Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1541 Wright In Re: Matthew Wright, : File Docket: 07-100 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1541 : Date Decided: 12/15/09 : Date Mailed: 12/29/09 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella Mark Volk 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. Wright, 07-100 Page 2 I.ALLEGATIONS: That Matthew Wright, a public official in his capacity as a Member of the nd Pennsylvania House of Representatives representing the 142 District, Bucks County, violated Section 1103(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public office for a private pecuniary benefit including but not limited to utilizing staff, office space, equipment and materials of his Legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns; and when he used the authority of his public position for private pecuniary benefit by claiming expenses and being reimbursed for expenses not related to any official purposes of his Legislative Office. II.FINDINGS: nd 1. Matthew Wright served as the Representative for the 142 District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006. a. Wright’s District covered portions of Bucks County. 2. Members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are permitted to maintain District offices, in addition to offices at the Main Capitol. a. The Rules of the House of Representatives provide that allowable expenses include rent for legislative office space and equipment, including telephones and other office equipment. 3. Wright maintained a legislative District office at 760 North Woodbourne Road, Langhorne, PA 19047 for the entire time he served as a Representative for the nd 142 District. a. Equipment that was available for use in Wright’s District office included computers, telephones, fax machine and copier. b. A telephone number for the District office was 215-757-8538. c. The fax number for the District office was 215-757-8510. 4. Wright’s District office hours were normally 9:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. a. Wright’s District office also held office hours between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 5. Wright maintained an office in the Capitol which was also staffed at Room 415, Irvis Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120. a. Equipment available for use in Wright’s Capitol office included computers, telephones, fax machine and copier. b. The telephone number for the Capitol Office was 717-787-8581. 6. As a Representative, Wright was reimbursed for expenses incurred in relation to cellular telephone service utilized for Commonwealth business. a. Beginning in the mid-1990s, cellular phone service was provided by Verizon Wireless. This was in Wright’s name. Wright submitted the portion used for Commonwealth business for reimbursement. Wright, 07-100 Page 3 b. Wright was assigned the cell phone number of 215-805-8407. 7. Rules of the House of Representatives permit expenses for the hiring of administrative, clerical and professional personnel, except for the employment of spouses or any relative by blood or marriage. 8. While Wright was in office, individuals were hired for employment in his District office and Capitol Office. 9. Wright’s District and Capitol Offices were staffed by the following individuals who were identified as Legislative Aides: Lisa Deon Russell Kavana Harry Leonhauser Noelle Marconi Jason McEwen Georgianna Ramella William Rush Ann Hand Melinda Cole Scott Mitchell Jennifer Lee Winik Michael Dombroski, Sr. Christine N. Wright 10. Wright leased office space for use as a District office from John and Elaine Zettick at 760 N. Woodbourne, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047 from 1990 until December 31, 2006. 11. Matthew Wright initially entered into a lease agreement with John and Elaine Zettick for his District Office at 760 N. Woodbourne Road, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047 in December 1990. a. Wright entered into subsequent lease agreements with the Zetticks most recently in December 2004 and December 2005 for office space at the same address. 12. Wright entered into a recent lease with John and Elaine Zettick on December 9, 2004, for a term beginning on January 1, 2005, and ending on December 31, 2005. a. The description of the leased space included Office Suites AA and B. 1. Suite AA was rented for $679.00 per month while Suite B was rented for $607.00 per month. b. The total rent per month was $1286.00. 13. On or around December 1, 2005, Wright entered into a lease agreement with John and Elaine Zettick for a term beginning on January 1, 2006, and ending on December 31, 2006. a. Wright, through the Chief Clerk’s Office, was reimbursed for monthly payments of $1,320 totaling $15,844 for the lease during 2006. 14. From at least 2002 through 2006, office space, equipment, computer software and employees of both his District and Harrisburg Office were used in furtherance of Wright’s re-election campaigns. a. Legislative staff utilized the District office and equipment to coordinate election related activities, including receipt of campaign materials from vendors, making and receiving telephone calls related to campaign activities, Wright, 07-100 Page 4 storage of campaign literature on computer files, receipt of campaign contributions and nominating petitions. b. Staff from both Wright’s District and Harrisburg office arranged purchases, [met] vendors, update[d] lists of campaign contributors, schedule[d] fundraisers, circulate[d] nominating petitions, [and] accept[ed] and deliver[ed] campaign contributions related to his re-election efforts. 15. Wright did not rent or lease an office facility to serve as a campaign headquarters when running for re-election. a. Wright’s District office was utilized in furtherance of his campaign by his legislative staff for campaign related activities. 16. Wright utilized the following post office box address for the receipt of mail related to his various re-election campaigns. a. Wright for Representative PO Box 1134 Langhorne, PA 19047 17. Wright contracted with various vendors in the Bucks County area to perform campaign related work. 18. Some of the vendors utilized by Wright for campaign purposes included Levittown Printing, Inc., Compuprint, Jet Specialties, and Precision Marketing, Inc. 19. Contact with these vendors was initiated through Wright’s District office using the telephone and fax machine in the District office. 20. Wright contracted with Levittown Printing, Inc., 1433 Haines Road, Levittown, Pennsylvania, to provide campaign related material including brochures and other hand-outs for Wright’s re-election campaigns of 2002, 2004, and 2006. a. Some of Wright’s campaign work with Levittown Printing, Inc. was handled through Legislative Aide Lisa Deon at Wright’s District office in Langhorne by way of telephone. 1. The telephone communications occurred during normal work hours of Legislative Aide, Lisa Deon. b. Proofs of artwork for Wright’s campaign material were sent by Levittown Printing, Inc., to Wright’s District office. 21. Work orders were prepared by Levittown Printing, Inc. for each of the invoices sent to Wright. a. Work orders contained contact information including Wright’s District office telephone number of 215-757-8538 and fax number of 215-757-8510. b. Contacts between Levittown Printing, Inc. and Wright were done through e- mail or telephone. 1. Contacts were made through the District office, particularly legislative aide Lisa Deon. 2. The contacts occurred during Deon’s regular hours as a Wright, 07-100 Page 5 Commonwealth employee. 22. Quote no. 720683 dated September 22, 2004, was related to the production of solicitation letters and forms for Wright’s 2004 re-election. a. The quote issued to Wright was based on solicitation letters and receipt envelopes printed by Levittown Printing, Inc. b. Copies of printings were faxed from Wright’s District office fax machine to Levittown Printing, Inc. 1. The fax cover sheet was a House of Representatives cover page listing both Wright’s Harrisburg and Langhorne office addresses and telephone numbers. 23. Since September 2002, Levittown Printing, Inc. performed no less than nineteen (19) invoiced work orders, relating to campaign material, for Matthew Wright that identified either Matt Wright or Lisa Deon as a contact point at the District office telephone number (215-757-8538). a. Wright’s District office fax number 215-757-8538 was listed on all invoices. 24. John and Elaine Zettick were the owners of Jet Specialties Company with a business address also located at 760 N. Woodbourne Road, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047. a. The Zetticks were the owners of the building at 760 N. Woodbourne Road and leased office space to Matthew Wright for his District office in Suite AA. 25. Wright utilized Jet Specialties Company to produce campaign posters and yard signs in 2004 and 2006, related to Wright’s re-election. a. Lisa Deon placed some orders for campaign material. 1. Deon performed this function during her regular hours as a legislative aide in Wright’s District office. 2. Wright was aware that Deon was performing campaign related activities while at his Legislative District Office, during normal business hours. 26. Wright’s campaign material purchased from Jet Specialties Company was delivered, on at least one occasion, to Wright’s District office during normal business hours and was received by employees from Wright’s District office. a. As indicated on invoice number 56720, the campaign posters sold to Matthew Wright on September 23, 2004, were sold and shipped to Wright at his District office at 760 N. Woodbourne Road, Suite AA, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047. 27. Jet Specialties billed Matt Wright for campaign work in 2004 and 2006 as follows: Invoice Invoice Number Date Amount Description 56720 09/23/04 $ 924.80 Poster 28”x 28” Folded & Stapled to 14”x 28” 57076 04/18/06 $1,012.30 Wires for Above Wright, 07-100 Page 6 Price Adj. for sign Cancellation and Work 57164 09/06/06 $1,180.00 Poster 28”x 28” Folded & Stapled to 14”x 28” Wht. 57208 10/23/06 $1,620.27 Poster 28”x 28” Folded & Stapled to 14” x 28” Wht. Wires to fit above Poster 28. Jet Specialties invoice no. 56720 dated September 23, 2004, included the following: a. 500 posters $820.00 28” x 28” folded Poster Shipping $ 52.45 Tax $ 52.35 $924.80 b. Poster included the following: Re-elect Matthew Wright Dedicated to Honesty and Integrity The poster contained a disclaimer: Paid for by Wright for Representative, Thomas J. Proffy, III, Treasurer. c. The invoice also listed the items as sold to Matt Wright and contained Wright’s District office address of 760 N. Woodbourne Road, Suite AA, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19007-1370 as the shipping address. 29. Jet Invoice no. 57164 dated September 6, 2006, was addressed to Wright at his post office box address and included charges for re-election posters. a. 1000 28” x 28” posters. b. Cost $1,180.00 Shipping cost $ 140.70 Tax $ 79.24 $1,399.94 c. The poster contained the same information as listed on invoice no. 56720. d. The invoice listed a “ship to” address as 908 Longview Avenue, Langhorne. 30. When running for re-election between 2002 and 2006, Wright purchased letterhead and envelopes from Compuprint for use during the campaigns. a. Some arrangements for Wright’s campaign work completed by Compuprint were handled by Lisa Deon from Wright’s District office in Langhorne by way of telephone. b. The contact telephone number for Wright listed on the Compuprint invoices was Wright’s District office telephone number of 215-757-8538. c. Some campaign material provided by Compuprint to Wright was delivered to Wright’s District office during normal work hours and provided to either Wright or Lisa Deon. 31. Wright utilized Precision Marketing Inc. for the production of printing and mailing of campaign fundraising letters. Wright, 07-100 Page 7 a. Precision Marketing Inc. is a political consulting firm utilized for campaign related activities by some members of the Republican caucus. b. Precision Marketing produced a solicitation letter for Wright seeking donations for Wright’s 2004 re-election. c. The draft of the solicitation letter was produced on a computer in Wright’s District office and provided to Precision Marketing for production. 32. On April 2, 2004, Precision Marketing, Inc. billed Wright a total of $2,670.00 for the cost of printing and mailing campaign fundraising letters. a. Wright’s work order for the campaign expense from Precision Marketing, Inc. dated January 9, 2004, included a buyer’s fax number of 215-757-8510, Wright’s District office fax number. 33. Invoice number 2547, dated April 2, 2004, from Precision Marketing, Inc. billed Wright for Representative, P.O. Box 1134, Langhorne, PA 19047 in the amount of $2,670.00. a. Wright was billed for 3,982 fundraising letters. b. The fundraising letters for Wright had been saved on computer files maintained by aide Lisa Deon at Wright’s District office. 34. Fundraising events on behalf of Wright were held at various times from 2002 through 2006. a. The events were held to fund Wright’s campaign related expenses. b. The events were held in Bristol and Harrisburg. c. Arrangements for the events were made by employees of Wright’s Harrisburg and District office. 35. Ann Hand is a legislative aide employed by the Republican Caucus of the House of Representatives. a. Hand was assigned to Representative Matthew Wright from 1991 until the end of 2006. b. Hand worked out of Wright’s Harrisburg office located at Room 415, Irvis Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 36. Wright utilized Ann Hand to perform services in relation to his re-election campaigns including making arrangements and serving as the contact person for fundraising events held at Scott’s Grille, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 37. The schedule calendars for Scott’s Grille confirmed fundraiser events held for Matthew Wright from 2002 through 2006 as follows: Date Time Confirmation NameConfirmation Tel No. 03/26/02 8-9:30 Ann 787-8581 10/28/03 7:30-9 Ann 787-8581 06/08/04 8-9:30 Ann 787-8581 09/27/05 8-9:30 Ann 787-8581 Wright, 07-100 Page 8 04/26/06 8-9:30 Ann 787-8581 a. The contact confirmation person listed is Ann (Hand). b. The contact telephone number of 787-8581 was the telephone number of Wright’s Harrisburg office. 38. The events held at Scott’s Grille were breakfast fundraisers beginning at approximately 7:30 a.m. and concluding by approximately 9:00 a.m. 39. Ann Hand was employed as a Legislative Aide for Matthew Wright for the entire time Wright served as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. a. Hand’s normal work hours were 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. b. Hand’s duties in relation to the breakfast fundraisers [included] scheduling the events at Scott’s, planning the menu and serving as Wright’s contact person with Scott’s. 1. There was generally a fundraiser held each year at Scott’s Grille. 2. Hand would make all of the arrangements from Wright’s Harrisburg office location. 3. Hand would call Scott’s to set the dates and receive return calls at her office from Scott’s confirming dates and menus. 4. Wright was aware that Hand was performing campaign related activities while at and during the normal business hours of his Harrisburg Legislative Office. c. On her own time, Hand attended the breakfast fundraisers with duties of checking in guests and receiving envelopes that were campaign contributions. 1. If no campaign contribution was made at the breakfast fundraiser by the attendee, an envelope would occasionally be hand carried to Hand later in the day that would be dropped off at the Harrisburg Office during normal work hours. aa. Hand then would subsequently give these envelopes to Wright. 2. Out of a precaution, Hand adjusted her work hours on days of fundraisers by not taking a lunch. d. Hand scheduled and coordinated all five of the fundraisers held by Wright between March 26, 2002, and April 26, 2006. 40. Solicitation letters for the fundraisers held at Scott’s Grille were sent to lobbyists advising when the event was going to be held and the suggested donation. a. The solicitation letters were sent out by Wright’s staff. b. The suggested donation was $250.00. Wright, 07-100 Page 9 c. Each lobbyist was to RSVP Sheila at 717-231-3970. 1. Sheila was Sheila Flickinger, Finance Director of the House Republican Campaign Committee (HRCC). 2. No record exists of Wright making any arrangements with HRCC to handle the fundraisers held at Scott’s Grille. 41. The computers at Wright’s District office were on a network drive that contained the computer files for all of Wright’s employees. 42. Files from Wright’s shared network drive included a file name listed as Merger Lobby Letters. a. The file name was not listed under any individual’s name. 43. Wright’s Legislative Staff utilized the file to merge the names of lobbyists for solicitation letters Wright sent out pursuant to breakfast fundraisers at Scott’s Grille. a. The file was stored on a computer that was at Wright’s District office, which was utilized for both Legislative and re-election campaign work. 44. The information on the solicitation letter was [as] follows: April 17, 2001 Title FirstName LastName Address1 Address2 City, State ZIP Dear FirstName: Once again I come to you seeking your financial assistance in my reelection efforts. You have been very helpful to me in the past and I would hope that I can count on your continued support. I am now in my sixth term in the House of Representatives representing my nd constituents within the 142 Legislative District in Bucks County. My strength in the Republican Caucus and seniority has afforded me key positions on many important committees, such as Commerce and Economic Development, Insurance, Consumer Affairs, Tourism and Policy. These committees have far reaching impact on practically every individual and group within the Commonwealth. I am asking that you show your support for my reelection by joining me at my annual fundraising breakfast in Harrisburg. th TUESDAY, JUNE 5 8:00 AM – 9:30 AM SCOTT’S GRILL 212 LOCUST STREET DONATION $200 Please RSVP to Sheila at (717) 231-3970 confirming your attendance. Checks can be made payable to “Wright for Representative.” th Thank you for your continued support and hope to see you on June 5. Wright, 07-100 Page 10 Sincerely, Matthew N. Wright a. Wright was aware that legislative staff at his District office inserted the names of each lobbyist from lists of computer files that were stored on computers at the District office. b. Wright was aware that the forms were amended each year by changing the date of when the fundraiser was going to be held at Scott’s Grill and that an increase in the requested donation was made. 1. On the solicitation letters Wright sent out from 2003 through 2006 the requested donation was $250.00. c. Wright was aware that legislative staff used equipment and office space to make arrangements to send out the solicitation letters for fundraisers held for Wright as part of his re-election campaign. 45. Wright also held fundraisers in his legislative District between 2002 and 2006 utilizing King’s Caterers. 46. Fundraisers were held at King’s Caterers for Wright from 2002 through 2006 as indicated below: NUMBER OF DATE GUESTS TIME COST PER PERSON 06/27/02 118 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM $20.00 10/24/02 70 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM $20.00 10/23/03 120 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM $20.00 09/23/04 120 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM $20.00 03/02/05 100 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM $20.00 09/02/05 80 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM $20.00 02/16/06 75 5:30 PM to 7:30 PM $20.00 a. The cost per person is the amount King’s Caterers charged Wright for each person attending the event. 47. Contracts between King’s Caterers and Wright listed a contact address and phone number for Wright as: a. 760 North Woodbourne Road Langhorne, PA 19047 Work 215-757-8538 Fax 215-757-8510 b. The address, telephone number, and fax number for Wright’s District office was used to confirm reservations by attendees. 48. Some arrangements for the fundraisers at King’s Caterers were handled through Wright’s District office. 49. Wright filed Campaign Finance Reports with the Pennsylvania Department of State which reported contributions received and expenditures made, in relation to re- election campaigns between 2002 and 2006. Wright, 07-100 Page 11 50. Campaign Finance Reports filed by Matthew Wright, or on his behalf, detail expenditures for fundraisers held from 2002 through 2006: Name of Fundraiser Location Date Amount Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 03/28/02 $ 277.46 King’s Caterers Bristol 10/30/02 $2,000.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 10/29/03 $1,200.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 11/05/03 $ 339.46 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 06/14/04 $ 339.46 King’s Caterers Bristol 09/30/04 $2,000.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 03/14/05 $2,000.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 09/20/05 $ 339.44 King’s Caterers Bristol 09/28/05 $1,600.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 03/03/06 $1,650.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 05/02/06 $ 339.44 51. Wright received campaign contributions as a result of the fundraisers that were held at King’s Caterers and Scott’s Grille. a. Those contributions were reported on campaign finance reports submitted by Wright, or on his behalf. 52. Wright received campaign contributions as a result of fundraisers held at Scott’s Grille and King’s Caterers which were coordinated and organized by his staff, as follows: CALENDAR YEAR AMOUNT RECEIVED 2002 $1,525.00 2003 $1,000.00 2004 $1,625.00 2005 $2,435.00 2006 $2,500.00 TOTAL $9,085.00 a. The totals between 2002 and 2006 were $9,085.00. 1. The amount between January 2003 and 2006 was $7,560.00. 53. Wright also received campaign contributions from lobbyists as the result of fundraising letters that were generated by Wright, from computers assigned to Wright, at his District office. 54. Wright received a total of $23,550.00 in campaign contributions from no less than eighty-nine (89) lobbyists between March 25, 2002, and February 13, 2006, as the result of fundraising letters mailed at or about the same time fundraisers were held for Wright at Scott’s Grille between 2002 and 2006. a. From January 2003 through 2006 the total of these donations was $20,050.00. 55. Between January 2003 and October 2006 the total amount of campaign contributions Wright received as a result of the fundraisers organized and coordinated by his legislative staff was $27,610.00. a. This includes all contributions made on or about the time of fundraisers held Wright, 07-100 Page 12 at King’s Caterers and Scott’s Grille. 56. Campaign Finance Reports filed by Matthew Wright, or on his behalf, confirm expenditures for fundraisers held from 2002 through 2006: Name of Fundraiser Location Date Amount Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 03/28/02 $ 277.46 King’s Caterers Bristol 10/30/02 $ 2,000.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 10/29/03 $ 1,200.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 11/05/03 $ 339.46 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 06/14/04 $ 339.46 King’s Caterers Bristol 09/30/04 $ 2,000.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 03/14/05 $ 2,000.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 09/20/05 $ 339.44 King’s Caterers Bristol 09/28/05 $ 1,600.00 King’s Caterers Bristol 03/03/06 $ 1,650.00 Scott’s Grille Harrisburg 05/02/06 $ 339.44 Total $12,085.26 57. Computers were part of the office equipment that was assigned to Matthew Wright at his District office. a. Computers were assigned to Wright’s Legislative Aides and Wright. 58. Wright was aware that the computers at his District office were utilized to store campaign files related to the fundraisers and for preparing campaign related material. a. Wright was aware that Lisa Deon used the computers in Wright’s District office for campaign purposes. b. Wright was aware that Deon was performing campaign related activities while at and during the normal business hours of his Legislative District Office. 59. Files and Folders for Matthew Wright’s Legislative Aide Lisa Deon identified the following campaign material for Matthew Wright that was stored on her computer. a. Campaign 2002 Literature Matts envelopes Cawley request Ray Chapman Committee envelopes Committee People Committee People (alphabetical) Committee People (District) Committee People who obtained signatures Committee People circulation League of Women Voters Local Committee People Other circulators Petition flyer Petition thank you letter Petitions list Project Vote Smart Wright, 07-100 Page 13 Signature Matthew Wright Upper six X b. Campaign 2004 Petitions Signs Solicitation letters Support letters Envelopes for merger League of Women Voters Sample Republican Ballot Sample Republican Ballot What kind of Representative do you have in Harrisburg 60. Files from the computer of Legislative Aide Lisa Deon identified the draft of a solicitation letter for Wright in 2004 that was stored on her state computer at Wright’s District office as follows: Dear (Blank) It’s hard for me to believe that it has been 14 years since I first asked for nd your support for my campaign for State Representative from the 142 Legislative District. Since that time I have worked hard to be worthy of the trust that you and the voters of my District placed in me. Working together, I believe we have accomplished a lot. However, there is still more that needs to be done, that is why I am writing to again ask for your support as I run for my eighth term as State Representative. Whether its been working with county and local officials to preserve precious open spaces, to leading the fight in Harrisburg to finally get much needed property tax relief, I believe I have a record of accomplishments that we can all be proud of. However, make no mistake; although my record and constituent service are strong, the Democrats are going to mount a very serious challenge to attempt to defeat me. I have been told by many Democrat insiders that my seat will be “targeted” as a priority and my opponent will be extremely well-funded. That is where you come in. To put it simply, I need your help. Since it is clear that I am going to face a strong challenge, I need to know I can count on your [sic] for support. Your contribution of $25, $50 or $100 will go a long way in my ability to show broad based support in this campaign. In closing, I want to thank you for your strong support in the past and again ask you to continue that support. I look forward to seeing you out on the campaign trail. Sincerely, Matthew N. Wright Wright, 07-100 Page 14 P.S. Again, your $25, $50, $100 or any contribution you can make would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Paid For by Wright for Representative, Thomas J. Profy, III, Treasurer a. Deon drafted the letter for Wright, with Wright’s knowledge. b. Deon performed the task at her computer from Wright’s District office during her normal work hours. c. This solicitation letter was given to Precision Marketing, Inc. and was used for the printing and mailing to constituents of Wright. 61. Wright was aware that files from Wright’s District office computers included circulation letters mailed in 2004 requesting assistance with campaign nominating petitions that included the following: «Title» «First_Name» «Last_Name» «Address_1» «City» «State» «ZIP» Dear «First_Name»: Well, it is hard to believe that it is that time again, the time for you and I to run for re-election. I am asking your assistance in obtaining the signatures necessary to have my name placed on the ballot. I am enclosing my Nomination Petition for your use and ask that you circulate the petition and return it to me as soon as possible, the deadline to file in Harrisburg is Tuesday, February 17, 2004 and I would like to have at least 600 signatures later than Sunday, February 15, 2004! Please remember the following rules when obtaining signatures: 1. Only registered Republicans can sign our petitions. nd 2. Signers of the [sic] must live within the 142 legislative voting District. 3. Each signer must personally insert the information concerning residence, occupation and date of signing, listing their address exactly as it appears of [sic] their voter registration card. The date may be expressed in words or numbers; e.g. January 22, 2004 or 1/22/04. Female signers must use their given name, not Mrs. Do not use quotation marks as repeat marks. 4. Do not fill in the back of my petition until you have returned the petition to me. 5. Please be certain that the signer indicates their municipality in the City, Boro or Twp column not their mailing address. For example, if they live in Levittown it should indicate Middletown Twp not Levittown; or if they live in Trevose or Feasterville, they should indicate Lower Southampton Twp. Call me at 215-547-5731 or 215-805-8407 when you have the petitions completed so we can make arrangements for the required notarization. Thank you for your continued support. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me! Sincerely, Matthew N. Wright Wright, 07-100 Page 15 62. During the political campaigns Wright had campaign flyers produced identifying his accomplishments. a. Drafts of these flyers were produced by District office staff, who utilized the computers in Wright’s District office. 63. The following campaign flyer was stored on a computer file under Lisa Deon’s name on a computer at Wright’s District office: you know me and my record IT IS A MATTER OF TRUST! This has been a year of unprecedented negative campaigning and mud slinging! It is full of distortions and misinformation. I am asking you to look past these last minute negative attacks and look at me, the person who has worked for you for the past 12 years. Then ask yourself -Whom do you trust the most? Matt Wright’s Character: ? Works to help you with your personal needs through unmatched constituent service ? Fighting for you - putting taxpayers first ? Never plays partisan politics above real solutions to actual problems ? Committed to solving the problems of the community ? Refuses to stoop to negative personal and campaign attacks Matt Wright’s Proven Leadership: ? Taken the lead on tax reform solutions ? Increased state funds to Neshaminy schools every year ? Opposes a county wide reassessment - there are other ways to help our families and seniors ? Cut your state taxes ---7 times ? Cut wasteful state spending ? Expanded healthcare for seniors, children and adults Matt Wright’s Vision: ? Real tax reform without reassessment ? Greater taxpayer control over school spending ? Affordable prescriptions for seniors ? Control law suit abuse Look through the negative last minute attacks and decide whom you can trust. You can always trust Matt Wright! a. The campaign flyer was stored on a file under Lisa Deon’s name with Matt Wright’s knowledge and at his request. 64. Wright’s e-mail address while he was a State Representative was mwright@pahousegop.com. a. Wright communicated campaign strategies with his District office staff utilizing his Commonwealth e-mail address. 65. Wright had discussions with Lisa Deon regarding campaign material including e- mails from his e-mail address while he was a state representative. The substance of these e-mails is as follows: Wright, 07-100 Page 16 -February 1, 2006, 10:41 AM Wright to Deon: I was thinking about sending this out to my mailing list. Any thoughts? -February 1, 2006, 10:44 AM Deon to Wright: This is a campaign related matter. -February 1, 2006, 10:47 AM Wright to Deon: Yes, but what do you think? 66. The letter Wright referred to in his e-mail outlined in Finding no. 65 contained the following: Dear Supporter, I am taking this opportunity to thank you for your support over the years and am announcing that I am seeking re-election to the House of nd Representatives for the 142 District! Having faced many serious and complex issues over the past 15 years, my dedication and commitment to the residents of my District and Lower Bucks County has never ceased. My fiscal conservatives and attention to budgetary issues helped keep the state on a solid track with balanced budgets. While needing only one tax increase in 15 years. Business taxes are lower now than when I was first elected! I have received many awards by statewide business groups for my efforts on economic development and job growth. Healthcare has been especially important to me. Though my efforts, many new healthcare initiatives have been developed including PACENET, CHIP, ADULT BASIC, medical malpractice reforms and small group insurance products. Education reforms, school tax fairness and increased state subsidies to our schools are key agenda issues to me. But above all, I am most proud of my tireless commitment to the needs of our community and resolving individual’s personal problems. This year has been a challenging year for Republicans in general and an especially difficult one for me. My seat will be fiercely contested. I will need your help in my re-election efforts more than ever! Please consider assisting me by volunteering or contributing to my re-election campaign. Thank you. Sincerely, Matt Wright 67. In or about February 2006, Lisa Deon contacted by e-mail Amy Schreiber-Druce, Field Coordinator with District Operations for the House Republican Caucus, with concerns about performing campaign work while on State time for Wright. a. Schreiber-Druce provides outreach services for legislative offices including Wright’s District office. b. Deon informed Schreiber-Druce that Wright was assigning her campaign work and inquired if such non-Commonwealth work was part of her job. c. Schreiber-Druce contacted Deon and informed her that Deon’s concerns would be relayed to the House Republican Leadership. Wright, 07-100 Page 17 68. In preparation for the election for 2004, Deon created sample ballots that were made available to potential voters. a. Deon maintained the sample ballot on computers in Wright’s District office. 69. The following sample ballot for the 2004 election was kept on computer files in Wright’s District office. SAMPLE REPUBLICAN BALLOT Office/Name Lever Number President 1B George W. BUSH US Senate 2B Arlen SPECTER PA Attorney General 3B Tom CORBETT PA Auditor General 4B Joe PETERS PA State Treasurer 5B Jean Craige PEPPER Representative in Congress 6B Michael G. FITZPATRICK Representative in General Assembly 7B Matthew N. WRIGHT a. Wright’s name was listed on the sample ballot along with other Republican officials seeking state and federal offices. 70. On May 30, 2003, the House Republican Caucus entered into an agreement with Aristotle, Inc. referred to as the Constituent Service License Agreement. a. The agreement was a computer software program that was designed for handling constituent mail and casework tracking. b. The initial agreement entered into between the House Republican Caucus and Aristotle, Inc. was at a cost of $55,000. c. Amendments were made to the initial agreement in 2006 at which time Aristotle, Inc. was paid $1,870,000 by the House Republican Caucus. 71. The initial agreement made between the House Republican Caucus and Aristotle, Inc. included in part the following: a. Each District in the state will be created with its own database. Each database will be populated with data provided by the caucus. b. The databases for each District will be accessible to the caucus authorized staff. c. Each representative and their designated staff will have access to the database for their individual District only. Wright, 07-100 Page 18 d. Aristotle will work with the caucus authorized staff to manage logins and passwords. e. The caucus will provide the necessary staff to provide for the proper editing of the address lists for all Districts so that all Districts will be properly loaded and ready for use in the elections. f. The caucus will provide for all data to be uploaded [into] the District files and address files. g. If data is to be stored on caucus servers in the caucus server rooms then Aristotle will have direct access to that data for use in updating and maintaining proper status of the database. h. If data is to be stored on Aristotle servers, Aristotle will take steps necessary to ensure proper security of the database. 72. The agreement between Aristotle and the House Republican Caucus included enhancements involving Addition of New Voters and Updated Full Voter List. a. Addition of New Votes 1. The caucus will provide a list on a regular basis of updated voters. This list will include full voter information as well as a status flag indicating if the new record is an “Add” a “Change” or a “Deletion.” 2. The “Add” records will be processed in a manner that will check the address against the address list. If the address is in the address list, the record will be added into the list. 3. If the “Add” record contains an address that is not in the address list, the record will be flagged and reported on as an exception. 4. If the “Change” record contains an address that is in the address list, but is not in the current master file, the record will be added and treated as an “Add.” 5. If the “Change” record contains an address that is not in the address list and is not in the current master file, the record will be treated as an “Add” record as defined above. 6. If the “Change” record contains data that is in the address list and in the current master file, the record will be matched against the master file and the appropriate data points will be updated. No allowance will be made for Fast-forward flags. 7. If the “Delete” record is in the database then the record will be deleted from the master file, but the master address will be maintained. 8. If the “Delete” record is not in the database then the record will not be processed beyond being identified as an exception record and reported on as such. b. Updated Full Voter List Wright, 07-100 Page 19 1. The Caucus will provide to Aristotle, on a regular basis, the full updated list of Pennsylvania voters to be loaded into the system. These records will be processed in the same manner as listed above in the Addition of New Voters section and treated as “Change” data. 2. Only data that falls into selected ward/precincts will be imported/ compared. 73. Legislative Staff for Wright used the computer software program from Aristotle for tracking constituent information as part of Wright’s campaigns for re-election in 2004 and 2006. a. Wright was aware that legislative aide William Rush used the Aristotle software for campaign purposes. 74. William Rush was employed as a Legislative Aide for Matthew Wright at his District office from 1996 until 2006. a. Rush worked on a part-time basis for Wright approximately 23 hours per week. 1. Rush worked normally 4 days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. b. Rush updated mailing lists of campaign contributors to Wright from the Master List that was compiled from information that was part of the computer software program designed by Aristotle. 1. Rush would make the changes from his computer at the District office based on information provided to him by Wright. 2. Wright was aware of what Rush was doing and did not direct that Rush stop updating the list of contributors. c. Rush also used his computer at the District office to update lists of lobbyist[s] who had previously made campaign contributions to Wright. 75.On occasion,the District and Harrisburg office were used as a conduit to receive campaign contributions. a. Wright had campaign contributions delivered and mailed to Wright’s District and Harrisburg Offices. b. Some contributions to attend fundraisers held at Scott’s were delivered to Wright’s Harrisburg Office and received by Wright and/or his staff. 76. Wright received campaign contributions in 2006 that were sent to his District office and addressed as follows: a. Friends of Matt Wright 760 N. Woodbourne Road Langhorne, PA 19047 b. On October 10, 2006, a campaign contribution was made to Wright in the amount of $1,000.00 on Check # 542 from an account of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania with Commerce Bank. 1. The check was sent to Wright’s District office address listed above. Wright, 07-100 Page 20 c. On October 2, 2006, a campaign contribution made payable to Wright in the amount of $100.00 on Check # 2066 from an account of Robert White with First Service Bank was received at the District office. 77. Wright also received at least one campaign contribution at his Harrisburg office located at the Main Capitol. a. On September 2, 2005, a campaign contribution was made to Wright in the amount of $250.00 on Check # 4529 from an account of Len Keller with Wachovia Bank at the following location: 1. Re-Elect Matt Wright Comm. #142 Dist. South Office Bldg. Harrisburg, PA 17120 2. The location where the check was sent was Wright’s Harrisburg office. b. Other contributions may have been delivered to Wright’s Harrisburg office for attendance at the Scott’s fundraisers. 78. During the 2004 and 2006 elections, Wright never leased outside space to conduct campaign related business. 79. Wright’s monthly rent to lease out office space for his District office from 2002 through 2006 was as follows: Year Amount 2002 $1,160.00 2003 $1,253.00 2004 $1,253.00 2005 $1,286.00 2006 $1,320.00 80. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain when he allowed the use of his District and Harrisburg office for his re-election campaigns in 2004 and 2006. Wright did not have a primary opponent in 2004. 81. Members of [the] Pennsylvania House of Representative[s] have received notices from House Parliamentarian Clancy Myer, advising that campaign related activities were not to be conducted from either the District or Harrisburg Offices. a. On March 8, 2004, House Parliamentarian Clancy Myer issued a memo to House members regarding the use of facilities and/or employees as follows: “As a reminder, since we are in the election season, please be certain campaign related activities are not conducted in your District office (nor Harrisburg office), and any campaign assistance provided by your employees should be done during non-work hours, and only if they volunteer to do so.” b. The notice was sent to all House members including Wright. 82. Even though Wright and his staff received specific cautions not to use his offices and staff for campaign purposes, he allowed his staff to coordinate fundraisers, use Wright, 07-100 Page 21 his District office computers to generate campaign material and receive campaign documents and allowed the use of both offices to solicit and receive campaign contributions. 83. Wright allowed his legislative staff, legislative District office and equipment, and capitol office and equipment, to perform non-legislative campaign related roles during the elections of 2002, 2004 and 2006. a. Wright allowed the use of his District and Harrisburg office telephones to arrange campaign fundraisers and order and confirm campaign materials. b. Wright allowed the use of his District office fax machine for receiving campaign material from different vendors. c. Wright allowed the use of his District office computers to prepare campaign solicitation letters, campaign flyers, updating lists of campaign contributors, circulating nominating petition letters, e-mail and sample ballots. d. Wright allowed the use of legislative software for campaign purposes. e. Wright allowed the use of the District and Harrisburg offices to receive campaign contributions. f. Wright allowed the use of his District office address as a billing address for campaign expenditures. g. Wright allowed his District and Harrisburg staff to make arrangements for campaign fundraisers as well as ordering and receiving campaign material. 84. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain when he allowed the use of staff, office space, equipment and materials for non-legislative campaign related functions to further his re-election campaigns in the years 2002, 2004 and 2006. a. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign contributions made to Wright as the result of solicitation letters he allowed to be prepared from District office computers by legislative staff and lists generated from computer software designed for legislative business. b. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign fundraisers held in Harrisburg and Bristol based upon arrangements he allowed to be made by legislative staff and equipment. c. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign contributions that he allowed to be either delivered or sent to Wright’s District and Harrisburg office. d. Wright realized a private pecuniary benefit from the use of his District office for campaign purposes. III.DISCUSSION: nd As the Representative for the 142 District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006, Respondent Matthew Wright (hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Wright,” and “Wright”) 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. Wright, 07-100 Page 22 The allegations are that Respondent Wright violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his public office for a private pecuniary benefit including but not limited to utilizing staff, office space, equipment and materials of his Legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns; and (2) when he used the authority of his public position for private pecuniary benefit by claiming expenses and being reimbursed for expenses not related to any official purposes of his Legislative Office. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a)Conflict of interest.— No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 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. nd Respondent Wright served as the Representative for the 142 District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006. While serving nd as Representative for the 142 District, Wright maintained a legislative District Office in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, and a legislative office in the Capitol at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (“Capitol office”). The office equipment in both Wright’s District office and Capitol office included computers, telephones, a fax machine and copier. When running for re-election, Wright did not rent or lease an office facility to serve Wright, 07-100 Page 23 as a campaign headquarters. From at least 2002 through 2006, office space, equipment, computer software and employees of Wright’s District and Capitol offices were used in furtherance of Wright’s re-election campaigns. Legislative staff utilized the District office and equipment to coordinate election related activities, including receiving campaign materials from vendors, making and receiving telephone calls related to campaign activities, storing campaign literature on computer files, and receiving campaign contributions and nomination petitions. Staff from Wright’s District and Capitol offices arranged purchases, met vendors, updated lists of campaign contributors, scheduled fundraisers, circulated nomination petitions, and accepted and delivered campaign contributions related to Wright’s re-election efforts. Vendors utilized by Wright for campaign purposes included Levittown Printing, Inc. (“LPI”), Compuprint, Jet Specialties Company, and Precision Marketing, Inc. Contact with these vendors was initiated through Wright’s District office using the District office telephone and fax machine. Wright contracted with LPI for campaign related materials for Wright’s re-election campaigns of 2002, 2004 and 2006. Some of Wright’s campaign work by LPI was handled through Legislative Aide Lisa Deon (“Deon”) at Wright’s District office by telephone during Deon’s normal Commonwealth work hours. Since September 2002 LPI performed at least 19 invoiced work orders relating to campaign material for Wright that identified either Wright or Deon as a contact at the District office telephone number. Wright’s District office fax number was listed on all invoices. Proofs of artwork for Wright’s campaign material were sent by LPI to Wright’s District office. Copies of certain printings for Wright’s 2004 campaign were faxed from Wright’s District office fax machine to LPI with a House of Representatives cover page listing Wright’s District and Capitol office addresses and telephone numbers. In 2004 and 2006 Wright utilized Jet Specialties Company to produce posters and yard signs for Wright’s campaign. Deon placed some orders for such campaign material during her normal work hours as a Commonwealth employee. On at least one occasion in 2004, Wright’s campaign material purchased from Jet Specialties Company was delivered to Wright’s District office during normal business hours and was received by employees from Wright’s District office. Between 2002 and 2006, Wright purchased letterhead and envelopes from Compuprint to use for Wright’s campaigns. Some arrangements for Wright’s campaign work by Compuprint were handled by Deon from Wright’s District office by telephone. Wright’s District office telephone number was listed on the Compuprint invoices as the contact telephone number for Wright. Some campaign material provided by Compuprint was delivered to Wright’s District office during normal work hours and provided to either Wright or Deon. Wright utilized Precision Marketing Inc. for the production, printing and mailing of campaign fundraising letters. A Precision Marketing, Inc. work order dated January 9, 2004, for work relating to Wright’s campaign listed the buyer’s fax number as Wright’s District office fax number. In April 2004 Precision Marketing, Inc. billed Wright for the cost of printing and mailing campaign fundraising letters that had been saved in computer files maintained by Deon at Wright’s District office. Wright was aware that Deon was performing campaign related activities at his District Office during normal business hours. Wright was aware that Deon used the computers in his District office for campaign purposes. At various times from 2002 through 2006, fundraising events were held on behalf of Wright to fund Wright’s campaign related expenses. Arrangements for the events were made by employees of Wright’s District and Capitol offices. Wright, 07-100 Page 24 Wright utilized Legislative Aide Ann Hand (“Hand”) to make arrangements and serve as the contact person for Wright’s campaign fundraising events held at Scott’s Grille in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Hand scheduled and coordinated five fundraisers held by Wright at Scott’s Grille between March 26, 2002, and April 26, 2006. The schedule calendars for Scott’s Grille list Hand as the contact and Wright’s Capitol office telephone number as the contact number for these events. Hand’s duties in relation to these fundraisers included scheduling the events, planning the menu and serving as Wright’s contact person with Scott’s. Hand made all of the arrangements from Wright’s Capitol office. Wright was aware that Hand was performing campaign related activities while at and during the normal business hours of his Capitol office. With Wright’s knowledge, Wright’s legislative staff used computer files, equipment and office space at Wright’s legislative office to issue solicitation letters to lobbyists for Wright’s fundraisers at Scott’s Grille. Wright’s solicitation letters advised lobbyists of when a fundraising event was going to be held and the amount of the suggested donation. On her own time, Hand attended and collected campaign contributions at Wright’s fundraisers at Scott’s Grille. If an attendee did not make a campaign contribution at such a fundraiser, an envelope would occasionally be delivered to Hand at Wright’s Capitol office during normal work hours. Hand provided these envelopes to Wright. From 2002 through 2006 Wright held seven fundraisers in his legislative District utilizing King’s Caterers. Some arrangements for the fundraisers at King’s Caterers were handled through Wright’s District office. Contracts between King’s Caterers and Wright listed Wright’s legislative District Office address, telephone number, and fax number as Wright’s contact information. The address, telephone number, and fax number for Wright’s District office was used to confirm reservations by attendees. The parties have stipulated that between January 2003 and October 2006 the total amount of campaign contributions Wright received as a result of the fundraisers organized and coordinated by his legislative staff was $27,610.00. Additional campaign contributions were received by Wright in 2002 as a result of fundraisers coordinated and organized by his staff. Wright was aware that the computers at his District office were utilized to store campaign files related to the fundraisers and for preparing campaign related material. Campaign material for Wright was stored on Deon’s Commonwealth computer as listed in Fact Finding 59. In preparation for the 2004 election, Deon created a sample ballot including Wright’s name, which was made available to potential voters. Deon maintained the sample ballot on computers in Wright’s District office. A 2004 solicitation letter for Wright was stored on Deon’s Commonwealth computer at Wright’s District office. Deon drafted the letter for Wright, with Wright’s knowledge. Deon performed the task at her computer in Wright’s District office during her normal Commonwealth work hours. This solicitation letter was given to Precision Marketing, Inc. and was used for a mailing to constituents of Wright. Wright was aware that files from his District office computers included letters mailed in 2004 requesting assistance with circulating campaign nomination petitions. During his political campaigns Wright had campaign flyers produced identifying his accomplishments. Drafts of these flyers were produced by Wright’s District office staff utilizing the computers in Wright’s District office. The campaign flyer detailed at Fact Finding 63 was stored on a computer file under Deon’s name on a computer at Wright’s Wright, 07-100 Page 25 District office, with Wright’s knowledge and at his request. Wright communicated campaign strategies with his District office staff utilizing his Commonwealth e-mail address. During Wright’s campaigns for re-election in 2004 and 2006, Wright’s legislative staff used for campaign purposes a computer software program designed by Aristotle, Inc. for the House Republican Caucus. Legislative Aide William Rush (“Rush”) at Wright’s District office updated mailing lists of campaign contributors to Wright from the Master List compiled from information that was part of the computer software program designed by Aristotle. Wright was aware that Rush used the Aristotle software for campaign purposes. Rush would make the changes from his computer at the District office based on information provided to him by Wright. Wright was aware of what Rush was doing and did not direct that Rush stop updating the list of contributors. Rush also used his computer at the District office to update lists of lobbyists who had previously made campaign contributions to Wright. Wright allowed his legislative staff, legislative District office and equipment, and Capitol office and equipment to perform non-legislative campaign related roles during the elections of 2002, 2004 and 2006. Wright allowed the use of his District and Capitol office telephones to arrange campaign fundraisers and order and confirm campaign materials. Wright allowed the use of his District office fax machine for receiving campaign material from different vendors. Wright allowed the use of his District office computers for preparation of campaign solicitation letters, campaign flyers, lists of campaign contributors, letters relating to circulating nomination petitions, e-mail and sample ballots. Wright allowed the use of legislative software for campaign purposes. Wright allowed the use of the District and Capitol offices to receive campaign contributions. Wright allowed the use of his District office address as a billing address for campaign expenditures. Wright allowed his District and Capitol office staff to make arrangements for campaign fundraisers as well as ordering and receiving campaign material. The parties have stipulated that Wright realized a private pecuniary gain when he allowed the use of his Commonwealth staff, office space, equipment and materials for non- legislative campaign related functions to further his re-election campaigns in the years 2002, 2004 and 2006. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign contributions made to Wright as the result of solicitation letters he allowed to be prepared from District office computers by legislative staff and lists generated from computer software designed for legislative business. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign fundraisers held in Harrisburg and Bristol based upon arrangements he allowed to be made by legislative staff and equipment. Wright realized a private pecuniary gain from campaign contributions that he allowed to be either delivered or sent to his District and Capitol office. 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 Wright’s use of staff, office space, equipment and materials of Wright, 07-100 Page 26 his Legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns. b. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred [as to the allegation that] Wright claimed and received reimbursement for expenses not related to any official purposes of his Legislative Office. 4. Wright agrees to make payment in the amount of $10,000.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 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 choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1-2. In considering the Consent Agreement, it is clear that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Wright’s use of staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns. A State legislator is prohibited from using legislative office staff or equipment/facilities for private purposes, including campaign purposes. See, Roberts, Order 1435; Lynch, Order 1334; Habay, Order 1313; Freind, Order 800. Wright’s use of the staff, office space, equipment and materials of his District and Capitol offices in furtherance of his re-election campaigns resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to Wright, through savings of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by Wright or his campaign. The parties have not quantified the total private pecuniary benefit to Wright. However, per the Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings, the parties are in agreement that such private pecuniary benefit was not de minimis. We hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Wright’s use of staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns. We further hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred as to the allegation that Wright claimed and received reimbursement for expenses not related to any official purposes of his legislative office. The Stipulated Findings do not provide support for such allegation. As part of the Consent Agreement, Wright has agreed to make payment in the amount of $10,000.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Wright, 07-100 Page 27 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, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wright is directed to make payment in the amount of $10,000.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and th 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: nd 1. As the Representative for the 142 District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006, Respondent Matthew Wright (“Wright”) 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. Wright violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns. 3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred as to the allegation that Wright claimed and received reimbursement for expenses not related to any official purposes of his legislative office, as the Stipulated Findings do not provide support for such allegation. In Re: Matthew Wright, : File Docket: 07-100 Respondent : Date Decided: 12/15/09 : Date Mailed: 12/29/09 ORDER NO. 1541 1. Matthew Wright (“Wright”), a public official in his capacity as the Representative for nd the 142 District of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from January 1991 until December 2006, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used staff, office space, equipment and materials of his legislative District Office and his Capitol Office to further his re-election campaigns. 2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred as to the allegation that Wright claimed and received reimbursement for expenses not related to any official purposes of his legislative office, as the Stipulated Findings do not provide support for such allegation. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wright is directed to make payment in the amount of $10,000.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the th thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 4. Compliance with Paragraph 3 of this Order will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. a. Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, ___________________________ Louis W. Fryman, Chair