HomeMy WebLinkAbout1543 Sump
In Re: Dennis Sump, : File Docket: 08-068
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1543
: 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.” 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.
Sump, 08-068
Page 2
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Dennis Sump, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor
of South Pymatuning Township, Mercer County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and
1104(d) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1104(a), and
1104(d), when he used the authority of his public position for private pecuniary gain,
including but not limited to utilizing Township employees, equipment, and materials to
install a waterline to property he owns; when he approved payments from Township
accounts for materials and labor for the waterline; when he failed to reimburse the
Township for all of the cost involved for the waterline installation; and when he failed to file
a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Dennis Sump has served as a Supervisor for South Pymatuning Township, Mercer
County, continuously from January 2006 to the present.
a. Sump was appointed as Assistant to the Public Works Director on January 3,
2006, and served as such until December 31, 2006.
b. The other Township Supervisors are Michael Nashtock and Joe Christoff.
2. South Pymatuning Township is a 2nd class township governed by a three-member
Board of Supervisors.
a. Regular meetings are held once per month on the 2nd Tuesday of the
month.
b. Special meetings are held occasionally throughout the year.
3. Supervisors are currently compensated in the amount [of] $1,875.00 annually.
a. Supervisors receive their compensation in quarterly payments.
b. Attendance at township meetings is not required in order for a Supervisor to
be compensated.
4. Voting at South Pymatuning 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.
1. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each
subsequent meeting.
5. South Pymatuning minutes include a listing of monthly bills which were approved for
payment at the regular monthly meetings.
a. Bills approved for payment represent all those bills received by the township
since the previous monthly meeting.
b. Checks issued to pay the bills are normally generated and signed the day of
the regular monthly meeting.
1. The Supervisors hold a workshop meeting an hour before the regular
monthly meeting.
Sump, 08-068
Page 3
2. Checks to be approved at the regular monthly meeting are signed
during the workshop meeting.
3. Checks issued for payment of routine/repetitive bills (i.e. utilities) are
issued prior to approval at regular monthly meetings so that late fees
are not incurred.
6. All three Supervisors hold signature authority over South Pymatuning Township
accounts.
a. Township checks are routinely signed by all three Supervisors.
1. Two Supervisor signatures are required on all township checks.
b. Facsimile stamps are not utilized.
7. The Supervisors annually appoint an individual to serve as the Public Works
Director.
a. The appointment normally occurs at the re-organizational meeting held in
January.
b. Members of the Board of Supervisors usually serve as the Public Works
Directors.
c. Sump served as the Assistant to the Public Works Director in 2006, but was
not employed by the Township.
8. In 2006 the Department of Public Works consisted of the following:
Michael Nashtock: Director of Public Works
Mark Presely [sic]: Road worker
Burt DeVries: Road worker
9. The South Pymatuning Township Public Works Department routinely works 7:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a paid hour lunch.
a. Exceptions to this schedule occasionally occur due to inclement weather,
emergencies, etc.
b. The road crew is paid on a bi-weekly basis.
10. South Pymatuning Township utilizes timesheets to document work completed by the
Department of Public Works.
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.
11. South Pymatuning Township did not have a public water system prior to the mid
1990s.
Sump, 08-068
Page 4
a. Expansions of Dean Dairy within the township were an initiating factor
regarding the installation of a public water system.
1. Dean Dairy wished to expand its operation but was restricted from
doing so due to the limited amount of well water available.
b. Dean Dairy, located within South Pymatuning Township, is one of the largest
commercial businesses within the Township.
12. In order to avoid losing a major business within the Township, the Supervisors
entered into an agreement with the Sharpsville Borough Water Company to install a
waterline from Sharpsville’s plant to the location of Dean Dairy.
a. The Sharpsville Borough Water Company plant is located at 600 S Mercer
Ave., Sharpsville, PA 16150.
b. Sharpsville Borough Water Company provides public water to areas of
Sharpsville Borough and South Pymatuning Township.
c. Sharpsville Borough Water Company is located south of Dean Dairy.
13. The main waterline from Sharpsville Borough Water Company to Dean Dairy was
run north through South Pymatuning Township along Tamarack Drive and up
Seneca Road.
a. Seneca Road connects to Oneida Lane where Dean Dairy is located.
b. At approximately the same time that the main waterline was installed along
Tamarack Drive, a waterline was also installed along Buckeye Drive.
1. Buckeye Drive starts where Tamarack Drive begins and proceeds
west, whereas Tamarack Drive proceeds north.
2. The waterlines installed on Tamarack Drive and Buckeye Drive are 8"
lines.
14. The Township obtained the majority of its funding from Mercer County and Dean
Dairy in order to install the waterlines along Tamarack Drive and Buckeye Drive.
a. The waterline work was publicly bid by the Supervisors and subsequently
awarded to Dave Sugar Construction.
b. Since at least the late 1990s, it was the intention of the South Pymatuning
Township Supervisors to have waterlines branch off of the main lines
running along Tamarack Drive and Buckeye Drive so that residents could
receive public water.
15. Meeting minutes dated August 1, 1997, reflect that the Board of Supervisors passed
Township Ordinance 2, 1997 to document procedures to be followed for residents
to receive public water.
a. Township Ordinance 2, 1997 stipulates that the purpose of the ordinance is
to have "an ordinance to protect the public health by designating the public
water supply system to be operated by South Pymatuning as the exclusive
source of water for human consumption; requiring abutting property owners
accessible to the public water system to connect with and use such water
Sump, 08-068
Page 5
supply system upon notice of the Township to do so; authorizing the
Supervisors to make such connection and recover the costs thereof in case
of neglect or refusal of the owner to do so; approving/permitting, rejecting
any application for public water service; imposing charges for public water
use; providing for the setting, billing and collection of service charges for
public water use or accessibility; adopting certain rules and regulations and
providing for the adoption of additional rules and regulations; setting forth
related matters; prescribing penalties for violations; repealing all ordinances
or parts thereof which may be inconsistent herewith; and stipulating the date
upon which this ordinance shall take effect."
16. Articles of Ordinance 2, 1997 document the procedures to be followed in order for
an individual to be connected to the South Pymatuning Water Supply System, as
follows:
a. Article IV Section 3 (4.03):
"When a person responsible for making a connection to the public water
supply system shall be required to connect, or desires to connect to the
public water supply system as provided by this ordinance, such person shall
file with the township or its designated officer or representative, an
application for a permit to connection to the public water supply system with
such application to include full payment of tapping fee and/or other related
charges, if any, as may be fixed from time to time by official resolution of the
township. Upon approval of such application, a water service line connection
permit will be issued by the township."
b. Article VI Section 1 (6.01):
"A written application, prepared on a form furnished by the township, must
be submitted to the township for the purpose of requesting the installation of
a water service connection. The application will request such information
that the township deems necessary, must be signed by the owner of the
property or his duly authorized agent, and must be accompanied by the
appropriate deposit as set forth in the township's rate ordinance or
resolution. The application must be submitted at least ninety days before
service is required. Applications will only be accepted for premises abutting
existing township water lines. Service to premises not abutting existing
township water lines is covered under Article VIII - water line extensions."
c. Article IV Section 2 (4.02):
"No unauthorized person shall uncover, make any connections with the
openings into, use, alter or disturb any public water supply system or
appurtenances thereof without first obtaining a written permit from the
township. All persons, contractors, firms, corporations, or agencies
proposing to engage in water service line extension construction work shall
document to the satisfaction of the township that they are reputable agencies
actively and presently engaged in/or experienced in water distribution line
construction work. No person, contractor, firm or corporation or agency shall
undertake building water service line construction work on behalf of a public
or private agency with the township until he has applied for and received
written approval of the board of supervisors and has satisfied the township
that he carries and maintains adequate general liability and/or property
damage insurance to indemnify all parties against damages resulting from
his constructive activities and operations. Minimum insurance coverage
levels for purposes of this section will be those set and established by official
Sump, 08-068
Page 6
action of the township with the advice of the township solicitor. Nothing in
this section shall be construed to prevent or prohibit a property owner from
installing and constructing his own individual water service line extension
connection provided that he complies with all provisions of this ordinance,
with the exception of insurance coverage as stipulated by this section."
d. Article IV Section 5 (4:05):
"All costs and expenses incident to the installation, construction and
connection of the water service line extension shall be borne by the owner of
the premises served. The property owner or his contractor shall indemnify
and save harmless the township from any loss, liability, or damage that the
township may incur or sustain by reason of the installation and construction
of the water service line."
e. Article VII Section 3 (7.03):
"All piping, fitting, valves, backflow prevention valves, structures, other
accessories/materials and the labor for installing same, used in connection
with meter settings within the property lines of the premises, shall be at the
expense of the owner/applicant. The owner/applicant will employ for this
work, the services of a skilled and qualified tradesman. Piping and
appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the dimensions and
requirements of each specific case, so that the meter or meters can be easily
and properly installed."
17. Since at least 2003 the Supervisors of South Pymatuning Township have discussed
various options in regards to providing public water to all residents of the township.
a. The options discussed have varied over the years due to the changing of
Supervisors but have included line locations and who should pay for the
installation of waterlines.
18. Meeting minutes for calendar years 2003 and 2004 reflect that residents
occasionally brought concerns regarding the condition of their water to the attention
of the Supervisors.
a. Residents’ requests included tap-in to the public water system without the
need of a waterline extension and waterlines to be extended so that a tap-in
could be made.
b. Minutes document that the Supervisors at times publicly advertised the
waterline extension work, or looked into options of having the Township pay
for the waterline extension without going through the formal bidding process.
19. In 2006, preliminary planning by the Supervisors, the Township's Engineer, and the
Township's Grant Writer took place to provide public water to residents located on
Hemlock Street and Hunter Street.
a. The area of Hemlock Street and Hunter Street was selected because it was
believed that the area was eligible for CDBG (Community Development
Block Grant) funding.
20. On May 19, 2006, Township Engineer Edward Winslow sent a letter to Township
Grant Writer Morrie Waltz suggesting the following three phases be followed in
order for public water to be provided to an area eligible to receive grant funding:
Sump, 08-068
Page 7
a. Phase I - Hemlock Street between Tamarack Drive and Hunter Street:
"This Phase is the lowest cost section and should be installed first. The new
line will terminate at a fire hydrant at the west end of Hemlock Avenue which
will be constructed as part of Phase II. It is our understanding that the
Borough of Sharpsville Water Department will make the wet tap into the
main line along Tamarack Drive."
b. Phase II - Hunter Street between Buckeye Drive and Hemlock Avenue:
"This line will start at the termination of the 8" section along Buckeye Drive at
the Pedal east property line. There are several potential problems with this
phase:
1. The existing large diameter storm sewer line along the west side of
Hunter Street; and,
2. It is our understanding that there is a right-of-way dispute with a
resident along the east side of Hunter Street;
3. There are one or two single family homes will have [sic] Building
Code issues and these may be problems with extending service if
they are not repaired; and,
4. This service area may not be CDBG fundable because of the low
percentage of LMI (low-to-moderate-income) property owners."
c. Phase III - Buckeye Drive between Hunter Street and Powers
Avenue/Powers Avenue between Buckeye Drive and Saranac Drive:
"The main line would be extended from Hunter Street along the north side of
Buckeye Drive to the Powers Avenue intersection, then north and west along
the roadway to Saranac Drive. It is our understanding that this area will
probably qualify under for [sic] the LMI criteria."
d. Winslow generated the May 19, 2006, letter subsequent to having
discussions with the Supervisors and Waltz in regards to providing public
water to the area outlined within the letter.
21. The May 19, 2006, letter from Winslow to Waltz was sent to notify Waltz that an
area of the Township considered LMI was selected to be serviced for public water.
a. Waltz was notified so that he could apply for CDBG funding to offset the cost
of the project.
22. Sump has been a landlord in South Pymatuning Township for approximately twelve
years.
a. Sump has owned property located at 2011 and 2021 Hemlock Street for
approximately twelve years.
1. 2011 and 2021 Hemlock Street is a duplex.
b. Hemlock Street begins at Tamarack Drive and runs west ending at Hunter
Street.
c. The property is located in the area identified as Phase I of the proposed
Sump, 08-068
Page 8
waterline extensions identified in Township Engineer Winslow’s May 19,
2006, letter.
23. Prior to taking office in January 2006, Sump requested on multiple occasions that
the Supervisors provide public water to his duplex.
a. Sump made requests as early as 2004.
1. None of the requests was a formal application to the Township Board
of Supervisors.
b. At the time of his requests Sump never received formal decisions from the
Supervisors if his duplex could receive public water.
c. The requests were reviewed, but no action was taken.
24. In 2006, in or about the time the Township was considering the installation of water
lines to Hemlock Street, Sump initiated a discussion with Supervisors Joe Christoff
and Mike Nashtock in regards to running a waterline to his duplex.
a. Sump proposed to the Supervisors that he would install the line if the
Township would pay for the materials.
1. Sump proposed installing a two inch water line which would have
been sufficient for water service to his property only.
2. Sump is self-employed in the construction field as the owner/operator
of Sump Construction.
25. The discussion and decision to service Sump's duplex did not occur at a formal
Township meeting.
a. The Supervisors never officially voted on the verbal agreement to provide
water service to Sump’s property.
1. Supervisor Christoff verbally agreed to authorize the installation.
2. Nashtock believed that he was being told to complete the project as
Director of Public Works by the other two Supervisors.
3. Nashtock did not voice any disapproval at that time.
26. It was initially agreed by Christoff and Sump that the waterline to Sump's duplex
would be a 2" line.
a. A 2” line was proposed because the waterline would service only two
residences at Sump’s duplex.
27. The installation of the 2” waterline to Sump’s property was reviewed by Township
Engineer [Winslow].
a. Winslow recommended to Nashtock as Director of Public Works the
installation of a 6" line due to the fact that a 6" line could service additional
residents as was outlined in Winslow's May 19, 2006, letter.
1. The installation of a 2" line on Hemlock Street would limit the
possibility of extending the line to service additional homes along
Sump, 08-068
Page 9
Hunter Street.
2. Hunter Street begins where Hemlock Street ends.
28. As a result of Winslow’s recommendation Nashtock informed Sump that the line to
be installed would be a 6” waterline.
a. Sump advised Nashtock that the original agreement was for a 2" line to be
installed by Sump and that Sump did not have the equipment to install a 6"
line.
b. Nashtock proposed to Sump that the Public Works Department could
attempt to install the line for Sump on a trial basis.
29. Nashtock contacted Supervisor Christoff to inform him that the scope of the project
had changed and that a 6” line would be installed by the Township.
a. Christoff’s recommendation to Nashtock was to do the project "quick and
cheap."
30. Sump had no conversations with Christoff regarding the installation of the 6” line.
a. Nashtock informed Christoff as to what was discussed between Sump and
Nashtock.
31. The Township purchased materials totaling $7,355.93 from various vendors
between July 12, 2006, and October 16, 2006, to complete the project, as shown
below:
Vendor Date of Invoice Materials Purchased
Invoice Total
Lane Enterprise 7-12-06 $1,128.00 200ft of HDPE Loktite 15" Dia 20'L Type
S
L/B Water Service 7-17-06 $85.58 Two 2" OMNI Cast Coupling 2. 34-2. 63
OD and forty 2" X 20' SDR 21 PVC Pipe
200 PSI Gasketed Joint
3 Rivers Aggregates 7-31-06 $146.51 20.93 ton of #8/1B (crushed gravel)
Kraynak's Inc. No Date $81.80 50LB 5-WAYRYR and two Star+RR
Sump, 08-068
Page 10
Trumbull 9-8-06 $3,140.20 Sixteen Pipe 6X20 PVC-C900 DR18
CL150 Bell w/ Gasket, eight Bolt 3/4-
10X3-1/2 SS-304 Hex Head Cap, eight
Nut 3/4-10 SS-304 FNSHD HEX, Corp
Stop 1 AWWA THRD X CMP #4141130 -
#4701-22 Outlet F/Copper or CTS
Polyethylene, Gate Valve 6 #2500 DI O/L
MJ L/ACC Ductile Body Resilient Seat
W/SS Bolting, two Base #6 B-6002
Casting #7341 40BD, two 5-1/4" x 24"[B]
Middle/20" Extension #62 Middle = #59
Extension 18BD Dual Purpose Casting,
Casting #7345, Gate Valve 6 FLGXMJ
2506-01 Open/LF with SS Bolting,
Tapping Sleeve 12X6 SST 1356X6 13.
16. 56 w/Ductile Flange, eighteen Bolt
3/4X3-1/2 T-Head w/Nut For Use w/4-6"
C-110 Full Body FTG &4-12" C-153
Compact FTG 855, three Gland 6 DI
Megalug F/PVC 2000 PV For PVC Pipe
C-900 or IPS Outside Diameters Series #
2006PV Pallet 60, three Gasket 6 MJ,
Plug 6 DI w/2 IP Tap Push-In UTC153,
and two Top Section 17" W/LID B5001
Casting # V734 V897 30BD
3 Rivers Aggregates 9-11-06 $261.33 61.49 Ton of fill sand
Trumbull 9-12-06 $475.00 In-Field Tap 6"
Carine & Co. 9-12-06 $191.01 One-hundred 06207*15" BLK Cable Tie
Heavy Duty, one-hundred 06204*15"BLK
Cable Tie Standard, fifty 53185*32" BLK
Cable Tie Heavy Duty, one-hundred
06227*12" NTRL Cable Tie Standard,
one-hundred 06240*15" NTRL Cable Tie
Heavy Duty, one-hundred 06202*8
BLACK Cable Tie Standard, one-hundred
06203*12 BLK Cable Tie Standard, and
five-hundred 10 THHN STR Wire
Lowe's 9-15-06 $24.36 Seven bags of Concrete Mix 80#
Quikrete
Lowe's No Date $9.56 Two 1. 88"X55YD 200MPH DUCT TA
3 Rivers Aggregates 9-18-06 $136.86 32.2 Ton of fill sand
Lane 9-19-06 $709.20 Nine HDPE Loktite 12"Dia 20'L Type S
L/B Water Service 9-29-06 $329.38 Two 6"X3/4"CC Brass Service Saddle 6.
90 OD,
L/B Water Service 9-29-06 $38.38 One 6"X2" MJ Plug IP Tapped SSB DI
CL350 AWWA C153 083283
L/B Water Service 10-16-06 $598.76 One-hundred 3/4" X 100' Type "K" Soft
Copper Tubing, two 6"X3/4"CC
DBLSTRAP Bronze Service Saddle
Range 6.90-7.50 OD, and two 3/4" Corp
Stop AWWA X Quick JT. CTS
Total:
$7,355.93
a. Of the $7,355.93 in materials purchased by the Township, $6,719.35 of
Sump, 08-068
Page 11
materials was used to install the waterline to Sump's duplex.
32. Sump participated in actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve the purchasing
of materials necessary to construct the waterline by voting to approve bill lists and
signing checks to pay the vendors utilized, as shown below:
Meeting Sump's Vote Check # Check Check Signatures Invoice Paid
Date Date Amount on Check
8-8-06 Seconded/yes 007988 8-8-06 $1,128.00 Sump, Lane invoice dated
Christoff, 7-12-06
Nashtock
8-8-06 Seconded/yes 007992 8-8-06 $85.58 Sump, L/B invoice dated 7-
Christoff, 17-06
Nashtock
8-8-06 Seconded/yes 008013 8-8-06 $146.51 Sump, 3 Rivers invoice
Christoff, dated 7-31-06
Nashtock
9-12-06 Seconded/yes 008041 9-12-06 $81.80 Sump, Kraynak's undated
Christoff, invoice
Nashtock
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008092 10-10-06 $3,615.20 Sump, Trumbull invoices
Christoff, dated 9-8-06 and 9-
Nashtock 12-06
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008082 10-10-06 $191.01 Sump, Carine invoice dated
Christoff, 9-12-06
Nashtock
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008099 10-10-06 $33.92 Sump, Lowe's receipt dated
Christoff, 9-15-06 and Lowe's
Nashtock undated invoice
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008112 10-10-06 $709.20 Sump, Lane invoice dated
Christoff, 9-19-06
Nashtock
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008117 10-10-06 $367.76 Sump, L/B invoices dated 9-
Christoff, 29-06
Nashtock
10-10-06 Seconded/yes 008132 10-10-06 $398.19 Sump, 3 Rivers invoices
Christoff, dated 9-11-06 and 9-
Nashtock 18-06
11-14-06 Seconded/yes 008185 11-14-06 $573.58* Sump, L/B invoices dated
Christoff, 10-16-06 and 10-31-
Nashtock 06
Total:
$7,330.75
* The check amount paid two L/B invoices that totaled $646.16, but also accounted for a
credit of $72.58 (646.16 - 72.58 = 573.58).
33. The Township did not invoice Sump for the cost of materials associated with the
project.
a. Ordinance 2 of 1997 Article IV Section 2(4.02) and Article VII Section 3(7.03)
provides that the owner is to bear all material costs associated with a
waterline installation.
b. The Township has not consistently followed this provision of the Ordinance
and since 2004 has not always required applicants to pay for costs of
Sump, 08-068
Page 12
waterline installation.
34. Installation of the water line was completed by the Township’s Department of Public
Works beginning in September 2006.
a. Employees working on the project included:
Micahel [sic] Nashtock
Mark Presley
Burt DeVries
35. Timesheets for Nashtock, Presley, and DeVries document work performed on the
waterline project on the following days:
Nashtock Presley DeVries
9-11-06 9-11-06 9-6-06
9-12-06 9-12-06 9-7-06
9-13-06 9-13-06 9-8-06
9-15-06 9-15-06 9-11-06
9-18-06 9-18-06 9-12-06
9-19-06 9-19-06 9-13-06
9-20-06 9-20-06 9-18-06
9-21-06 9-21-06 9-19-06
9-22-06 9-22-06 9-20-06
9-25-06 9-25-06 9-21-06
9-26-06 9-26-06 9-22-06
9-27-06 9-27-06 9-27-06
9-29-06 9-29-06 10-2-06
10-2-06 10-2-06
36. Public Works Department employee timesheets document that Nashtock, Presley,
and DeVries routinely worked on the waterline project a full eight hours each day.
a. Routine tasks unrelated to the waterline project completed by road workers
were not documented on the timesheets.
1. The timesheets also accounted for an hour paid lunch each day.
b. Estimates regarding actual time spent completing tasks related to the
waterline project (not including a paid hour lunch) include the following:
1. DeVries' Hours
Date Estimated Description of Work per Timesheets
Hours
9-6-06 6 Hauled sand for waterline
9-7-06 6 Hauled sand for waterline
9-8-06 6 Hauled sand for waterline
9-11-06 4 Waterline extension
9-12-06 4 Waterline extension
9-13-06 4 Waterline extension
9-18-06 4 Waterline extension
9-19-06 4 Waterline extension
9-20-06 4 Waterline extension
9-21-06 4 Waterline extension
Sump, 08-068
Page 13
Date Estimated Description of Work per Timesheets
Hours
9-22-06 4 Waterline extension
9-27-06 4 Waterline extension
10-2-06 4 Restoration work on Hunter + Hemlock
Total: 58
aa. In 2006, DeVries was paid an hourly rate of $16.42.
bb. Estimated payment issued to DeVries in regards to time spent
working on the waterline was $952.36 ($16.42 x 58 =
$952.36).
2. Presley's Hours
Date Estimated Hours Description of Work per Timesheets
9-11-06 7 Water line extension
9-12-06 6 Water line extension, Replace valve on side mower
9-13-06 7 Water line extension
9-15-06 7 Water line extension
9-18-06 7.5 Water line extension
9-19-06 7 Water line extension
9-20-06 7 Water line extension
9-21-06 7 Water line extension
9-22-06 7 Water line extension
9-25-06 7 Water line extension
9-26-06 5 Water line extension
9-27-06 7.5 Water line extension
9-29-06 7 Water line extension
10-2-06 7 Restoration on Hemlock, Replace culvert on Hemlock
Total: 96
aa. In 2006, Presley was paid an hourly rate of $16.42.
bb. Estimated payment issued to Presley in regards to time spent
working on the waterline was $1,576.32 ($16.42 x 96 =
$1,576.32).
3. Nashtock's Hours
Date Estimated Description of Work per Timesheets
Hours
9-11-06 7 Locate lines, Tap main, water line
extension Hemlock
9-13-06 7 Water line extension
9-15-06 6.5 Water line extension
9-18-06 6.5 Water line extension
9-19-06 7 Water line extension
9-20-06 7 Water line extension
9-21-06 3.5 Water line extension
9-22-06 4 Water line extension
9-25-06 6.5 Water line extension
9-26-06 5.5 Water line extension
9-27-06 7.5 Water line extension
Sump, 08-068
Page 14
9-29-06 7 Water line extension
10-2-06 7 Restoration on Hemlock, Replace culvert
on Hemlock
Total: 82
aa. In 2006, Nashtock was paid an hourly rate of $16.40.
bb. Estimated payment issued to Nashtock in regards to time
spent working on the waterline was $1,344.80 ($16.40 x 82 =
$1,344.80).
c. Estimates provided were obtained from each individual employee
respectively.
37. Sump signed seven of the ten total payroll checks issued to Presley, Nashtock, and
DeVries for the weeks in which work related to the waterline project took place, as
shown below:
Timesheet for 9-6-06 to 9-16-06
Check Issued Check # Check Date Check Who Signed Check
to Amount
Nashtock 005642 9-28-06 $935.07 Nashtock, Christoff
M. Presley 005644 9-28-06 $780.75 Nashtock, Christoff
DeVries 005645 9-28-06 $595.57 Nashtock, Christoff
Sump, 08-068
Page 15
Timesheets for 9-17-06 to 9-30-06
Check Issued Check # Check Check Who Signed Check
to Date Amount
Nashtock 005657 10-12-06 $934.22 Nashtock, Christoff, Sump
M. Presley 005659 10-12-06 $723.03 Nashtock, Christoff, Sump
DeVries 005660 10-12-06 $594.72 Nashtock, Christoff, Sump
Timesheets for 10-1-06 to 10-14-06
Check Issued Check # Check Date Check Who Signed Check
to Amount
Nashtock 005670 10-25-06 $441.11 Nashtock, Sump
Nashtock 005673 10-26-06 $934.22 Nashtock, Sump
M. Presley 005675 10-26-06 $723.03 Nashtock, Sump
DeVries 005676 10-26-06 $594.72 Nashtock, Sump
38. The Township attempted to secure a grant to cover the costs associated with
installation of the waterline.
a. In early October 2006, the Township’s grant writer submitted an application
to the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) for
funding to extend the Hemlock Street waterline to Hunter Street.
1. The application was denied as the deadline was missed to submit
such applications.
b. All of the expenses associated with the waterline project were paid out of the
Township General Fund.
39. Sump did not submit an application for a permit to connect to the Township’s water
supply until the project was completed.
a. Article IV Section 0313 (4.03) of Ordinance 2 of 1997 required such an
application.
40. Sump submitted the application for connection to the South Pymatuning Township
Water System on November 8, 2006.
a. Sump identified his duplex as the property to receive the water service.
b. Sump indicated on the application that his business, Sump Construction,
would install the waterline connection.
1. The Township Public Works Department installed the line.
41. Sump included payment of $950.00 when he submitted his application to the
Township via check #7995.
a. Sump paid the Township tap-in fee of $750.00 and meter fee of $200.00.
1. Sump paid for two meters at a cost of $100.00 each.
b. Sump’s payment of $950.00 was deposited into the Township water fund on
November 14, 2006.
Sump, 08-068
Page 16
42. In or about early 2008, Township residents began expressing their displeasure with
the waterline being run solely to Sump's duplex.
a. Residents expressed their displeasure at Township meetings during public
comment.
43. In response to residents’ concerns, Mike Nashtock, Supervisor/Public Works
Director submitted a letter dated March 28, 2008, to "whom it may concern" which
outlined his beliefs regarding the water line that was run to Sump's rental property:
- "The idea of running a water line was discussed at one meeting in the Spring
of 2006. I agree with the minutes that Dennis was going to look into the cost
of running the line and come back with the cost for further discussion."
- "While not in the minutes. I remember further discussion that the township
would "consider" paying for the material with Dennis picking up the cost of
installing the water line."
- "I never voted for or approved anything dealing with this waterline."
- "Weeks later, Dennis told me to order 2" water line and the supplies needed
to run the line to his duplex. He led me to believe that he had discussed this
with Joe and he was close to starting the installation."
- "As instructed, I ordered the line and materials."
- "Dennis never shared his findings on costs."
- "Dennis came to me when Joe was in the hospital and told me that he spoke
with Joe. Dennis told me Joe had no problem with the township installing the
water line to the duplex and I needed to get started."
- "I felt as public works director, I was being ordered by two supervisors to
start a job."
- "Very close to the start or installation, it was brought to my attention that the
2" water line was a mistake. The 2" line would not be able support future
expansion or fire suppression. I called Joe and asked him if he had a
problem with the township paying the extra cost of running a 6" line. Joe
agreed and I had the 2" line returned and purchased the 6" line and we
installed it.
- Dennis talked to Mike Wilson and arranged to have Sharpsville push the
water line lateral under the road to the curb box for his duplex. I have no
idea if Dennis paid Sharpsville."
- "Day one prior to the installation, Mark, Burt, and I were discussing the
installation. Burt spoke out against the township installing or paying for a
water line to a supervisor owned property. There was a lot of discussion; I
explained that Dennis told me that Joe had no problem with the township
installing the line and what was I suppose to do. Two supervisors are telling
me to get started."
Note: "Mark" and "Burt" are Mark Presley and Burt DeVries, township road
employees.
- "Day two or three of construction I know there was a problem when Joe told
Sump, 08-068
Page 17
me he thought that Dennis was going to install the water line. I told Joe,
that's also what I thought."
Note: "Joe" is Joe Christoff, Township Supervisor.
- "Dennis asked me to sign a letter with a false account of what happened.
Dennis again led me to believe that Joe was in favor of the letter that is the
only reason I signed."
Note: "Dennis" is Dennis Sump.
44. The letter Nashtock referred to in his correspondence dated March 28, 2008, that
was generated by Sump and signed by Nashtock contained the following:
Waterline to Hemlock Street
To Whom It May Concern:
We have had problems with the well water, at 2011/2021 Hemlock Street, for 15
years. I have requested city water since the summer of 2003. In October, 2006, I
received permission from the Borough of Sharpsville (Mike Wilson) to do the
waterline tap and bore under a driveway with the help of the Sharpsville Borough
workers. At this time the Township was to install the line from the driveway, to the
curb box, because of legal right-of-ways. South Pymatuning Township was to
purchase the 2" plastic pipe and to bill me for the pipe; and I also had to pay for a
$750.00 tap-in fee.
I then received a call from Mike Nashtock just before the job was to be started. He
said the city engineer, Ed Winslow, discussed running a 6" line on the other side of
the road to service Hunter Street in the future, and for fire depression, which was
already in the works. To save money and time, this was to be a trial to see if South
Pymatuning Township workers could do such a job. At this time, Joe Christoff was
called and informed of the job to get a second approval. It was seconded, and the
line was installed with great results.
Submitted by:
Dennis Sump
The letter was also signed by Mike Nashtock and Ed Winslow, the township's
engineer.
45. A letter dated April 14, 2008, generated by Sump as a rebuttal to Nashtock’s letter
of March 28, 2008, was submitted to the Township:
In October of 2006, the three supervisors (Mike Nashtock, Joe Christoff, and
myself) had a meeting concerning my request for water at my property on Hemlock
Street. At that meeting, it was agreed upon that the township would pay for the 2"
line, and I would run the waterline from the fire hydrant (on Tamarack Drive) to my
property on Hemlock Street. I, Dennis Sump, abstained from the vote. This is all
that needed to address my problems at my property. There was no need to go any
further.
At about the time the project was to start, Mike Nashtock (road superintendent)
called me and said Ed Winslow (our city engineer) heard about the project and told
Mike that running a 2" waterline on the private property was not the best way to do
the project. At this time, he proposed that the township should consider tapping in
on Tamarack and running a 6" water main down Hemlock to Hunter, and install a
Sump, 08-068
Page 18
fire hydrant for fire suppression; which was in "Phases of the Waterline Extension
Project." I told Mike if he thinks this is the best way to go that maybe he should
pursue it, but keep in mind that we have an agreement to run a 2" waterline in
place. At this time, I thought Mike called Joe Christoff about the change (same time
about a matter on the police charger), at the hospital and informed him of the
change. Mike also told me that this would be a trial to see if our workers could do
such a project.
FACTS:
1. Verbal agreement to run 2" waterline with township purchase
2. Dennis Sump abstain from voting
3. Letter of what happened from Dennis Sump, signed by Mike
Nashtock and Ed Winslow.
4. Same letter (#3) was confirmed by Mike at a public meeting (with
Joe and I attending)
5. If Mike had concerns on anything that was questionable, why did he not
come to the board and voice his concerns before or when the waterline was
being installed. After all, he had 15 yrs. of experience on township issues.
I find this very disturbing that Mike Nashtock was always in agreement with
everything in fact (run 2" waterline, signed letter of what happened, and publicly
agreeing on what happened), until February of this year (2008) when he was
temporarily laid off (as I seconded the vote for his lay off). This leads me to
question, "Does Mike Nashtock have the best interest (union contract, co-pays,
health insurance, paid lunches, police force internal problems, water line contract
with Sharpsville) of the township?
46. As a result of citizens’ complaints, Sump obtained six quotes from local contractors
in regards to labor costs for the installation of a 2" line from Tamarack Drive to his
duplex.
a. Sump received the following quotes:
Entity Quote Amount
Mark Hackett $1,500.00
Ken Riffe $1,650.00
Todd A. Miller $2,250.00
Combine Construction $2,268.00
Frank Schwartz and Son, Inc. $2,700.00
Trumbull Industries $ 405.00
b. Sump obtained quotes for labor costs for a 2" line only because that was
what he verbally agreed to install in the spring of 2006.
47. On May 20, 2008, Sump issued a Sump Construction business check (#8540) to the
Township in the amount of $2,700.00.
a. Sump’s payment was labeled as a donation to the Township.
48. The May 20, 2008, Township meeting minutes document that discussion of the
installation of the water line to Sump's property, the actual size of the line, and that
the installation was a phase of the waterline extension.
a. The "phase" referenced at the meeting was in regards to one of the phases
outlined in Winslow's May 19, 2006, letter in which Hemlock Street and
Sump, 08-068
Page 19
Hunter Street were to receive public water funded by CDBG monies.
b. The Supervisors accepted Sump's business check at the meeting.
49. During the time [frame] of 2003 to the present, six applications were submitted to
the Township regarding connection to the public water system.
a. Out of the six applications, three (including Sump’s application) indicate that
the installation work regarding the tap-in would be completed by a company
of the homeowner’s choice.
1. In these cases, the homeowner was to pay for the installation work as
stipulated by Township Ordinance.
b. The remaining three applications detailed that the work was already
completed, that some of the work had already been completed, or that a
company had not been selected by the homeowner to do the work.
1. In these cases, the Township paid for some if not all of the installation
work.
c. Of the six applications submitted to the Township, none of the applicants
were billed for material costs other than for water meters.
50. Invoices on file at the Township building document that in 2004 a waterline
extension was installed at Buckeye Drive at the expense of the Township by
McCullough Excavating.
a. The installation came about due to residents requesting a line extension.
b. Materials utilized to extend the waterline at Buckeye Drive were paid for by
the Township.
c. Material costs associated with installing the waterline totaled $6,167.15.
d. Residents who benefited from the installation were not billed by the
Township for the material costs.
51. Sump, as an elected official, participated in discussions and decisions and also
approved bill lists and signed checks regarding a 6" waterline to be paid for and
installed to his duplex at Township expense totaling $10,592.83.
a. Total labor costs for the project were $3,873.48, while materials totaled
$6,719.35.
b. The Township did not charge any resident for materials even though such
was required by Township Ordinance.
c. In discussions with at least one other member of the Board of Supervisors,
Sump agreed to be responsible for installation of the 2” line to his property.
d. Other Township residents were required to pay for the costs of installation of
waterlines.
52. Sump received a private pecuniary gain of $1,173.48 as a result of the difference
between the actual labor installation costs of the waterline to his property and the
amount Sump paid.
Sump, 08-068
Page 20
Labor: $3,873.48
Sump Payment: $2,700.00
$1,173.48
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO SUMP'S FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENT OF
FINANCIAL INTERESTS FORMS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2005 AND 2006.
53. Sump, in his official capacity as Township Supervisor of South Pymatuning
Township, is required to file a Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) form by May 1
annually containing information for the prior calendar year.
a. Township Supervisors are annually provided with blank Statement of
Financial Interests forms for completion.
54. On December 16, 2007, an SFI compliance review was conducted for South
Pymatuning Township by the Investigative Division.
a. No Statement of Financial Interests forms for Sump were on file with South
Pymatuning Township for calendar years 2005 and 2006.
55. Sump filed an SFI for the 2005 calendar year on or about January 18, 2006.
a. The SFI was not on file with the Township at the time of the compliance
review.
b. Sump maintained a copy of his 2005 SFI filing and submitted the form to the
Investigative Division.
56. Sump asserts that he also filed an SFI for the 2006 calendar year with the Township
st
prior to May 1 that year, but has not been able to locate his copy of that form.
57. During 2006, the year for which neither South Pymatuning Township nor Sump has
located a copy of Sump’s SFI, Sump received payment from South Pymatuning
Township as a Supervisor totaling $1,875.00.
a. Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides that no public official shall be
allowed to take the oath of office or enter or continue upon his duties, nor
shall he receive compensation from public funds, unless he has filed a
Statement of Financial Interests as required by this chapter.
58. On April 8, 2009, Sump, who had yet to locate his copy of the SFI filed in 2005,
submitted new SFIs for the calendar years 2005 and 2006 to the Commission.
a. The new 2005 SFI was rendered unnecessary by Sump’s discovery of his
copy of the 2005 SFI originally filed with the Township on January 18, 2006.
b. Sump submitted a completed SFI for calendar year 2006 after receiving a
notice of investigation letter dated January 13, 2009, advising Sump that he
had failed to file the form.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor of South Pymatuning Township (“Township”) in Mercer County,
Pennsylvania, since January 2006, Respondent Dennis Sump (hereinafter also referred to
as “Respondent,” “Respondent Sump,” and “Sump”) has been a public official subject to
Sump, 08-068
Page 21
the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. §
1101 et seq.
The allegations are that Respondent Sump violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and
1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for private
pecuniary gain, including but not limited to utilizing Township employees, equipment, and
materials to install a waterline to property he owns; when he approved payments from
Township accounts for materials and labor for the waterline; when he failed to reimburse
the Township for all of the cost involved for the waterline installation; and 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:
§ 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.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee
must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and
the year after he leaves it.
Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides that no public official shall be allowed to
take the oath of office, enter or continue upon his duties, or receive compensation from
public funds unless he has filed an SFI as required by the Ethics Act.
Sump, 08-068
Page 22
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.
The Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three-member Board of
Supervisors (“Board”). Respondent has served as a Township Supervisor continuously
from January 2006 to the present. The other Township Supervisors are Michael Nashtock
(“Nashtock”) and Joe Christoff (“Christoff”). All three Supervisors hold signature authority
over Township accounts.
Sharpsville Borough Water Company provides public water to areas of the
Township. The main waterlines in the Township are along Tamarack Drive and Buckeye
Drive. Since at least 2003 the Township Supervisors have discussed various options for
providing public water to all residents of the Township.
In 2006, preliminary planning by the Supervisors, the Township's Engineer, and the
Township's Grant Writer took place to provide public water to residents located on
Hemlock Street and Hunter Street. This area was selected because it was believed to be
eligible for Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funding. On May 19, 2006,
Township Engineer Edward Winslow (“Winslow”) sent a letter to Township Grant Writer
Morrie Waltz (“Waltz”) suggesting that three phases be followed in order for public water to
be provided to the area.
For approximately twelve years, Sump has owned a duplex property located at 2011
and 2021 Hemlock Street. The property is located in the area identified as Phase I of the
proposed waterline extensions set forth in Winslow’s May 19, 2006, letter.
Prior to taking office in January 2006, Sump had requested on multiple occasions
that the Supervisors provide public water to his duplex. The requests had not been formal
applications, and no action had been taken as to the requests.
In 2006, at or about the time the Township was considering the installation of water
lines to Hemlock Street, Sump initiated a discussion with Christoff and Nashtock regarding
running a waterline to his duplex. At that time, Nashtock was both a Supervisor and the
Township’s Director of Public Works. Sump was both a Supervisor and Assistant to the
Public Works Director. Sump proposed to the Supervisors that he would install the line if
the Township would pay for the materials. Sump proposed installing a two inch water line,
which would have been sufficient for water service to his property only. Christoff verbally
agreed to authorize the installation. The discussion and decision to service Sump's duplex
did not occur at a formal Township meeting. The Supervisors never officially voted on the
verbal agreement to provide water service to Sump’s property. Nashtock believed that as
Director of Public Works, he was being told by the other two Supervisors to complete the
project. Nashtock did not voice any disapproval at that time.
It was initially agreed by Christoff and Sump that the waterline to Sump's duplex
would be a 2" line. However, Winslow subsequently recommended to Nashtock the
installation of a 6" line, so that the line could service additional residents as outlined in
Winslow's May 19, 2006, letter.
As a result of Winslow’s recommendation, Nashtock informed Sump that the line to
be installed would be a 6” waterline. Sump advised Nashtock that the original agreement
was for a 2" line to be installed by Sump and that Sump did not have the equipment to
install a 6" line. Nashtock proposed to Sump that the Public Works Department could
attempt to install the line for Sump on a “trial basis.”
Nashtock contacted Christoff to inform him that the scope of the project had
changed and that a 6” line would be installed by the Township. Christoff’s
Sump, 08-068
Page 23
recommendation to Nashtock was to do the project "quick and cheap." Sump had no
conversations with Christoff regarding the installation of the 6” line. Nashtock informed
Christoff as to what was discussed between Sump and Nashtock.
From July 2006 through October 2006, the Township purchased materials for the
project and completed the installation of the waterline to Sump’s duplex. Sump
participated in actions of the Board to approve the purchasing of materials necessary to
construct the waterline by voting to approve bill lists and signing checks to pay the vendors
utilized, as detailed in Fact Finding 32. The Township did not invoice Sump for the cost of
materials associated with the project. Installation of the water line was completed by
Nashtock and Township road workers Mark Presley (“Presley”) and Burt DeVries
(“DeVries”). Sump signed seven of the ten total payroll checks issued to Nashtock,
Presley, and DeVries for the weeks in which work related to the waterline project took
place. Total labor costs for the project were $3,873.48, while materials totaled $6,719.35.
All expenses associated with the waterline project were paid out of the Township
General Fund. The Township did not receive grant funding for the project.
Since 1997, a Township ordinance referred to herein as “Ordinance 2 of 1997” has
provided, inter alia, that: (1) a written application signed by the property owner or his
authorized agent must be submitted to the Township in advance for the purpose of
requesting the installation of a water service connection; and (2) the property owner is to
bear certain costs including the cost of all materials associated with a waterline
installation. The Township has not always required applicants to pay for costs of waterline
installation. Per Fact Finding 51 b, the Township did not charge any resident for materials
even though such was required by Township Ordinance. Some Township residents were
required to pay the costs of installation of waterlines. Fact Findings 49-49 b 1; 51 d.
Sump did not submit an application for a permit to connect to the Township’s water
supply until the project had been completed. Sump indicated on the application that his
business, Sump Construction, would install the waterline connection. However, the
Township Public Works Department had already installed the line.
Sump paid the Township tap-in fee of $750.00 and meter fee of $200.00. Sump’s
payment of $950.00 was deposited into the Township water fund on November 14, 2006.
In or about early 2008, Township residents began expressing their displeasure with
the waterline being run solely to Sump's duplex. As a result of citizens’ complaints, Sump
obtained six quotes from local contractors for labor costs for the installation of a 2" line
from Tamarack Drive to his duplex. Sump obtained quotes for labor costs for a 2" line
because that was what he verbally agreed to install in the spring of 2006. The highest of
the six quotes was $2,700.00. On May 20, 2008, Sump issued a Sump Construction
business check to the Township in the amount of $2,700.00. Sump’s payment was labeled
as a donation to the Township.
The May 20, 2008, Township meeting minutes document discussion that the
installation was a phase of the waterline extension outlined in Winslow's May 19, 2006,
letter.
The parties have stipulated that Sump, as an elected official, participated in
discussions and decisions and also approved bill lists and signed checks regarding a 6"
waterline to be paid for and installed to his duplex at Township expense totaling
$10,592.83. The parties have further stipulated that Sump received a private pecuniary
gain of $1,173.48 as a result of the difference between the actual labor installation costs of
the waterline to his property ($3,873.48) and the amount Sump paid ($2,700.00).
As for Sump’s SFIs, on December 16, 2007, an SFI compliance review was
Sump, 08-068
Page 24
conducted for the Township by the Investigative Division. No SFI forms for Sump were on
file with the Township for calendar years 2005 and 2006.
The parties have stipulated that Sump filed an SFI for the 2005 calendar year on or
about January 18, 2006, but the SFI was not on file with the Township at the time of the
compliance review. Sump maintained a copy of his 2005 SFI filing and submitted the form
to the Investigative Division. Sump asserts that he also filed an SFI for the 2006 calendar
year with the Township but has not been able to locate his copy of that form.
On April 8, 2009, Sump submitted new SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 to
this Commission.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
a. That an unintentional violation of Section
1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred in
relation to Sump approving payments for labor to
install a waterline to property he owns.
b. That an unintentional violation of Section
1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), occurred when
Sump participated in actions of the Board to
utilize Township employees, equipment, and
materials to install the waterline to property he
owns.
c. That an unintentional violation of Section
1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a), occurred in
relation to Sump’s failure to file a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 2006 with
South Pymatuning Township.
4. Sump agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,173.48 in
settlement of this matter payable to the South Pymatuning
Township 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.
Sump, 08-068
Page 25
Consent Agreement, at 1-2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties’ recommendations for
findings of two unintentional violations of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
The parties have stipulated that Sump, in his capacity as an elected official,
participated in discussions and decisions and also approved bill lists and signed checks
regarding a 6" waterline to be paid for and installed to his duplex at Township expense
totaling $10,592.83.
Sump used the authority of his public office when he participated in actions of the
Board to approve the purchasing of materials necessary to construct the waterline by
voting to approve bill lists and signing checks to pay the vendors utilized, as detailed in
Fact Finding 32.
Installation of the water line was completed by Nashtock and Township road
workers Mark Presley (“Presley”) and Burt DeVries (“DeVries”). Sump used the authority
of his public office as a Township Supervisor when he signed, as an authorized Township
signatory, seven of the ten total payroll checks issued to Nashtock, Presley, and DeVries
for the weeks in which work related to the waterline project took place.
The parties have stipulated that Sump received a private pecuniary gain of
$1,173.48 as a result of the difference between the actual labor installation costs of the
waterline to his property ($3,873.48) and the amount Sump paid ($2,700.00).
Although intent is not a requisite element of a violation of the Ethics Act, see,
Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987), the parties are
in agreement that the aforesaid violations were unintentional.
Accordingly, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act occurred in relation to Sump approving payments for labor to install a waterline to
property he owns.
We further hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
occurred when Sump participated in actions of the Board to utilize Township employees,
equipment, and materials to install the waterline to property he owns.
We accept the parties’ recommendation for a finding that an unintentional violation
of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Sump’s failure to file an SFI for
calendar year 2006 with the Township.
On December 16, 2007, when an SFI compliance review was conducted for the
Township by the Investigative Division, no SFI forms for Sump were on file with the
Township for calendar years 2005 and 2006. The parties have stipulated that Sump filed
an SFI for the 2005 calendar year on or about January 18, 2006, but the SFI was not on
file with the Township at the time of the compliance review. Sump maintained a copy of his
2005 SFI filing and submitted the form to the Investigative Division. Sump asserts that he
also filed an SFI for the 2006 calendar year with the Township but has not been able to
locate his copy of that form.
On April 8, 2009, Sump submitted new SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 to
this Commission.
Based upon the above facts, we accept the recommendation of the parties and hold
that an unintentional violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to
Sump’s failure to file an SFI for calendar year 2006 with the Township.
Sump, 08-068
Page 26
As for Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act, it appears that the Investigative Division in
the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion has elected to non pros that particular portion of
the allegations.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Sump has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $1,173.48 payable to South Pymatuning Township and forwarded to this
Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
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, Sump is directed to make
payment in the amount of $1,173.48 payable to South Pymatuning Township 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:
1. As a Supervisor of South Pymatuning Township (“Township”) in Mercer County,
Pennsylvania, since January 2006, Respondent Dennis Sump (“Sump”) 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. Sump unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), when he approved payments for labor to install a waterline to property he
owns.
3. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when Sump participated in actions of the Township Board of
Supervisors to utilize Township employees, equipment, and materials to install the
waterline to property he owns.
4. An unintentional violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(a), occurred in relation to Sump’s failure to file a Statement of Financial
Interests for calendar year 2006 with the Township.
In Re: Dennis Sump, : File Docket: 08-068
Respondent : Date Decided: 12/15/09
: Date Mailed: 12/29/09
ORDER NO. 1543
1. Dennis Sump (“Sump”), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor of South
Pymatuning Township (“Township”) since January 2006, unintentionally violated
Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he approved payments for labor to install a waterline to
property he owns.
2. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when Sump participated in actions of the Township Board of
Supervisors to utilize Township employees, equipment, and materials to install the
waterline to property he owns.
3. An unintentional violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(a), occurred in relation to Sump’s failure to file a Statement of Financial
Interests for calendar year 2006 with the Township.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Sump is directed to make payment in the
amount of $1,173.48 payable to South Pymatuning Township and forwarded to the
th
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after
the mailing date of this Order.
5. Compliance with Paragraph 4 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