all District network security measures (software /hardware firewalls) and network back -up (disaster recovery) functions. These responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, the authority to restrict network access (through means of software /hardware firewalls) to any individual(s) that violate District acceptable use policies or pose to be a "clear and present" threat to the security of the District's networks. These restrictions can occur at the terminal, LAN or WAN access level. h. Supervises and maintains all official District level World Wide Web pages, Usenet news connections and Internet /Intranet server operations including, but not limited to, District wide dial -up network connections. Supervises and maintains accurate and up -to -date database records of all network account holders. Additionally, assign and delete user network accounts and collect any fees that the District may charge to maintain an account on its networks. These duties also include overseeing the issuance of District wide photo identification cards and printing of the District's employee directory. j. In conjunction with the Director of Information Systems, maintains and updates the District's MIS Operations Handbook on an ongoing basis. k. Performs other duties as assigned by the Director of Information Systems. g. 160. The RSD utilizes the following process to make purchases: a. A District purchase requisition form must be completed by the individual requesting a product and /or service. 1. The name and address of the vendor must be indicated on the form. aa. The individual completing the form has the ability to recommend a vendor of [his or her] choice. 2. The product and /or service must be indicated on the form. b. The purchase requisition must be reviewed by the Department Director for approval. 1. Approval is indicated by the Department Director's signature on the purchase request. c. After [it is] approved by the Department Director, the requisition form is provided to the Business Manager for approval. Date of Form Company Requested Amount Form Completed by 1 -13 -03 KCS Not to exceed $200.00 Glenn 5 -5 -03 KCS $600.00 Glenn 8 -7 -03 KCS $1,629.99 Glenn 8 -7 -03 KCS $3,814.00 Glenn 8 -7 -03 KCS $2,314.00 Glenn 8 -7 -03 KCS $3,125.00 Glenn 8 -12 -03 KCS $2,000.00 De Marco 8 -18 -03 KCS $500.00 Glenn 3 -10 -04 KCS $695.00 Glenn Glenn, 08 -016 Page 42 1 Approval is granted by the Business Manager via his signature if enough funds are in the budget for the department making the request, and if the request appears to be reasonable. d. The Business Manager then forwards the requisition to the Superintendent for final approval. 1. Approval is indicated by the Superintendent via signature. 161. Glenn, as Network Supervisor, discussed services needed by the Technology Department with his supervisor De Marco. a. Glenn participated in discussions with De Marco in regards to what computer vendor should provide services needed by the District. b. Glenn participated in discussions with De Marco where it was determined that purchase requisitions would be made to obtain services from KCS. 162. Glenn completed eight purchase requisition forms between January 2003 and March 10, 2004, recommending that purchases be made from KCS totaling $14,877.00 *. *[sic]. [Per Fact Finding 163, the eight purchase requisition forms prepared by Respondent totaled $12,877.99, while the ninth purchase requisition form in the amount of $2,000.00 was prepared by De Marco.] a. A total [of nine] (9) requisition forms were submitted to make purchases from KCS. b. No bids were sought by Glenn from any other computer company. 163. Out of the nine purchase requisitions submitted by the Technology Department, Glenn recommended that his company be utilized eight times as a result of completing the requisitions, as shown below: a. By completing the forms, Glenn recommended that the District utilize KCS to complete approximately $14,877.99* worth of work. *[Per Fact Finding 163, the eight purchase requisition forms prepared by Respondent totaled $12,877.99, while the ninth purchase requisition form in the amount of $2,000.00 was prepared by De Marco.] 164. KCS was issued $16,637.87 in payments from the District, as shown below: Check # Check Date Check Amount 32095 1 -27 -03 $200.00 32282 2 -24 -03 $200.00 32745 5 -21 -03 $600.00 33279 8 -13 -03 $3,000.00 33615 9 -22 -03 $8,457.88 33874 10 -27 -03 $3,484.99 34723 3 -17 -04 $695.00 Total: $16,637.87 Check Number Date Deposited 32095 1 -30 -03 32282 2 -28 -03 32745 5 -23 -03 33279 8 -14 -03 33615 9 -24 -03 33874 10 -31 -03 34723 3 -18 -04 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 43 165. Payments issued to KCS by the District totaling $16,637.87 were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Glenn has signature authority on the following dates: 166. Glenn's use of his public position by participating in decisions to utilize KCS resulted in payments being issued to KCS totaling $16,651.87. a. Glenn completed purchase requisition requests totaling $14,877.99 *. *[sic]. [Per Fact Finding 163, the eight purchase requisition forms prepared by Respondent totaled $12,877.99, while the ninth purchase requisition form in the amount of $2,000.00 was prepared by De Marco.] 167. Records for KCS' bank account from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2007, document that deposits totaling $127,760.84 were received as a result of payments from the Rochester Borough, Rochester Area Digital District Authority, Rochester Community Network Authority, Rochester Events Committee, and Rochester Area School District, as shown below: Entity Income Rochester Borough $46,523.21 RADDA *$47,855.07 RCNA $6,605.89 Events Committee $10,138.80 School District $16,637.87 Total: $127,760.84 *This did not include $14,001.75 in payments made directly to Glenn which were deposited to his personal account. a. KCS deposits from sources other than those noted above totaled $121,565.85. b. Total deposit[s] of $249,326.69 ($127,760.84 + $121,565.85) were made to Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 06/26/03 Ck # 1959 Unknown (Check Not Available) ',399.70 - - ',6.24 06/27/03 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - $349.00 $342.76 06/27/03 POS Providian Payment 30.00 - 312.76 06/28/03 Ck # 1960 Khitomer Computer Services (Cash) 50.00 - 262.76 06/28/03 Ck # 1961 Kmart 27.55 - 235.21 06/28/03 Ck # 1962 Giant Eagle 46.94 - 188.27 06/29/03 Ck # 1963 Petsmart 56.32 - 131.95 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 05/06/04 Ck # 2249 Devon Mayhue ',25.00 - ',18.96 05/07/04 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - $495.60 514.56 05/07/04 POS Capital One 50.00 - 464.56 05/07/04 POS Capital One 30.00 - 434.56 05/08/04 Ck # 2251 Kmart 112.32 - 322.24 05/09/04 Ck # 2252 Brenckles 118.49 - 203.75 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 08/28/04 Ck # 2334 Dorothy Hartzell ',20.00 - - ',95.26 08/30/04 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $175.00 $79.74 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 44 the KCS account from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2007. 168. Records for KCS' bank account from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2007, document debits totaling $251,007.48, which included business and personal expenses. a. Debits were categorized as business and personal according to entities being paid, as shown below: Description of Expense Amount Business $120,008.78 Personal $130,998.70 Total: $251,007.48 169. Personal expenses made from the KCS account no. )0000(X5705, included the following: Grocery Credit Card Cash Department Stores COSTO Animal Clinics Pet Stores Lowes /Home Depot Fast Food American Idol 170. Deposits to KSC account no. )0000(X5705 from sources controlled by Glenn (RADDA, Rochester Borough, RCNA, REC) were often made at times when KCS account balances were low and deposits usually preceded debits from the account of a personal nature. Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 12/20/04 Ck # 2404 Beaver Animal Clinic ',79.52 - ',24.45 12/21/04 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - $1,779.20 1,803.65 12/21/04 POS Tech Data* 61.92 - 1,741.73 12/21/04 Ck # 2405 Khitomer Computer Services (Cash) 45.00 - 1,696.73 12/21/04 Ck # 2406 Khitomer Computer Services (Cash) 25.00 - 1,671.73 12/22/04 Ck # 2407 Brighton Ave Florist 108.00 - 1,563.73 12/23/04 Ck # 2408 Brittners 70.33 - 1,493.40 12/23/04 Ck # 2409 Khitomer Computer Services (Cash) 350.00 - 1,143.40 12/23/04 Ck # 2410 AAA 121.00 - 1,022.40 12/23/04 Ck # 2411 Wilsons 159.97 - 862.43 12/23/04 Ck # 2412 Kauffmans 199.96 - 742.47 12/23/04 Ck # 2413 Taste America Gifts 55.00 - 687.47 12/23/04 Ck # 2416 Boscovs 62.70 - 624.77 12/23/04 Ck # 2417 Walmart 314.18 - 310.59 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 01/19/07 EFT NSF Fee ',32.00 - ',12.45 01/19/07 EFT NSF Fee 32.00 - -19.55 01/22/07 Deposit Rochester Area Community Network Authority 117.31 $152.25 132.70 01/22/07 POS Home Depot 100.00 - 32.70 01/22/07 POS Giant Eagle 12.68 - 20.02 01/22/07 EFT NSF Fee 32.00 - -11.98 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 10/22/04 Ck # 2362 JC Amoroso ',41.40 - - ',24.45 10/22/04 Ck # 2363 Celebrate 24.74 - -49.19 10/24/04 Ck # 2364 Costco 117.31 - - 166.50 10/25/04 Deposit Rhea Pitzer - $70.00 -96.50 10/25/04 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $150.00 53.50 10/25/04 Ck # 2365 Devon Mayhue 25.00 - 28.50 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 11/24/06 POS Infotel Dist.* ',1,802.00 - - '458.94 11/24/06 POS Giant Eagle 81.74 - - 540.68 11/24/06 POS Sunoco 34.00 - - 574.68 11/24/06 POS Beaver Animal Clinic 30.79 - - 605.47 11/25/06 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $986.00 380.53 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 02/14/07 Deposit Rochester Area Digital District Authority 11.78 , 2, 675.00 , 3, 276.53 02/14/07 POS Paypal* $62.00 - 3,214.53 02/14/07 POS Giant Eagle 28.17 - 3,186.36 02/14/07 POS Amoco Oil 11.11 - 3,175.25 08/31/04 EFT Sky Bank 10.00 - 69.74 09/01/04 POS AOL 11.78 - 57.96 09/01/04 Ck # 2335 Devon Mayhue 25.00 - 32.96 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 45 *Business expense *Business expense Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 05/02/07 POS Merchant Service ',10.00 - ',83.81 05/04/07 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - $980.00 $1,063.81 05/04/07 POS Geico 23.00 - 1,040.81 05/07/07 POS Home Depot 391.00 - 649.81 05/07/07 POS Giant Eagle 119.00 - 530.81 05/07/07 POS Lowes 76.48 - 454.33 05/07/07 POS Autozone 42.38 - 411.95 05/07/07 POS Petsmart 35.68 - 376.27 05/07/07 POS Amoco Oil 29.63 - 346.64 05/07/07 POS Eckerd 15.76 - 330.88 05/07/07 POS Wendy's 15.01 - 315.87 05/07/07 POS Amoco Oil 9.63 - 306.24 05/07/07 POS Wendy's 2.11 - 304.13 05/07/07 Ck # 2686 Costco 50.35 - 253.78 05/08/07 POS Giant Eagle 6.50 - 247.28 05/08/07 POS Ign American Idol 4.97 - 242.31 05/08/07 POS Ign American Idol 1.99 - 240.32 05/08/07 Ck # 2687 Costco 58.67 - 181.65 05/09/07 POS DHL Express 7.29 - 174.36 05/09/07 POS Rome Inspirations 42.35 - 132.01 05/09/07 POS Amoco Oil 10.50 - 121.51 05/09/07 POS Internet Speedway 9.95 - 111.56 05/10/07 POS Giant Eagle 38.45 - 73.11 05/10/07 POS Giant Eagle 10.68 - 62.43 05/10/07 Ck # 2688 Precision Sign and Awning 42.27 - 20.16 05/11/07 POS Namesecure, Inc. 15.15 - 5.01 05/11/07 Ck # 2689 Rome Inspirations 42.35 - -37.34 05/11/07 Ck # 2690 Smallwood 127.08 - - 164.42 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 07/18/07 POS Giant Eagle ',8.47 - ',26.42 07/19/07 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $175.00 201.42 07/19/07 POS KFC 69.96 - 131.46 07/19/07 POS Eckerd 18.29 - 113.17 07/19/07 Ck # 2766 Costco 157.34 - -44.17 07/20/07 POS Amoco Oil 9.90 - -54.07 07/20/07 Ck # 2711 Costco 167.99 - - 222.06 07/22/07 Ck # 2712 Petsmart 22.26 - - 244.32 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 05/21/07 POS Amoco Oil ',9.62 - ',29.87 05/24/07 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - $93.00 122.87 05/29/07 POS Seenon 40.85 - 82.02 05/29/07 POS Amoco Oil 9.91 - 72.11 05/29/07 POS Wendy's 8.77 - 63.34 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 05/15/07 Ck # 2694 Ken Weister ',53.00 - - ',237.36 05/16/07 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $189.35 -48.01 05/16/07 Deposit Sisters of Saint Joseph - $350.00 301.99 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 46 02/16/07 POS Paypal* 2,331.97 843.28 *Unknown if business or personal expense Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 07/23/07 POS Amoco Oil 15.00 - - 259.32 07/24/07 Deposit Borough Of Rochester - 165.00 -94.32 07/24/07 Deposit Voluntary Action Center Of Beaver County, Inc. - $113.64 19.32 07/24/07 POS Dish Network 219.00 - - 199.68 07/24/07 EFT NSF Fee 32.00 - - 231.68 07/24/07 EFT NSF Fees 32.00 - - 263.68 07/25/07 Deposit Rochester Area Community Network Authority - $300.00 36.32 07/26/07 POS Wine and Spirits 21.19 - 15.13 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 09/05/07 EFT NSF Fee ',32.00 - -',399.29 09/06/07 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $375.00 24.99 Date Transaction Descri • tion Pa ment De • osit Balance 08/18/07 Ck # 2719 Renae Crider ',26.00 - ',- 200.39 08/20/07 Deposit Rochester Events Committee - $200.00 -0.39 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 47 171. Deposited monies from public funds account for 51% of all deposits into KCS accounts [$127,760.84 (public fund deposits — see finding no. 167) _ $249,326.69 (total deposits into KCS account — see finding no. 167) = 51 %]. a. Personal expenses paid from KCS bank accounts total $130,998.70 (see finding no. 168). 172. Private pecuniary benefit realized by KCS is $66,809.34; which was calculated by assessing 51 % of all personal expenses paid through KCS accounts, as being paid for from deposits originating from public funds [$130,998.70 (personal expenses) x 51 % (percentage of income derived from public funds) = $66,809.34]. 173. Glenn received $14,001.75 in payments from the RADDA which were deposited to his personal account. 174. Private pecuniary benefit for Glenn and KCS totals $80,811.09 [$66,809.34 + $14,001.75 = $80,811.09]. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE IN REGARDS TO GLENN'S FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FORMS AND /OR NOT FULLY DISCLOSING GLENN'S DIRECT SOURCE OF INCOME FROM KCS. 175. Glenn in his official capacity as Council Member of Rochester Borough was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually, containing information for the prior calendar year. a. Council members are annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms for completion. 176. On May 6, 2008, a Statement of Financial Interests compliance review was conducted for Rochester Borough. a. No Statement of Financial Interests forms for Glenn are on file with Rochester Borough for calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 177. During the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 when he failed to file Statements of Check Date Check No. Check Amount 12 -19 -03 24384 $53.90 9 -23 -05 1735274 $84.60 12 -30 -05 2117991 $84.61 Total: $223.11 Glenn, 08 -016 Page 48 Financial Interests, Glenn received payments from Rochester Borough for Councilman pay totaling $223.11. a. Glenn deposited the following Borough payments into his bank account for serving as a Council Member during the years that he did not file Statements of Financial Interests: b. At times, Council Members voluntarily performed their duties without receiving payment. 178. Glenn, as a Council Member, filed Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar years 2006 and 2007 as shown below: Calendar Year: Date filed: Position: Direct or indirect sources of income: Financial interest in any legal entity: Calendar Year: Date filed: Position: Direct or indirect sources of income: Office, Directorship, or employment: Position Held: 2006 3 -4 -07 on SEC form 01/07 Building Services Manager Rochester Area School District 540 Reno St., Rochester, PA 15074 Rochester Boro 300 West Park, Rochester, PA 15074 Khitomer Computer Services (owner) 2007 3 -31 -08 on SEC form 01/08 Building Services Manager Rochester Area School District 540 Reno St., Rochester, PA 15074 Rochester Boro 300 West Park, Rochester, PA 15074 Khitomer Computer Services Owner 179. Glenn failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interest filed for both 2006 and 2007 that a direct and /or indirect source of income was received from KCS in excess of $1,300. a. Glenn did not report his office, directorship, or employment in KCS on the Statement of Financial Interests he filed for the 2006 calendar year. b. Glenn did not report his financial interests in KCS for the 2007 calendar year filing. 180. Glenn in his official capacity as a member of the Rochester Area Digital District Authority was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually, containing information for the prior calendar year. a. No Statements of Financial Interests were on file for Glenn for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. 181. Glenn in his official capacity as a member of the Rochester Community Network Glenn, 08 -016 Page 49 Authority was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually, containing information for the prior calendar year. 182. Glenn, as a member of the Rochester Community Network Authority, failed to file Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. 183. Glenn in his official capacity as a Network Supervisor /Technology Director for Rochester Area School District was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually, containing information for the prior calendar year. a. District administrators are annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms for completion. b. No Statement of Financial Interests forms for Glenn are on file for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent Joseph Glenn, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Glenn," and "Glenn," has been a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Respondent Glenn violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), 1104(a), and 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act: I. When, as a member of Rochester Borough Council ( "Borough Council "): (1) He used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a business with which he is associated by participating in discussions and decisions of Borough Council to award contracts and /or direct business to Khitomer Computer Services ( "KCS "), a business with which he is associated, and when such contracts were in excess of $500.00 and awarded without an open and public process; (2) He participated in the issuance of payments to the business with which he is associated; (3) He failed to file Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years; and (4) He failed to disclose direct /indirect sources of income on SFIs filed for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years; II. When in his capacity as a member of the Rochester Community Network/Rochester Community Network Authority Board of Directors: (1) He used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or KCS by participating in the award of contracts and /or directing business to KCS, and when such contracts were in excess of $500.00 and awarded without an open and Glenn, 08 -016 Page 50 public process; (2) He participated in actions as a Board member to approve payments to KCS from Rochester Community Network/Rochester Community Network Authority accounts by signing checks as an authorized signatory; and (3) 65 Pa. C. S. § 1103(a). He failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007; III. When in his capacity as a member of the Rochester Area Digital District Authority: (1) He created accounts in the name of the Authority which he then utilized, as an authorized signatory over the accounts, to issue payments to KCS for services provided to the Authority; and (2) He failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004 with the Authority; and IV. When in his capacity as the Network Supervisor for Rochester Area School District: (1) He used the authority of his office to recommend KCS as the preferred vendor for computer related services to be supplied to Rochester Area School District; and (2) He failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 in his position; and V. When in his capacity as a member of Borough Council and the Rochester Area Digital Authority, he directed funds be issued to the Rochester Events Committee, which were then disbursed to his company, KCS. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family Glenn, 08 -016 Page 51 or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting: § 1103. Restricted activities (f) Contract. —No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official /public employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official /public employee or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the Statement of Financial Interests form must provide. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 52 Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the Statement of Financial Interests the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. We shall now summarize the facts pertaining to this case. Given Respondent's failure to file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint, the facts as averred by the Investigative Complaint are deemed admitted by Respondent. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e); 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k)(1). Background: Borough Council consists of seven Members. Respondent has served as a Member of Borough Council from at least 1999 to the present. Respondent served as President of Borough Council from February 7, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Respondent served as Chairman of Borough Council's Public Administration Committee from at least 2002 through 2004. Respondent also served as a Member of: (1) the Rochester Area Digital District Authority ( "RADDA ") from April 21, 2003 to the present; (2) the Rochester Community Network Authority ( "RCNA ") from December 19, 2005, to approximately December 30, 2007; and (3) the Rochester Events Committee ( "REC ") from 2004 to present. From at least the early 1990s to approximately 2003, Borough Council Committee Chairmen were provided with invoices that fell under their purview for review and signature of approval. Invoices related to building repairs or computer repairs were reviewed by the Public Administration Committee Chairman. Invoices were reviewed and signed by the Committee Chairmen prior to the vote of Borough Council to approve the bill lists. Those invoices provided to Committee Chairmen were listed on the monthly bill lists for approval by Borough Council. Respondent became President of Borough Council on February 7, 2005. In his capacity as Borough Council President, Respondent generated a memo dated December 20, 2005, to Borough staff, directing that no purchases be made without his authorization. Subsequent to Respondent issuing this directive, no purchases were made without Respondent's knowledge or consent. While Respondent was President, Borough Council rarely voted to approve bills for payment. Bills were paid whether or not Borough Council voted to approve them. Signature authority over Borough accounts was held by the Mayor, Council President, the Secretary /Treasurer, and the Borough Manager. Borough checks could be signed by any three of the four aforementioned individuals. During Respondent's tenure as Borough Council President, a facsimile stamp of Respondent's signature was maintained at the Borough. The stamp was not utilized without Respondent's authorization. In a private capacity, Respondent owns and operates KCS. KCS is a computer company that is operated out of Respondent's residence. An individual named Jeff Simmons ( "Simmons "), who is also affiliated with KCS, shares signature authority over KCS accounts with Respondent and shares a residence with Respondent. Between 2003 and 2007 Respondent used the authority of his public positions as a Borough Council Member, Borough Council President, and Member of the RADDA, RCNA, and REC to direct business to KCS and payments to KCS and himself. Respondent was Glenn, 08 -016 Page 53 the only Member of Borough Council with any computer expertise, and Borough Council followed his lead in any computer related purchases, including following his recommendations that KCS be utilized for Borough computer needs. Respondent controlled the Boards of the RADDA, RCNA, and REC and was able to direct purchases from KCS or direct that payments be made to KCS. Borough Payments to KCS: KCS was utilized by the Borough to provide computer services and equipment from at least September 7, 1999, to July 2, 2007. Respondent participated in Borough actions to utilize KCS for computer related repairs by participating in discussions regarding KCS, voting for the Borough to contract with KCS, and authorizing Borough checks to be issued to KCS. Respondent's use of his public position for the financial benefit of KCS included participating in Borough Council actions to authorize contracts with KCS, recommending KCS for contracts, voting to award contracts, and authorizing payments to be made to KCS. In 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007, KCS provided monthly maintenance service to the Borough. Borough records do not include any maintenance service agreements between KCS and the Borough. Borough Council meeting minutes do not document any monthly maintenance service being discussed or approved by a vote of Borough Council. The monthly maintenance service was never put out for public bid even though the service exceeded $500.00 each year. From May 2003 through January 2007, KCS submitted to the Borough eleven invoices that included monthly maintenance service charges totaling $4,050.00. In his capacity as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, Respondent approved six of the eleven invoices -- Invoices 719, 729, 739, 744, 775, and 789 - -for payment. In his capacity as a Borough Council Member, Respondent voted to approve five of the eleven invoices -- Invoices 719, 729, 762, 789, and 812 - -for payment. In his capacity as Borough Council President, Respondent signed the Borough checks -- checks 31380, 31511, and 31755 - -that were issued to KCS in payment of the other three invoices, Invoices 1005, 1017, and 1023. Respondent approved all eleven of the aforesaid KCS invoices for payment by the Borough by approving the invoices as Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, voting as a Borough Council Member to approve the bills to be paid, or authorizing checks to be issued to KCS in payment of the invoices. At the April 19, 2004, Borough Council meeting, Borough Council approved having KCS maintain the Borough's web site for a monthly fee of $125.00. The motion passed via a unanimous vote with Respondent voting to approve the motion. The contract was awarded to KCS without competitive bid. No other quotes were solicited or contractors considered. The decision to use KCS was based upon Respondent's recommendation. No invoices from KCS for web site services were on file with the Borough until 2006. For the seven -month period from January 2006 through July 2006, KCS charged the Borough a web site maintenance fee of $125.00 per month. For the five -month period of August 2006 through December 2006, KCS charged the Borough a web site maintenance fee of $155.00 per month, which was $30.00 per month more than the authorized fee. For the six -month period of January 2007 through June 2007, KCS charged the Borough a web site maintenance fee of $175.00 per month, which was $50.00 per month more then the authorized fee. All of these charges were included in KCS Invoices 1005, 1017, and 1023. These invoices were submitted during the time period when no purchases could be made without Respondent's authorization. Respondent signed the three Borough checks- - checks 31380, 31511, and 31755- -that were issued to pay KCS invoices 1005, 1017 and 1023. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 54 At the May 9, 2005, Borough Council meeting, Borough Council voted to approve the purchase of five computer systems and a server for $7,020.00. During Borough Council's review of the potential computer purchase, Respondent participated in the discussions and was in favor of KCS being utilized by the Borough. Respondent abstained from the vote. No company was identified as the vendor to provide the computers and server. No records exist that the computer and server purchases were publicly advertised for bid or that any bids were received. Borough check number 030745 dated May 3, 2005, in the amount of $7,050.00 was issued to KCS as payment for the computers and server. The check contained the signature stamp of Respondent. The check was issued six days before Borough Council voted to approve the purchase of the computers and server at a cost of $7,020.00. At the May 9, 2005, Borough Council meeting, Borough Council also voted to authorize KCS to complete a "wiring" project for the Borough at a cost of $6,135.75. The "wiring" was for connecting the aforesaid five computers and server as well as other equipment. During Borough Council's discussions regarding the wiring project, Respondent participated in the discussion and advocated that KCS be utilized by the Borough. No other companies were discussed or considered. KCS was selected to complete the project via a 6 -0 -1 vote. Respondent abstained from the vote. Although the meeting minutes reflect that KCS was the lowest bidder for the project, no documentation exists that any public bidding occurred or that the wiring project was advertised for bids. Borough check number 030743 dated May 3, 2005, in the amount of $6,135.75 was issued to KCS in payment of the wiring project. The check contained the stamped signature of Respondent. The check was issued six days before Borough Council voted to approve the project. The May 2005 bills were not approved at either the May 9, 2005, or June 2005 Borough Council meeting. KCS has been maintaining the Borough Police Department's computer equipment since at least the late 1990s. Borough Council did not vote to authorize KCS to perform any such services. No record exists that any purchases or service contracts were put out for bid. Either Chief Joe DeLuca ( "DeLuca ") or Officer Sam Piccinni ( "Piccini ") contacted Respondent when the Police Department was in need of computer services. DeLuca and Piccinni believed that KCS was providing services at no cost to the Borough. Beginning in 2003 and continuing until or about August 2007, KCS routinely invoiced the Borough for computer equipment and supplies. Some of the invoices included services provided to the Police Department. Some invoices were in excess of $500.00. No record exists of those purchases being put out for bid. Seventeen KCS invoices totaling $6,137.33 were on file with the Borough for services provided between May 22, 2003, and July 22, 2007, as outlined in Fact Finding 60. No record exists of any Borough official authorizing the services or equipment for which KCS invoiced the Borough. After December 2005, Respondent, in his capacity as Borough Council President, authorized all purchases made by the Borough. Two of the aforesaid 17 invoices were for amounts in excess of $500.00, specifically, Invoice 969 dated July 19, 2005, in the amount of $1,197.00 was for wireless equipment for police cruisers, and an unnumbered invoice dated June 19, 2006, in the amount of $1,528.00 was for two three -year extended warranties. Both of these invoices were paid without Borough Council's approval. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 55 Respondent voted to approve seven of the 17 KCS invoices -- specifically Invoices 714, 718, 736, 737, 1029, 1031, and 1035 - -which were submitted to Borough Council for approval as indicated in Fact Finding 63 b. At least nine of the remaining ten invoices were paid without Borough Council's approval. Fact Findings 63 -63 b. Respondent's signature appears on seven of the 12 Borough checks -- checks 31313, 31386, 31407, 31511, 31684, 31755, and 31809- -that were issued to pay KCS for services provided from May 22, 2003, to July 22, 2007. Checks signed by Respondent in payment to KCS totaled $7,268.20. All 12 payments were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Respondent has signature authority. During the time period of February 12, 2003, through May 22, 2007, the Borough issued 27 other checks totaling $28,757.98 to KCS for which no invoices exist. Fact Findings 66 -67. Respondent's signature appears on 16 of these checks. Only three of these 27 checks (check 29675 in the amount of $748.09, check 29739 in the amount of $150.00, and check 031715 in the amount of $93.00) were approved by Borough Council. Per Fact Finding 71, between May 2003 and May 2007, the Borough made payments to KCS totaling $46,523.21 that were authorized by Respondent. RADDA Payments to KCS and Respondent: On February 5, 2003, Respondent, in his capacity as an employee (Network Supervisor) of the Rochester Area School District ( "School District "), and Respondent's immediate supervisor, Robert De Marco ( "De Marco "), then the School District's Technology Director, were directed by the School District Board of Directors to meet with representatives of Borough Council to discuss the "Digital District initiative." A Digital District is an area that is selected and equipped to provide residents and communities with access to information technology and related training. At the time that Respondent and De Marco met with Borough Council, the School District was operating the Beaver County Community Technology Center ( "BCCTC "). The BCCTC was established to provide computer training to the community. De Marco was the School District official with oversight responsibilities for the operations of the BCCTC. At a March 17, 2003, meeting, Borough Council adopted Borough Resolution 3- 2003 to create the RADDA. The purpose of the RADDA was to foster high - technology business and workforce in Beaver County through education and development of appropriate facilities, telecommunications, and high -speed Internet access. Respondent participated in the unanimous vote of Borough Council to approve Resolution 3 -2003. Articles of Incorporation for the RADDA were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on or about May 15, 2003. The incorporators of the RADDA were Respondent and Borough citizens Tim LaHue ( "LaHue ") and Evelyn Reda ( "Reda "). A provision attached to the RADDA Articles of Incorporation states: "None of the assets of this Corporation shall at any time inure to the private benefit of any officer, director, or other person involved in its leadership, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of 501(c)(3) purposes." Fact Finding 76 c. On January 24, 2004, the School District Board of Directors authorized the transfer of assets of the BCCTC to the RADDA. The RADDA assumed all functions of the BCCTC. The RADDA was governed by a five - Member Board. Over the life of the RADDA, the Board of Directors met approximately five times. Board Meetings were informal. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 56 Respondent has served as a Member of the RADDA Board from April 21, 2003, to the present. Respondent served as President of the RADDA from at least May 22, 2003, to May 15, 2004. Initially, Reda was the Treasurer of the RADDA, but Respondent eventually replaced Reda with Del Oxley (also referred to herein as "Oxley ") as Treasurer. Signature authority over RADDA accounts was held by the President and Secretary /Treasurer. Both signatures were required on RADDA checks. Invoices issued to the RADDA for payment were not provided to Board Members for review. No bill list was generated for Board review. Bills regarding the expenditure of RADDA funds were not reviewed or approved by vote of the RADDA Board. No bidding or quote process was followed by the RADDA when making purchases. On or about June 1, 2004, Respondent, as RADDA President, applied for a U.S. Department of Education Community Technology Centers grant. Respondent requested $269,724.00 in federal funds to be provided to create the Rochester Area Community Technology Center ( "Community Technology Center "). The grant application required an assurance that the applicant would "establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or presents the appearance of personal or organizational conflict of interest, or personal gain." Fact Finding 86 a. Respondent signed the assurance section of the application on June 1, 2004, certifying that safeguards would be implemented to prohibit conflicts of interest. No such safeguards were ever implemented by Respondent. In the application Respondent identified three entities that would be involved in the creation of the Community Technology Center, specifically, the Borough, the School District, and KCS. Respondent did not identify his association with KCS in the application. The application included a May 27, 2004, letter from Simmons to the U.S. Department of Education. The letter from Simmons indicated that KCS would make an in- kind contribution to the Community Technology Center Project of professional services (computer repair and maintenance) valued at $20,000.00. On September 8, 2005, Respondent and RADDA Treasurer Oxley created a bank account for the RADDA at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank). The account number was )0000(X5395. Respondent, Oxley, and RADDA Vice President Linda McPherson ( "McPherson ") had signature authority over the account. McPherson played no role in any decisions of the RADDA. In mid to late 2005, the RADDA was awarded a U.S. Department of Education Community Technology Centers grant in the amount of $259,724.00. The U.S. Department of Education deposited the grant funds totaling $259,724.00 into RADDA's bank account beginning in October 2005 and ending in April 2007. Between October 13, 2005, and October 2, 2006, 17 RADDA checks totaling $45,010.97 were issued to KCS, as detailed in Fact Finding 93. Respondent signed all 17 of these checks. Respondent authorized payments to be issued to KCS from the U.S. Department of Education grant even though grant provisions prohibited such payments. Although Oxley's signature appears on all 17 of the aforesaid checks, Oxley was unaware that RADDA checks were being issued to KCS. Respondent maintained the RADDA check book, and no other RADDA Board Member had access to the checkbook. Respondent or his secretary provided Oxley with blank checks to sign. Respondent Glenn, 08 -016 Page 57 informed Oxley that checks issued from the RADDA account were for renovations to the Borough building. Respondent never informed Oxley that KCS was being paid. RADDA Board Members were never provided with any quotes from KCS, KCS invoices, or RADDA checks issued to KCS. RADDA Board Members did not discuss the use of KCS or the necessity of computer repairs /equipment. RADDA Board Members never voted to authorize any payments to KCS. Respondent never informed RADDA Board Members that he was making purchases from KCS. Board Members of RADDA did not know that RADDA funds were utilized to make purchases from KCS. Purchases from KCS were not approved by the RADDA Board. Only four KCS invoices were on file at the RADDA to document charges to the RADDA. These four invoices totaled $23,414.70 as set forth in Fact Finding 98. Bids or quotes were not obtained prior to purchases in excess of $500.00 being made from KCS by Respondent. No other vendors were considered prior to Respondent making purchases from KCS. The payments issued to KCS by the RADDA totaled $45,010.97 and were deposited into KCS's bank account over which Respondent has signature authority. In addition to the above, between October 31, 2005, and April 27, 2006, four RADDA checks (checks 310, 327, 341, and 366) totaling $14,001.75 were issued from the RADDA account directly to Respondent as set forth in Fact Finding 103. Respondent did not hold a position within the RADDA for which payment was required to be made. No invoices were ever submitted by Respondent documenting what services Respondent provided to warrant payment. Grant provisions prohibit anyone affiliated with the RADDA from profiting from the grant. None of the payments issued to Respondent were ever discussed or approved by the RADDA Board. All payments were authorized solely by Respondent. Respondent signed all of the checks issued to him. All of the RADDA checks issued to Respondent were deposited into his personal bank account over which he has signature authority. On October 28, 2005, Respondent established a RADDA payroll account at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank). The account number for the RADDA payroll account is )0000(X1291. Respondent and Oxley had signature authority over the RADDA payroll account. Two signatures were required on RADDA checks. In 2007 two payroll checks totaling $2,844.50 were issued to KCS for which no record exists of services provided. RADDA payroll check number 171 dated January 30, 2007, was issued to KCS in the amount of $169.50. The check was signed by Respondent. Oxley's name appears on the check as an authorized signatory. However, the signature on the check is not Oxley's. No invoice exists at the RADDA documenting services provided by KCS that would merit payment in the amount of $169.50. The payment was not approved by action of the RADDA Board. RADDA check number 171 was deposited into KCS's bank account for which Respondent has signature authority. RADDA payroll check number 172 dated February 14, 2007, in the amount of $2,675.00 was issued to KCS. The check was signed by Respondent. Oxley's name appears on the check as an authorized signatory. However, the signature on the check is not Oxley's. No invoice exists at the RADDA documenting services provided by KCS that would merit payment in the amount of $2,675.00. RADDA check number 172 was Glenn, 08 -016 Page 58 deposited into KCS's bank account for which Respondent has signature authority. Per Fact Findings 113 -113 a, in his official position, Respondent authorized payments from RADDA accounts to KCS and himself totaling $61,857.22; none of the aforesaid payments were authorized by the RADDA. RCNA Payments to KCS: The RCNA was created by authorization of Borough Council in December 2005. The RCNA Board of Directors consisted of five Members. Respondent served as a Member and President of the RCNA from December 19, 2005, to approximately December 30, 2007. Over the duration of the RCNA (December 2005 to December 2007), the Board of Directors met approximately five times. Meetings were informal. Invoices issued to the RCNA for payment were not provided to Board Members for review. No bill lists were generated for review by the Board. Bills regarding the expenditure of RCNA funds were not voted on for approval. Bids or quotes were not obtained by the RCNA prior to making purchases. Respondent determined how RCNA funds could be spent. Respondent, along with Simmons, made the bulk of decisions on how the RCNA would operate. Most decisions regarding any RCNA function or activity were made by Respondent. Signature authority over RCNA accounts was held by the President and Secretary /Treasurer. Both signatures were required on RCNA checks. Funding for the RCNA came in the form of payments from the RADDA. RADDA financial records confirm that nine RADDA checks totaling $8,117.95 were issued to the RCNA, as detailed in Fact Finding 125. Respondent's and Oxley's signatures appear on all nine checks. The payments to the RCNA were not authorized by a vote of the RADDA Board of Directors. Oxley was unaware of the purpose for the payments from the RADDA to the RCNA. Oxley signed checks at Respondent's direction. RADDA checks issued to the RCNA were deposited into RCNA's bank account maintained at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank). After Respondent directed that deposits be made from the RADDA account, 14 checks totaling $6,605.89 in RCNA funds were issued to KCS as set forth in Fact Finding 127. Respondent and Oxley signed 13 of these checks totaling $6,449.10. Simmons and Oxley signed the other RCNA check issued to KCS in the amount of $156.79, even though Simmons did not have signature authority over the account. Five of the aforesaid 14 checks were for amounts over $500.00. All 14 of the RCNA checks issued to KCS were deposited into KCS's bank account for which Respondent has signature authority. Oxley was unaware that RCNA checks were being issued to KCS. Oxley was not provided invoices detailing charges by KCS necessitating any payment to KCS. Respondent maintained the RCNA check book. Respondent or his secretary provided Oxley with blank checks to sign. Respondent informed Oxley that checks issued from the RCNA account were for renovations to the Borough building. Oxley signed checks only at Respondent's direction. Only two KCS invoices were on file at the RCNA, which invoices documented charges to the RCNA in the total amount of $1,570.20. One invoice dated April 28, 2006, in the amount of $1,003.00 was for police camera equipment and software. The other invoice dated May 9, 2006, in the amount of $567.20 was for print cartridges and printheads. Neither invoice was reviewed or approved for payment by a vote of the RCNA Board of Directors. Both payments were authorized solely by Respondent. Payments Glenn, 08 -016 Page 59 were made by RCNA check number 1099 in the amount of $1,003.00 issued on April 28, 2006, and check number 1103 in the amount of $567.20 issued on May 9, 2006. Respondent signed both checks. Oxley signed the checks at Respondent's direction. Bids or quotes were not obtained prior to purchases being made from KCS by Respondent. All purchases from KCS were authorized by Respondent in his capacity as RCNA Board President. RCNA Board Members did not discuss the use of KCS or the necessity of computer repairs /equipment. RCNA Board Members never saw any KCS invoices or RCNA checks issued to KCS. Funding of REC /Payments to KCS: Respondent has been a Member of the REC since at least 2004. The REC is an official committee of the Borough that was created at the suggestion of a group that included Respondent, Simmons, and others, for the purpose of organizing events for the Borough community, rehabilitating the local theater, and operating the cafe in the Borough building. Respondent served on the REC with Simmons (President), Marlene Kislock (Secretary), and Dorothy Hartzell (Member). On March 29, 2004, Simmons and Kislock opened a bank account for the REC at Sky Bank (now Huntington National Bank). Both Simmons and Kislock had signature authority over the account. No record exists of the Borough, RADDA and RCNA ever taking any action to authorize funding for the REC. Nevertheless, REC received $27,076.63 in funding from these public entities as follows: (1) from the Borough, $4,969.68; (2) from the RADDA, $19,434.45, paid by check numbers 304 and 315, both of which checks were signed by Respondent and Oxley as authorized signatories for the RADDA; and (3) from the RCNA, $2,672.50, paid by check numbers 1073, 1104, 1133, 1158, 1173, 1177, 1178, and 1181, all of which checks were signed by Respondent and Oxley as authorized signatories for the RCNA. Of the $27,076.63 in funding received by the REC from entities Respondent was affiliated with, $9,188.80 (approximately 34 %) was paid to KCS. Simmons, an individual associated with KCS, issued all of the checks to KCS. These payments were made without the knowledge and consent of other REC Members. The REC payments to KCS totaling $9,188.80 were deposited into KCS's bank account. On November 17, 2007, Simmons opened an additional bank account at National City Bank in the name of the REC. Simmons had sole signature authority over this account. Simmons utilized this account to make purchases of a personal nature totaling a minimum of $2,495.15. At the time Simmons authorized these personal expenses, he was maintaining residence with Respondent. Two checks issued from this account (checks 371 and 373) totaling $150.00 were made out to KCS and signed by Simmons. All decisions to make purchases from KCS were made by Respondent and Simmons. No invoices were ever submitted by KCS to the REC for payment. In the fall of 2005, the REC was involved in collecting fees for tickets to a concert that was to be held on September 17, 2005. Credit card transactions for such ticket purchases were processed by KCS. Of the $1,210.00 paid to KCS for the aforesaid concert tickets, $950.00 could be positively identified as being deposited into KCS's bank account. KCS made no payment to the REC in the amount of $950.00. Per Fact Finding 157, deemed admitted by Respondent, Respondent as a public official participated in actions resulting in funding being provided to the REC which was then used to issue payments to KCS totaling $10,138.80. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 60 School District Purchases from KCS: Respondent has been employed by the School District for approximately twenty years. From June 24, 2002, to 2006, Respondent served as the School District's Network Supervisor and reported to then School District Technology Director De Marco. Respondent's responsibilities as School District Network Supervisor detailed at Fact Findings 159 a -k included: performing maintenance and repair to School District technology hardware and software and physically connecting and administering all School District computers and computer networks, with authority to write maintenance and repair Purchase Order Requests pending the written approval of the Director of Information Systems; in consultation with the Director of Information Systems, supervising and maintaining all School District network security measures and network back -up functions; supervising and maintaining all official School District level World Wide Web pages, Usenet news connections and Internet /Intranet server operations including, but not limited to, District wide dial -up network connections; and collecting any fees that the School District might charge to maintain an account on its networks. The School District utilizes the following process to make purchases: A District purchase requisition form must be completed by the individual requesting a product and /or service. The name and address of the vendor must be indicated on the form. The individual completing the form has the ability to recommend a vendor of his or her choice. The product and /or service must be indicated on the form. The purchase requisition must be reviewed by the Department Director for approval. Approval is indicated by the Department Director's signature on the purchase request. Following approval by the Department Director, the requisition form is provided to the Business Manager for approval. Approval is granted by the Business Manager via his signature if enough funds are in the budget for the department making the request, and if the request appears to be reasonable. The Business Manager then forwards the requisition to the Superintendent for final approval. Approval is indicated by the Superintendent via signature. Respondent, as Network Supervisor, discussed services needed by the Technology Department with his supervisor, De Marco. Respondent participated in discussions with De Marco regarding what computer vendor should provide services needed by the School District. Respondent participated in discussions with De Marco in which it was determined that purchase requisitions would be made to obtain services from KCS. As detailed in Fact Findings 162 -166 a, between January 2003 and March 10, 2004, a total of nine purchase requisition forms were submitted by the Technology Department requesting purchases from KCS. Respondent completed eight of these purchase requisition forms, recommending purchases from KCS totaling approximately $12,877.99. De Marco completed the ninth purchase requisition form, recommending purchases from KCS totaling $2,000.00. Combined, the nine purchase requisition forms sought to utilize KCS to complete approximately $14,877.99 worth of work. KCS was issued $16,637.87 in payments from the School District, as set forth in Fact Finding 164. Per Fact Finding 166, deemed admitted by Respondent, Respondent's use of his public position with the School District by participating in decisions to utilize KCS resulted in payments being issued to KCS totaling $16,651.87. The Fact Findings do not indicate the reasons for the differences between the amounts set forth in Fact Findings 163 a, 164, and 166. Pecuniary Benefit to Respondent/KCS Records for KCS' bank account from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2007, document that deposits totaling $127,760.84 were received as a result of payments from Glenn, 08 -016 Page 61 the Borough, RADDA, RCNA, REC, and the School District. These deposits accounted for 51 % of all deposits into KCS accounts. Records for KCS' bank account from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2007, document debits totaling $251,007.48, which included business expenses in the amount of $120,008.78 and personal expenses in the amount of $130,998.70. Per Fact Finding 172, deemed admitted by Respondent, the pecuniary benefit realized by KCS was $66,809.34, which was calculated by assessing 51 % of all personal expenses paid through KCS accounts as being paid from deposits originating from the aforesaid public funds. Per Fact Findings 172 -174, deemed admitted by Respondent, the pecuniary benefit realized by Respondent and KCS totaled $80,811.09, calculated as $66,809.34 to KCS (see, Fact Finding 172) plus $14,001.75 received directly by Respondent from the RADDA. Respondent's SFIs: On May 6, 2008, an SFI compliance review was conducted for the Borough. No SFIs for Glenn were on file with the Borough for calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Respondent filed SFIs with the Borough for calendar years 2006 and 2007. Respondent failed to disclose KCS as a direct /indirect source of income in excess of $1,300.00 on his SFIs for calendar years 2006 and 2007. No SFIs were on file with the RADDA for Respondent for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. As a Member of the RCNA, Respondent failed to file SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. No SFIs are on file with the School District for Respondent for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we note that Respondent, through Counsel, has filed a faxed letter of July 14, 2009, asserting as to a non - specified authority that: (1) Respondent acted at all times with the complete knowledge of the authority and did not exercise any undue influence over any other member of that governmental body; (2) due to a limited time grant, the authority decided to purchase computers and related equipment without the delay of seeking bids; (3) the sales were for commercially reasonable amounts and the equipment was of excellent quality; and (4) when the authority lost its space at the Rochester Municipal Building, Respondent donated storage space for the equipment while he and other authority board members searched for a new affordable /suitable space, that this storage was done with the full knowledge and authorization of the authority, and that Respondent did have one of the computers set up at his residence to conduct authority business. The letter further states that Respondent contends he always acted with the best interests of the authority in mind and disputes any breach of fiduciary duty or any other duty. Respondent has not raised any factual or legal issues or defenses other than the aforesaid assertions. To the extent such assertions might have been relevant, they have no basis in the record before us and are merely unsupported assertions. We must now determine, based upon the record, whether the actions of Respondent Glenn violated 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. Commw. Ct. 1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must be based upon Glenn, 08 -016 Page 62 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). We initially determine that in each of his capacities as a Borough Council Member and Member of the RADDA, RCNA, and REC, Respondent has been a public official subject to the Ethics Act. We further determine that in his capacity as the Network Supervisor for the School District, Respondent has been a public employee subject to the Ethics Act. This conclusion is based upon Respondent's authority in that position to take or recommend official action of a non - ministerial nature with regard to contracting or procurement and other activity(ies) where the official action has an economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on the interests of any person. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102 (definition of "public employee "). With regard to the allegations of violations of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, the Fact Findings detail Respondent's uses of the authority of the various aforesaid positions for the private pecuniary benefit of KCS and /or himself. Respondent used the authority of his public office as a Member of Borough Council when he participated in discussions regarding KCS, voted for the Borough to contract with KCS, and authorized Borough checks to be issued to KCS. Respondent used the authority of his public office as a Member of Borough Council when: (1) during the time period under review, he approved for payment eleven KCS invoices totaling $4,050.00 for monthly maintenance service charges; (2) on April 19, 2004, he participated in the vote of Borough Council to have KCS maintain the Borough's web site for a monthly fee of $125.00; (3) he authorized the payment of KCS Invoices 1005, 1017 and 1023, thereby paying for such web site maintenance fees including fees that exceeded the amount authorized; (4) on May 9, 2005, he participated in discussions of Borough Council and advocated using KCS for the purchase of five computer systems and a server totaling $7,020.00, and for a related "wiring" project for an additional $6,135.75; (5) with Respondent's authority, his signature stamp was used on Borough checks issued to pay KCS for the aforesaid computer systems, server, and wiring project before Borough Council voted to approve such purchases /expenditures; (6) he authorized purchases from KCS totaling $6,137.33, voted to approve seven of the 17 invoices for such purchases, and signed seven of the 12 Borough checks used to pay for such purchases; and (7) he signed 16 of 27 Borough checks issued to KCS for which no invoices exist. Per Fact Finding 71, between May 2003 and May 2007, the Borough made payments to KCS totaling $46,523.21 that were authorized by Respondent. Respondent used the authority of his public office as a Member of the RADDA Board when: (1) on or about June 1, 2004, he applied for a U.S. Department of Education Community Technology Centers grant, listing KCS as an entity that would be involved in the creation of the proposed Community Technology Center, certifying that safeguards would be implemented to prohibit conflicts of interest, and failing to identify his association with KCS; (2) participated in the creation of a RADDA bank account into which the federal grant funds were deposited; (3) authorized and signed checks for payments from the account to KCS in the total amount of $45,010.97, when all of the other RADDA Board Members had no knowledge that such expenditures were being made and had not authorized such expenditures; (4) issued directly to himself additional RADDA checks totaling $14,001.75 without the authorization of the RADDA Board; (5) established a second RADDA bank account for payroll purposes and signed checks totaling $2,844.50 from that account to KCS without the authorization of the RADDA Board and with no record of any services having been provided; and (6) authorized nine RADDA checks totaling $8,117.95 to be issued to the RCNA without authority of the RADDA Board. Per Fact Glenn, 08 -016 Page 63 Findings 113 -113 a, in his official position, Respondent authorized payments from RADDA accounts to KCS and himself totaling $61,857.22; none of the aforesaid payments were authorized by the RADDA. After directing that deposits totaling $8,117.95 be made to the RCNA account from the RADDA account, Respondent used the authority of his public office as a Member of the Board of the RCNA when he signed 13 RCNA checks to KCS totaling $6,449.10 without such payments having been authorized by the RCNA Board. There were only two KCS invoices totaling $1,570.20 on file at the RCNA, which invoices were neither reviewed nor approved for payment by the RCNA Board. With regard to the REC, Respondent used the authority of his public offices as a Member of the RADDA and the RCNA (and possibly Borough Council) to provide funding to the REC, which funding was then used to issue payments to KCS totaling $9,188.80. All decisions to make REC purchases from KCS were made by Respondent and Simmons. Per Fact Finding 157, deemed admitted by Respondent, Respondent as a public official participated in actions resulting in funding being provided to the REC which was then used to issue payments to KCS totaling $10,138.80. Respondent used the authority of his public position as Network Supervisor for the School District when he participated in decisions to utilize KCS for purchases by the School District. Per Fact Finding 166, deemed admitted by Respondent, Respondent's use of his public position with the School District by participating in decisions to utilize KCS resulted in payments being issued to KCS totaling $16,651.87. Per Fact Findings 172 -174, deemed admitted by Respondent, the pecuniary benefit realized by Respondent and KCS totaled $80,811.09, calculated as $66,809.34 to KCS (see, Fact Finding 172) plus $14,001.75 received directly by Respondent from the RADDA. Under the unique facts of this case, we are not presented with mere isolated instances of conduct constituting a conflict of interest. Rather, the Fact Findings as deemed admitted by Respondent establish that Respondent engaged in an ongoing course of conduct, over a period of years, whereby he used his authority /control in multiple public positions to cause government /taxpayer funds to flow to KCS and himself. The flow of funds was significant, both collectively and individually as to each of the aforesaid governmental bodies. The pecuniary benefit realized by Respondent and KCS was a private pecuniary benefit in that there was no authorization in any applicable law that would have permitted Respondent to engage in such conduct as a public official /public employee for the pecuniary benefit of himself or his business. Based upon the above, we hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public offices as a Member of Borough Council, the RADDA, the RCNA, and the REC and his public employment position as the Network Supervisor of the School District, to recommend or award contracts to KCS, direct business to KCS, secure or direct the issuance of funds used for payments to KCS or himself, and /or issue payments to KCS or himself, for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or KCS, a business with which Respondent is associated, which private pecuniary benefit was in the total amount of $80,811.09. With regard to Section 1103(f), the Investigative Division seeks an Order finding that violations of Section 1103(f) occurred when contracts between KCS and Borough Council and contracts between KCS and RCNA that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. Position Statement of the Investigative Division, at 7 -8. The Fact Findings establish such violations. We initially note that in Kistler, Order 1441, we determined that the "open and public process" required by Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act necessitated a meaningful Glenn, 08 -016 Page 64 opportunity for competitive bidding. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania disagreed and reversed the Kistler Order. Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 958 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted this Commission's Petition for Allowance of Appeal, Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 972 A.2d 482, 2009 Pa. LEXIS 878 (2009), and the question of whether Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act requires competitive bidding is currently before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for decision. Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, Docket No. 59 MAP 2009. In the instant matter, as to some of the contracts at issue, not only was there no competitive bidding, but there was also no public discussion or vote to award the contracts. With regard to contracts between KCS and Borough Council, monthly maintenance service contracts were not put out for bid and, per the Borough Council meeting minutes, were not discussed or approved by a vote of Borough Council. We conclude that an open and public process was not observed as to those contracts. Additionally, as to KCS Invoice 969 dated July 19, 2005, in the amount of $1,197.00 for wireless equipment for police cruisers, and an unnumbered invoice dated June 19, 2006, in the amount of $1,528.00 for two three -year extended warranties, such invoices were for purchases in excess of $500.00. No record exists of these purchases being put out for bid or of any Borough official authorizing the services or equipment invoiced. Both invoices were paid without Borough Council's approval. We conclude that an open and public process was not observed as to these contracts. Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when contracts between Borough Council and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. With regard to contracts between KCS and RCNA, all purchases from KCS were authorized by Respondent in his capacity as RCNA Board President. Bids or quotes were not obtained prior to purchases being made from KCS by Respondent. RCNA Board Members did not discuss the use of KCS or the necessity of computer repairs /equipment. RCNA Board Members never saw any KCS invoices or RCNA checks issued to KCS. Five checks issued to KCS were for amounts in excess of $500.00. Only two KCS invoices were on file at the RCNA, which invoices documented charges to the RCNA in the total amount of $1,570.20. One invoice dated April 28, 2006, in the amount of $1,003.00 was for police camera equipment and software. The other invoice dated May 9, 2006, in the amount of $567.20 was for print cartridges and printheads. Neither invoice was reviewed or approved for payment by a vote of the RCNA Board of Directors. Both payments were authorized solely by Respondent. We determine that an open and public process was not observed as to the aforesaid contracts. We hold that a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when contracts between the RCNA and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. As for Respondent's SFIs, in applying the allegations to the Fact Findings, we hold as follows. Respondent violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Borough Council Member, failed to file SFIs with the Borough for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 65 Respondent violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose all direct /indirect sources of income on SFIs filed with the Borough for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years. Respondent violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Member of the RADDA, failed to file SFIs with the RADDA for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. Respondent violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Member of the RCNA, failed to file SFIs with the RCNA for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Respondent violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as the Network Supervisor of the School District, failed to file SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to require the payment of restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances, we determine that restitution is warranted as to the total private pecuniary benefit in the amount of $80,811.09 received in violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Accordingly, Respondent is directed to make payment of restitution in the amount of $80,811.09 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent is directed to file: SFIs with the Borough for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years; amended SFIs with the Borough for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years; SFIs with the RADDA for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004; SFIs with the RCNA for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007; and SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission for compliance verification purposes by no later than the thirtieth (30`") day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. In each of his capacities as: (a) a Member of Rochester Borough Council ( "Borough Council ") from at least 1999 to the present; (b) a Member of the Rochester Area Digital District Authority ( "RADDA ") from April 21, 2003 to the present; (c) a Member of the Rochester Community Network Authority ( "RCNA ") from December 19, 2005, to approximately December 30, 2007; and (d) a Member of the Rochester Events Committee ( "REC ") from 2004 to present, Joseph Glenn ( "Glenn ") has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. In his capacity as the Network Supervisor for the Rochester Area School District ( "School District ") from June 24, 2002, to 2006, Glenn has been a public employee subject to the Ethics Act. 3. Glenn violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public offices as a Member of Borough Council, the RADDA, the RCNA, and the REC and his public employment position as the Network Supervisor of the School District, to recommend or award contracts to Khitomer Computer Services ( "KCS "), direct business to KCS, secure or direct the issuance of funds used for payments to KCS or himself, and /or issue payments to KCS or himself, for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or KCS, a business Glenn, 08 -016 Page 66 with which Glenn is associated, which private pecuniary benefit was in the total amount of $80,811.09. 4. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts between Borough Council and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. 5. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts between the RCNA and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. 6. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Borough Council Member, failed to file SFIs with the Borough for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years. 7 Glenn violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1105(b)(5), when S he failed to disclose all direct /indirect sources of income on SFIs filed with the Borough for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 8. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Member of the RADDA, failed to file SFIs with the RADDA for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. 9. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Member of the RCNA, failed to file SFIs with the RCNA for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. 10. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as the Network Supervisor of the School District, failed to file SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. In Re: Joseph Glenn, Respondent ORDER NO. 1531 File Docket: 08 -016 Date Decided: 8/3/09 Date Mailed: 8/4/09 1 Joseph Glenn ( "Glenn ") violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public offices as a Member of Rochester Borough Council ( "Borough Council "), the Rochester Area Digital District Authority ( "RADDA "), the Rochester Community Network Authority ( "RCNA "), and the Rochester Events Committee ( "REC ") and his public employment position as the Network Supervisor of the Rochester Area School District ( "School District "), to recommend or award contracts to Khitomer Computer Services ( "KCS "), direct business to KCS, secure or direct the issuance of funds used for payments to KCS or himself, and /or issue payments to KCS or himself, for the private pecuniary benefit of Glenn and /or KCS, a business with which Glenn is associated, which private pecuniary benefit was in the total amount of $80,811.09. 2. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts between Borough Council and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. 3. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts between the RCNA and KCS that were valued in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process. 4. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Borough Council Member, failed to file SFIs with the Borough for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years. 5. Glenn violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1105(b)(5), when S he failed to disclose all direct /indirect sources of income on SFIs filed with the Borough for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 6. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Member of the RADDA, failed to file SFIs with the RADDA for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004. 7 Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as a Member of the RCNA, failed to file SFIs with the RCNA for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007. 8. Glenn violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), when he, as the Network Supervisor of the School District, failed to file SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. 9. Glenn is directed to make payment of restitution in the amount of $80,811.09 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order. Glenn, 08 -016 Page 68 10. To the extent he has not already done so, Glenn is directed to file: SFIs with the Borough for the 2003, 2004, and 2005 calendar years; amended SFIs with the Borough for the 2006 and 2007 calendar years; SFIs with the RADDA for calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004; SFIs with the RCNA for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007; and SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward copies of all such filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics commission for compliance verification purposes by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order. 11. Non - compliance with paragraph 9 or 10 of this Order will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair Commissioner Nicholas A. Colafella did not participate in this matter.