Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1535 NOELIn Re: Robert T. Noel, 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 Nicholas A. Colafella Mark Volk 08 -006 Order No. 1535 9/22/09 10/6/09 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was requested. A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Noel, 08 -006 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Robert Noel, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor for Reade Township, Clearfield County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1104(a), when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary benefit when he claimed hours and wages as both Township Roadmaster and Township Laborer during the same hours and when he participated in actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve payments issued to him; when he claimed and approved compensation to him for the position of road worker, a position he was not appointed to hold; and when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years. II. FINDINGS: 1. Robert Noel has served as a Supervisor for Reade Township, Cambria County, continuously from January 2004 to the present. a. Noel was officially appointed as a laborer for the Township from February 2, 2004, until December 31, 2004. 1. Noel was appointed to the position by the Board of Supervisors to work on an as- needed basis as determined by the Roadmaster. b. Noel served as township Roadmaster from March 7, 2005, until December 31, 2007. 1. Noel was appointed by the Board of Supervisors on March 7, 2005. c. Noel previously served as a Supervisor for the township from 1984 to 1990. 2. Reade Township is a 2nd class township governed by a three - member board of Supervisors. a. Supervisors currently receive $50.00 gross per meeting. 3. Voting at Reade Township 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. 4. Reade Township minutes include a listing of monthly bills to be approved for payment at the regular monthly meetings. a. Checks issued to pay the bills are normally generated and signed the day after the bill list is approved. 5. All three Supervisors and the Secretary /Treasurer hold signature authority over Reade Township accounts. a. Township checks are signed by the Secretary /Treasurer and one of the three Supervisors. b. Facsimile stamps are not utilized. 6. The Supervisors appoint an individual annually to serve as the township Roadmaster. Noel, 08 -006 Page 3 a. The appointment normally occurs at the re- organizational meeting held in January. b. In 2005 the appointment did not occur until March 7, 2005, due to the Board of Supervisors being unable to agree on an appointment. 7 At the January 3, 2005, re- organizational meeting, the Supervisors were unable to agree as to who should serve as Roadmaster. a. Both Supervisor Tom Hollis and Noel expressed interest in the position. 1. Neither Hollis nor Noel received a second regarding motions to appoint either individual as Roadmaster. b. No appointment was made at that time. 8. From January 2005 through February 2005 the position of Roadmaster for the township was vacant. a. The January 3, 2005, re- organizational meeting minutes reflect that Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes were appointed to the road crew. b. The Board determined that road workers Charles Mayes and Frank Mayes would decide what road related work needed done during the time period that the township was without a Roadmaster. 9. At the February 7, 2005, Supervisor meeting, Frank Mayes questioned the Supervisors if the $450.00 a month Roadmaster pay could be divided between him and Charles Mayes for the month of January 2005. a. Frank Mayes made the request due to the fact that he and Charles Mayes were performing Roadmaster related duties in addition to their road worker duties (i.e. scheduling what work to do, who should work, etc.). b. At the meeting the Supervisors decided that the Roadmaster wage should be divided between Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes for the month of January 2005. c. The supervisors also decided at the meeting that Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes should continue to act as Roadmaster for the month of February 2005. 10. Since at least 2005, the township Roadmaster was compensated at a rate of $450.00 a month for services performed in the capacity as Roadmaster. a. The Roadmaster compensation was established by the township Auditors each year. b. Minutes of auditor meetings for 2005 through 2007 confirm the following: January 4, 2005: January 4, 2006: January 4, 2007: Roadmaster wage set at $450.00 /month Roadmaster wage set at $450.00 /month Roadmaster salary to remain at $450.00 /month 11. At the March 7, 2005, meeting, Noel was appointed as the township's Roadmaster via a 2 -1 vote with Noel and Supervisor Tony Spanik voting aye and Hollis voting nay. Noel, 08 -006 Page 4 a. Noel made the motion to appoint himself as Roadmaster. 12. Following his appointment as Roadmaster, Noel began collecting the $450.00 /month salary as set by the auditors for the Roadmaster position. 13. Noel worked as a laborer for the Township beginning in January 2004 after he took office as a Township Supervisor. a. Noel was not appointed to the position by the Board of Supervisors but had been called out to work by the Township Roadmaster. b. The Board of Supervisors formally appointed Noel to the position of laborer during the Board meeting of February 2, 2004. c. The township Board of Auditors set the wage of Noel as a laborer at $6.50 /hour. 14. Noel was not reappointed as a laborer by the Board of Supervisors in 2005. a. Noel was not reappointed as a working supervisor due to his interest in the Roadmaster position. 15. At the January 4, 2005, Auditor Meeting, the auditors set Noel's wage as "part -time (as needed) road crew worker" at $6.50. 16. During the time period in January and February 2005 that Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes were acting as Roadmaster, Noel submitted timesheets to the Secretary /Treasurer for hours worked as a laborer for the road department. a. Noel was not officially appointed to this position by the Board of Supervisors. b. Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes did not call Noel out to do any road related work in January, February, or March 2005. c. Noel did not perform any work with Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes. 1. Noel decided what work he wanted to do and completed it on his own. 17. Reade Township utilizes timesheets in order to document work completed by the road crew. a. Sections are provided on the timesheets to report the following information: 1. The name of employee. 2. The date(s) that the employee worked. 3. The number of hours worked. 4. A description of the work completed. 18. A single timesheet is utilized to detail work performed in a single week. a. All road crew employee times and services provided are to be documented on one timesheet. Noel, 08 -006 Page 5 b. The timesheets are completed by the road crew employees. 19. The weekly timesheet is submitted to the Roadmaster for review after completion. a. Spaces are provided on the timesheets for the Roadmaster's signature and a Supervisor's signature. 1. Timesheet approval requires only one signature. b. Signing the timesheets indicates approval to pay the employees listed on the timesheets. 20. Timesheets are submitted to the Secretary /Treasurer after they are reviewed and signed by a township official so that payroll can be generated. a. The Roadmaster normally submits the timesheets to the Secretary /Treasurer. 21. Employee payroll is not listed on monthly bill lists for approval. a. Payroll is approved when the timesheets and pay checks are signed. 22. From January 2005 through February 2005, during the time period that Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes were serving as Roadmaster, Noel recorded and submitted timesheets including 182 hours for payment in his capacity as a laborer. 23. Noel approved his timesheets for payment in his capacity as Supervisor. 24. Noel signed all four of the checks issued to him as an authorized township signatory for his work during the period from January 2005 through February 2005. 25. Noel continued to submit hours for payment as a laborer subsequent to his appointment as Roadmaster in March 2005, and submitted hours for compensation as follows: a. Between the dates of March 7, 2005, and May 13, 2005, Noel submitted timesheets for 344 hours of work. b. Between May 16, 2005, and July 18, 2005, Noel submitted timesheets for 333 hours of work. 26. The 677 hours Noel submitted for compensation as a laborer during the period of March 7, 2005, through July 18, 2005, occurred while he simultaneously was compensated as the township Roadmaster. 27. Noel approved the dates and hours for payment in his dual position of Supervisor and Roadmaster. a. Noel received $1,981.55 (net) for the hours claimed between March 7, 2005, and May 14, 2005. b. Noel received $1,834.94 (net) for the hours claimed between May 15, 2005, and July 18, 2005. c. Noel signed 17 of the 19 checks issued to him as an authorized township signatory. Check Date Check No. Check Amount (Gross) Check Memo Section Check Signed By 3 -3 -05 2462 $450.00 Roadmaster for 3/05 Stacy Delfosse 6 -21 -05 2599 $450.00 April Roadmaster Stacy Delfosse, Robert Noel 5 -9 -05 2520 $450.00 Roadmaster Stacy Delfosse, Robert Noel 5 -26 -05 2554 $450.00 6 -05 Roadmaster Stacy Delfosse 7 -5 -05 2602 $450.00 July Roadmaster Stacy Delfosse Total: $2,250.00 Noel, 08 -006 Page 6 28. Noel was compensated as Roadmaster for the time period [of] March 2005 through July 2005, during the same time period when he was paid as Township roadworker. 29. From March 2005 through July 2005, Noel received five checks for duties performed as Roadmaster as detailed below: Noel signed two of the five checks issued to him as an authorized township signatory. 30. In or about May 2005, the Supervisors were cautioned by Solicitor Dennis Govachini via correspondence that Noel being compensated as Roadmaster and laborer may be a violation of the Ethics Act. a. Questions were being raised at township meetings in regards to Noel being dually compensated as Roadmaster and working supervisor, which led to Govachini's correspondence. b. Govachini's correspondence dated May 5, 2005, to the Supervisors indicated the following: "As you know, I also pointed out the case of R.H. v. State Ethics Commission. That case held that township Roadmaster salary of $5,200.00 per year contemplated actual physical labor such that timesheets showing that township Supervisors, who were also salaried Roadmasters, who performed physical road - related labor were not entitled to additional compensation for time relative to labor work performed." a. 31. On May 10, 2005, Govachini sent a follow -up letter to Noel detailing the following: "Dear Mr. Noel, As I indicated to the Board of Supervisors in Executive Session at the last meeting, there is a question as to whether or not you can be paid for your duties as a Roadmaster and also be paid an hourly rate when working as a laborer on roads, etc. As you know, there is a case that indicates that the duties of the Roadmaster include physical labor. That case is R.H. vs. State Ethics Commission 673 A.2d 1004 (1996), a copy of which is enclosed herein. As I understand, you are, in fact, receiving $450.00 per month as compensation as a roadmaster and, in addition, you are being paid at the rate of $6.50 per hour when working as a laborer. I believe that what has to be done is that this matter should be further checked into and, during the interim, you should not receive payment when you Noel, 08 -006 Page 7 perform work as a labor /equipment operator relative to the roads. The Auditors set the compensation for Supervisors employed as Roadmasters and laborers. They should explain what the salary of the Roadmaster, in fact, covers. Does it include labor as to roadwork, etc.? I believe that this question should also be addressed by the Board of Supervisors at a public meeting, i.e. what duties the Roadmaster position entails. Past practice could be utilized for reference purposes, etc. The question here is what duties does the $450.00 per month compensation of Roadmaster cover, and would it cover payment to a Roadmaster if the Roadmaster did, in fact, perform physical labor? As I understand, the past practice may have been that the salary set for the Roadmaster did not cover physical labor. In any event, I feel that this matter should be further considered, and I am writing that above so as to caution as to the entire matter. Very truly yours, Dennis Govachini" 32. In 2006 and 2007, Noel was appointed township Roadmaster and in those years was compensated only as Roadmaster. a. In 2006 and 2007, Noel did not submit timesheets for work performed as a laborer. 1. Noel recorded his hours related to road work which he maintained. 33. Noel "assumed" that the compensation he received as Roadmaster was for only making the day -to -day executive decisions, and not for completing labor. 34. As Roadmaster he called himself out to perform road related work as a working supervisor. 35. Noel received a total of $1,834.94 during the period from May 15, 2005, through July 18, 2005, after the Township Solicitor sent him a letter (May 10, 2005) advising that he could not collect compensation both as Roadmaster and Laborer. 36. Noel received a total of $1,350.00 in his position as Township Roadmaster (based on his salary of $450.00 per month) for the months of May through July inclusive. a. This was the period after the letter of the Township Solicitor. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS ARE IN REGARDS TO NOEL'S FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FORMS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2005 AND 2006. 37. Noel in his official capacity as Supervisor of Reade Township was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually containing information for the prior calendar year. a. The Supervisors are annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms for completion. Noel, 08 -006 Page 8 38. No Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005 and 2006 for Noel were on file with the township. 39. Noel asserts that he submitted his 2005 and 2006 SFI forms to the Commission, and that he maintains copies at his residence. 40. Noel provided copies of his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005 and 2006 with filing dates of January 15, 2006, and January 22, 2007, respectively. III. DISCUSSION: As a Supervisor for Reade Township ( "Township ") from January 2004 to the present, Respondent Robert T. Noel, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," Respondent Noel," and "Noel," has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Noel violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Township Supervisor, used the authority of his office for private pecuniary benefit: (1) when he claimed hours and wages as both Township Roadmaster and Township laborer during the same hours and when he participated in actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve payments issued to him; (2) when he claimed and approved compensation to him for the position of road worker, a position he was not appointed to hold; and (3) when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Noel, 08 -006 Page 9 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 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. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Respondent Noel has served as a Township Supervisor continuously from January 2004 to the present. Respondent previously served as a Township Supervisor from 1984 to 1990. The Township Board of Supervisors ( "Board ") consists of three Members. All three Township Supervisors and the Township Secretary/Treasurer hold signature authority over Township accounts. Township checks are signed by the Secretary /Treasurer and one of the three Supervisors. Respondent worked as a laborer for the Township beginning in January 2004, shortly before the Board formally appointed him to the position of laborer on February 2, 2004. Respondent officially served as a laborer for the Township on an as- needed basis from February 2, 2004, until December 31, 2004. The Township Board of Auditors set the wage of Respondent as a laborer at $6.50 per hour. The Supervisors appoint an individual annually to serve as Township Roadmaster. Since at least 2005, the Township Roadmaster has been compensated at the rate of $450.00 per month for services performed in the capacity as Roadmaster. In 2005 the appointment of the Township Roadmaster did not occur until March 7, 2005, because the Board was unable to agree on an appointment. From January 2005 through February 2005 the position was vacant. The Board determined that road workers Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes would decide what road - related work needed to be done during the time period that the Township was without a Roadmaster. At the January 4, 2005, Auditor Meeting, the auditors set Respondent's wage as "part -time (as needed) road crew worker" at $6.50. However, Respondent had not been reappointed as a laborer by the Board in 2005, due to Respondent's interest in serving as Roadmaster. In January and February 2005, while Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes were acting as Roadmaster, Respondent submitted timesheets to the Secretary /Treasurer for hours worked as a laborer for the road department. Respondent had not officially been reappointed to this position by the Board, and Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes had not called upon Respondent to do any road - related work. Respondent decided what work he wanted to do and completed it on his own. The Township utilizes weekly timesheets in order to document work completed by the road crew. Spaces are provided on the timesheets for the Roadmaster's signature and a Supervisor's signature. Timesheet approval requires only one signature. Signing the timesheets indicates approval to pay the employees listed on the timesheets. After the timesheets have been reviewed and signed by a Township official, they are submitted to Noel, 08 -006 Page 10 the Secretary /Treasurer for generation of payroll. The Roadmaster normally submits the timesheets to the Secretary /Treasurer. Employee payroll is not listed on monthly bill lists for approval. Payroll is approved when the timesheets and pay checks are signed. From January 2005 through February 2005, while Frank Mayes and Charles Mayes were serving as Roadmaster, Respondent recorded and submitted timesheets including 182 hours for payment in his capacity as a laborer. Respondent approved his own timesheets for payment in his capacity as a Supervisor. Respondent signed as an authorized Township signatory all four of the checks issued to him for his work during the period from January 2005 through February 2005. At the March 7, 2005, Board meeting, Respondent was appointed Township Roadmaster by a 2 -1 vote, with Respondent participating in the appointment. Respondent served as Township Roadmaster from March 7, 2005, until December 31, 2007. Following his appointment as Roadmaster in March 2005, Respondent began collecting the $450.00 per month salary for the Roadmaster position and also continued to submit hours for payment as a laborer. As Roadmaster, Respondent called himself out to perform road - related work as a working Supervisor. Between the dates of March 7, 2005, and May 13, 2005, Respondent submitted timesheets for 344 hours of work. Between May 16, 2005, and July 18, 2005, Respondent submitted timesheets for 333 hours of work. The 677 hours Respondent submitted for compensation as a laborer during the period of March 7, 2005, through July 18, 2005, occurred while Respondent simultaneously was compensated as Township Roadmaster. Respondent approved the dates and hours for payment in his dual position of Supervisor and Roadmaster. Respondent received $1,981.55 (net) for the hours claimed between March 7, 2005, and May 14, 2005. Respondent received $1,834.94 (net) for the hours claimed between May 15, 2005, and July 18, 2005. Respondent signed 17 of the 19 checks issued to him as an authorized Township signatory. From March 2005 through July 2005, Respondent received five Township checks (checks 2462, 2599, 2520, 2554, and 2602) in the amount of $450.00 each, totaling $2,250.00, for duties performed as Roadmaster as detailed in Fact Finding 29. Respondent signed two of the five checks (checks 2599 and 2520) issued to him as an authorized Township signatory. In or about May 2005, the Supervisors were cautioned by Solicitor Dennis Govachini ( "Govachini ") via correspondence dated May 5, 2005, that it might be a violation of the Ethics Act for Respondent to be compensated both as Roadmaster and as a laborer. Govachini's correspondence referenced the judicial decision in the case of R.H. v. State Ethics Commission, 673 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). On May 10, 2005, Govachini sent a follow -up letter to Respondent as detailed in Fact Finding 31, enclosing a copy of the aforesaid judicial decision. Govachini's letter to Respondent stated that the matter should be further considered, and that during such consideration, Respondent should not receive payment when performing work as a laborer /equipment operator relative to the roads. During the period from May 15, 2005, through July 18, 2005, Respondent received a total of $1,834.94. For the months of May 2005 through July 2005, Respondent received $1,350.00 as Township Roadmaster. As for Respondent's SF Is, no SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 were on file with the Township for Respondent. Respondent asserts that he submitted his 2005 and Noel, 08 -006 Page 11 2006 SFI forms to this Commission. Respondent has provided copies of his SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 with filing dates of January 15, 2006, and January 22, 2007, respectively. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred in relation to Noel's participation in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving as Township Roadmaster. b. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred in relation to Noel's receipt of compensation as a road worker at a time when he was not officially appointed to said position as the Board of Supervisors was aware of his work and his compensation had been fixed by the Township Board of Auditors as required by law. c. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a), occurred in relation to Noel's Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005 and 2006, as Noel provided copies of timely dated Statements of Financial Interests. 4. Noel agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,350.00 in settlement of this matter payable to Reade Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. The foregoing amount represents Noel's salary as Roadmaster, which he received after the Solicitor's advice had been issued to Noel. 5. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so Noel, 08 -006 Page 12 choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1 -2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred in relation to Noel's actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving as Township Roadmaster. The duties of a Township Roadmaster encompass performing work on the Township roads. 53 P.S. § 67302; cf., R.H. v. State Ethics Commission, supra. After being appointed Roadmaster in March 2005, Respondent not only collected the $450.00 per month salary for the Roadmaster position but he also continued to submit hours for payment as a laborer. Between the dates of March 7, 2005, and July 18, 2005, Respondent submitted timesheets for 677 hours of work as a laborer while simultaneously being compensated as Roadmaster. Respondent used the authority of office when he approved the dates and hours for payment in his dual position of Supervisor and Roadmaster. Respondent further used the authority of office when he signed as an authorized Township signatory 17 of the 19 checks issued to him. The resulting private pecuniary benefit consisted of dual compensation. Respondent continued to receive such dual compensation even after the Township Solicitor had advised against it through correspondence dated May 5, 2005, and May 10, 2005. Respondent received a total of $1,834.94 (net) for the hours claimed between May 15, 2005, and July 18, 2005. For the months of May 2005 through July 2005, Respondent received $1,350.00 as Township Roadmaster. Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent's actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving as Township Roadmaster. The parties have recommended a finding that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent's receipt of compensation as a road worker at a time when he was not officially appointed to said position. The reasons offered by the parties in support of the recommendation are that the Board was aware of Respondent's work, and Respondent's compensation had been fixed by the Township Board of Auditors as required by law. Although a disposition of this case potentially could have included a finding of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to such conduct, we recognize that when a Consent Agreement is negotiated, there is a give and take by both sides as part of the negotiation process. Therefore, we will consider the treatment of this particular Section 1103(a) allegation as a "non pros" by the Investigative Division. Accordingly, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent's receipt of compensation as a road worker at a time when he was not officially appointed to said position, based upon a non pros by the Investigative Division. Finally, we shall accept the parties' recommendation for a finding that no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent's SF's for calendar years 2005 and 2006, as Respondent provided copies of timely dated SFIs, and the Investigative Division is apparently satisfied that the forms were filed. As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the amount of $1,350.00 in settlement of this matter payable to Reade Township and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Noel, 08 -006 Page 13 We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Respondent is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,350.00 payable to Reade Township and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. As a Supervisor for Reade Township ( "Township ") from January 2004 to the present, Respondent Robert T. Noel ( "Noel ") 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. Noel violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving as Township Roadmaster. 3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Noel's receipt of compensation as a road worker at a time when he was not officially appointed to said position, based upon a non pros by the Investigative Division. 4. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in relation to Noel's Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for calendar years 2005 and 2006, as Noel provided copies of timely dated SF Is. In Re: Robert T. Noel, Respondent ORDER NO. 1535 File Docket: 08 -006 Date Decided: 9/22/09 Date Mailed: 10/6/09 1 Robert T. Noel ( "Noel "), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Reade Township ( "Township ") from January 2004 to the present, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his actions as a Township Supervisor to approve and issue payment for hours claimed as a Township road worker at the same time he was serving as Township Roadmaster. 2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Noel's receipt of compensation as a road worker at a time when he was not officially appointed to said position, based upon a non pros by the Investigative Division. 3. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in relation to Noel's Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for calendar years 2005 and 2006, as Noel provided copies of timely dated SFIs. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Noel is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,350.00 payable to Reade Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair