HomeMy WebLinkAbout1545 Ruff
In Re: Linda Ruff, : File Docket: 08-073
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1545
: 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.
Ruff, 08-073
Page 2
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Linda E. Ruff, a public official/public employee in her capacity as a Supervisor
for Halifax Township, Dauphin County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b) of the State
Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1105(b), when she used the
authority of her position for a private pecuniary benefit by authorizing the use of the
Township road crew members and equipment to perform services on her property
including, but not limited to, the planting of sycamore trees and removing damaged trees
and debris from property she owns; when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial
Interests filed for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 [calendar years] all sources of income in
excess of $1,300.00 in form of rental income and income from the Township; and when
she failed to disclose on Statement of Financial Interests forms filed for the 2007 calendar
year, the receipt of sycamore trees valued in the aggregate in excess of $250.00 and the
circumstances of the gift.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Linda Ruff was appointed as a Supervisor for Halifax Township in 2003.
a. Ruff was elected to a full-term as Supervisor during the 2005 General
Election.
b. Ruff currently serves as a Halifax Township Supervisor.
2. Halifax Township is a Second Class Township governed by a five member Board of
Supervisors.
a. Halifax Township regularly holds one pre-scheduled monthly meeting.
1. Special Meetings are held as necessary.
b. Halifax Township Supervisors serve six (6) year terms.
3. Voting at Halifax Township meetings occurs by roll call vote, after a motion is made
and properly seconded.
a. Abstentions and objections are specifically noted in the minutes.
b. Meeting minutes are approved at subsequent meetings for accuracy.
4. Linda Ruff owns three residential properties in Halifax Township.
a. Ruff resides at a property located at [address redacted].
b. Ruff owns a rental property located at 175 S. River Road, Halifax, PA.
1. Ruff purchased the property in 2004.
c. Ruff also owns a rental property located at 443 S. River Road, Halifax, PA.
1. Ruff purchased the property in 2006.
5. On Friday, December 1, 2006, at approximately 4:35 p.m., an F1 class tornado with
winds between 73 and 112 miles per hour struck Halifax Township damaging
homes, businesses, and properties.
a. Six businesses sustained approximately $1.3 million in damage from the
Ruff, 08-073
Page 3
Halifax tornado.
b. Damage to seventy (70) homes totaled approximately $700,000.00.
6. Among the areas that sustained tornado damage was “Sycamore Allee,” a section
of sycamore trees that line Route 147 and Route 225 in Halifax Township.
a. Currently, there are approximately 311 sycamore trees that line Routes 147
and 225.
1. A total of four (4) sycamore trees were damaged or destroyed during
the tornado along “Sycamore Allee.”
b. The sycamore trees were planted in the 1920’s in honor of World War I
veterans.
c. The trees are listed on the National Historic Registry.
1. Linda Ruff was the main advocate to the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission for the trees to be placed on the Registry.
7. The majority of tornado damage in Halifax Township was on private property.
a. The majority of the damage from the tornado was in the area of Halifax
Township where Routes 225 and 147 meet known as “the triangle.”
8. Tornado damage included damage to Linda Ruff’s residential property located at
[address redacted].
a. Ruff’s property is located in the area known as “the triangle.”
b. Ruff’s property was one of the properties that sustained significant damage.
c. Damage to Ruff’s property included the destruction of approximately 40 large
white pine trees along the south border of her property and blue spruce trees
located in front of her residence.
1. A blue spruce fell onto Ruff’s neighbor’s fence causing significant
damage to the fence.
d. The tornado also caused approximately $40,000.00 damage to the south
side of Ruff’s house including damage to the roof and siding of the structure.
9. On December 1, 2006, after the tornado had passed, Township and County officials
used the Halifax Fire Department Building as a staging area for recovery efforts.
a. At that time a situational overview meeting was held.
b. A Declaration of Disaster Emergency was signed into effect by Halifax
Township officials, dated December 1, 2006.
c. Halifax Township Supervisors (Supervisors) Linda Ruff, Norma Shearer, and
Mike Decker were present at the staging area meeting.
1. Supervisors Pat Kauffman and Carol Eppley were not present.
d. Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency (EMA) official Kevin
Ruff, 08-073
Page 4
Nelson presided over the meeting.
e. There are no formal written records of this meeting, other than the
Declaration of Disaster Emergency.
10. The Declaration of Disaster Emergency authorized by the Supervisors provided as
follows:
WHEREAS, on or about December 1, 2006, a (disaster) has caused or threatens to
cause injury, damage, and suffering to the persons and property of Halifax
Township; and
WHEREAS, the (disaster) has endangered the health, safety and welfare of a
substantial number of persons residing in Halifax Township; and threatens to
create problems greater in scope than Halifax Township may be able to
resolve; and
WHEREAS, emergency management measures are required to reduce the severity
of this disaster and to protect the health, safety and welfare of affected
residents in Halifax Township;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Supervisors of Halifax Township,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 7501 of the Pennsylvania Emergency
Management Services Code, (35 PA C.S., Section 7501), as amended, do
hereby declare the existence of a disaster emergency in Halifax Township;
FURTHER, we direct the Halifax Township Emergency Management Coordinator
and/or the Roadmaster to coordinate the activities of the emergency
response, to take all appropriate action needed to alleviate the effects of this
disaster, to aid in the restoration of essential public services, and to take any
other emergency response action deemed necessary to respond to this
emergency.
STILL FURTHER, we authorize officials of Halifax Township to act as necessary to
meet the current exigencies of this emergency, namely: by the employment
of temporary workers, by the rental of equipment, by the purchase of
supplies and materials, and by entering into such contracts and agreements
for the performance of public work as may be required to meet the
emergency, all without regard to those time-consuming procedures and
formalities normally prescribed by law, mandatory constitutional
requirements excepted.
This Declaration shall take effect immediately.
a. The Declaration was signed by Supervisor Chairman Shearer and Vice-
Chairman Decker and Secretary Carolyn Nye.
b. The Declaration was attested to by Ruff.
11. A discussion among the Supervisors present at the staging area focused on the
need to assist residents with tornado damage cleanup on private property.
a. Ruff participated in the discussions which resulted in the Township assisting
residents with cleanup on private property.
1. Ruff stated during an interview with Ethics Commission investigators
that she did not clearly recall the events of the evening due to her
Ruff, 08-073
Page 5
being in an emotionally distressed state.
b. No decision was made at that time to assist residents with cleanup on private
property.
12. On December 2, 2006, the decision was made by Township officials to assist
Halifax Township residents with tornado damage cleanup on private property.
a. Ruff participated in the decision along with Supervisors Shearer and Decker.
b. The decision was not made at an official meeting.
c. There is no written record of the decision.
d. At the time Ruff participated in the decision, her property was one of several
properties that had sustained heavy tornado damage.
13. Numerous volunteers from throughout Dauphin County had volunteered to assist
with cleanup.
a. Municipalities offered manpower and equipment.
b. Other volunteers included citizens and inmates from Dauphin County prison.
14. As a result of the decision made by Ruff, Shearer, and Decker, Halifax Township
employees began the cleanup of tornado damage at approximately fifty (50) homes
and businesses in Halifax Township.
a. The Township-wide cleanup lasted approximately 6 to 8 weeks.
b. It was confirmed by Dauphin County EMA Director, Steve Shaver, that it was
the decision of the municipality whether or not to assist residents with
cleanup on private property.
15. Cleanup was primarily completed by Halifax Township Roadmaster Dale Shoop and
Halifax Township Roadworker Raymond Maus.
a. Derry Township, Dauphin County, donated employee Gary Wagner’s labor
for 3 working days and a wood chipper to assist in the tornado cleanup.
b. Dauphin County Prison inmates and volunteers from around the area also
assisted with the cleanup.
c. Halifax Township equipment including a dump truck, a pay loader, and
chainsaws were used during the cleanup.
16. A press release was issued on December 5, 2006, regarding tornado cleanup in
Halifax Township. The press release read as follows:
“HARRISBURG, December 5, 2006-Halifax Township road crews and
volunteers from throughout the County will converge upon the Township
tomorrow to help cleanup fallen tree trunks, stray branches and other
organic material left in the wake of Friday’s deadly tornado.
In order to take advantage of this free service, the Township is asking that
homeowners be present at their home at the time of the cleanup. In this
way, the homeowner can give his or her permission for volunteers to enter
Ruff, 08-073
Page 6
the property and can show the crews what trees and debris they desire to
have removed.
Anyone interested in volunteering is asked to arrive at 8:00 a.m. at the
Halifax fire station #29 at South River Road, Halifax.
According to Jeff Enders, Mayor of the Halifax Borough, the crews will
concentrate of [sic] the area around the Halifax triangle (Routes 225 and
147) and work their way out.”
17. Linda Ruff’s property was the first property to receive Township assistance
regarding tornado damage cleanup from Township employees and volunteers.
a. Work began on Ruff’s property on December 6, 2009 [sic].
b. Downed trees, limbs, branches and other debris were cleaned up [by] the
crew.
18. The Halifax Township road crew assisted all Township residents who requested
assistance with tornado cleanup.
a. The road crew also assisted residents of neighboring municipality, Jackson
Township, with cleanup.
1. Jackson Township did not offer assistance to its residents with
tornado cleanup on private property.
b. Generally no more than one full day of cleanup was spent on other
properties requesting assistance.
1. Ruff’s property sustained the most significant damage.
19. No residents of Halifax Township were charged for any cleanup services provided
by Township employees, Derry Township employees or volunteers.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT RUFF UTILIZED
THE AUTHORITY OF HER OFFICE BY DIRECTING THE PLANTING OF SYCAMORE
TREES DONATED TO THE TOWNSHIP UPON PROPERTY SHE OWNED
.
20. In late November 2007, Valley Ag and Turf L.L.C., a local nursery, donated six (6)
sycamore trees to Halifax Township.
a. Valley Ag and Turf is owned by George Kolkiewicz.
b. Kolkiewicz donated six (6) replacement trees that were to be planted where
trees were lost during the December 1, 2006, tornado.
1. There were a total of four (4) trees lost during the December 1, 2006,
tornado.
c. The donated trees were estimated by Kolkiewicz to be valued at
approximately $200.00 each.
1. The trees were three (3) to four (4) inches in diameter and were
between twelve (12) and (18) feet tall.
d. Kolkiewicz’s contact person with the Township regarding the donation of the
Ruff, 08-073
Page 7
trees was Linda Ruff.
21. Sometime in late November 2007, the trees were delivered to the Halifax Fire
Department building by Kolkiewicz.
a. The trees were placed along the Fire Department’s driveway and were
exposed to the sun.
1. Kolkiewicz expressed that they did not have enough moisture to
survive for a long period of time and that the trees should be planted
as soon as possible.
2. The trees were very large and could not be stored in any other
capacity.
b. There was also a threat of the ground freezing due to the seasonal changes
occurring in late November.
1. If the ground was to freeze the trees could not be planted properly.
22. All property owners who lost trees as a result of the tornado were contacted and
offered one of the Sycamore trees donated by Kolkiewicz.
a. The Halifax Fire Department declined a replacement tree for one lost during
the tornado.
b. William Keefer, resident of Halifax Township, declined a tree because he did
not want his yard to be damaged further by the planting of the tree.
c. Two of the donated sycamore trees were planted as replacements on the
property of Mark Hoffman, and two trees were planted at [address redacted]
at the residence of Kristen Jones.
1. Both Hoffman and Jones had sycamores damaged by the tornado.
d. All of the contacts with residents were made by Ruff.
23. Two donated trees remained after all property owners who had lost trees were
contacted.
a. Ruff offered to have the remaining trees planted along the right-of-way at her
rental property located at 175 South River Road, Halifax, PA.
24. Ruff and Supervisor Norma Shearer made the decision where to plant the donated
trees.
a. Ruff and Shearer authorized the planting by the Township road crew.
b. The decision to use the Township road crew was not made by vote of the
Township Board of Supervisors.
c. Halifax Township Board of Supervisors meeting minutes do not show
mention of an official vote authorizing the use of Township labor and
equipment to plant the donated trees.
d. The decision was made solely by Ruff and Shearer.
Ruff, 08-073
Page 8
e. All donated trees, including the two (2) placed on Ruff’s property, were
planted within the PennDOT right-of-way along “Sycamore Allee.”
f. Residents were not charged any fee or cost associated with the planting of
the donated trees by the Township.
25. Had the two (2) remaining sycamore trees not been planted at the same time as the
others, they most likely would have died or otherwise been rendered useless.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT RUFF FAILED
TO DISCLOSE ON STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR THE 2004,
2005, 2006, AND 2007 CALENDAR YEARS ALL SOURCES OF INCOME IN EXCESS OF
$1,300.00 IN THE FORM OF RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM THE TOWNSHIP
AND WHEN SHE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ON STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS
FORMS FILED FOR THE 2007 CALENDAR YEAR THE RECEIPT OF SYCAMORE
TREES VALUED IN THE AGGREGATE IN EXCESS OF $250.00 AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE GIFT.
26. As Supervisor for Halifax Township, Linda Ruff was annually required to file a
Statement of Financial Interests form by the yearly May 1 deadline, containing
information for the prior calendar year.
27. On December 26, 2008, a Statement of Financial Interests Compliance Review was
conducted at the Halifax Township Office in Halifax, Dauphin County. Statement of
Financial Interests forms on file included the following filings by Ruff:
a. Calendar Year: 2004
Filed: 2/20/05 on SEC form 01/05
Position: Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct/Indirect Sources of Income: Halifax Township
Office, Directorship, or Employment in Any Business: None
Financial interests In Any Business: None
All Other Financial Interests: None
b. Calendar Year: 2005
Filed: 12/27/05 on SEC form 01/06
Position: Township Supervisor
Creditors: Chrysler Financial, 0%
Direct/Indirect Sources of Income: None
Office, Directorship, or Employment in Any Business: None
All Other Financial Interests: None
c. Calendar Year: 2006
Filed: 5/14/07 on SEC form 01/04
Position: Township Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct/Indirect Sources of Income: Halifax Township and Rental properties,
175 South River Road and 443 South River Road, Halifax
Office, Directorship, or Employment in Any Business: None
Financial Interests in Any Business: None
All Other Financial Interests: None
d. Calendar Year: 2007
Filed: 1/11/08 on SEC form 01/08
Position: Supervisor
Creditors: None
Ruff, 08-073
Page 9
Direct/Indirect Sources of Income: None
Office, Directorship, or Employment in Any Business: None
Financial Interests in Any Business: None
All Other Financial Interests: None
28. Ruff failed to list Halifax Township as a source of direct/indirect income above the
amount of $1,300.00 on the 2005 and 2007 calendar year forms.
a. Halifax Township records confirmed that Ruff was compensated in excess of
$1,300.00 by Halifax Township as shown below:
Year Income
2005 1875.00
2007 1875.00
29. Ruff failed to list rental income from her rental properties as a source of
direct/indirect income above the amount of $1,300.00 on the 2005 and 2007
calendar year forms.
a. Ruff began earning rental income from the rental property located at 175 S.
River Road, Halifax, PA in 2005.
1. Ruff confirmed during an interview with Ethics Commission
investigators that the rental payments were above the $1,300.00
requirement to be listed on the financial disclosure form.
b. Ruff began receiving rental income on the rental property located at 443 S.
River Road, Halifax, PA in 2007.
1. Ruff confirmed during an interview with the Ethics Commission
investigators that the rental payments were above the $1,300.00
requirement to be listed on the financial disclosure form.
30. Ruff received two sycamore trees in 2007 from George Kolkiewicz valued at
$200.00 per tree for a total value of $400.00.
a. The trees were not received from a spouse, parent, parent by marriage,
sibling, child, grandchild, other family member or friend, and the
circumstances surrounding the gift did not indicate the motivation for the
action was a personal or family relationship.
b. The receipt of the trees was not reported as a gift by Ruff on the Statement
of Financial Interests she filed for the 2007 calendar year.
c. In her interview with representatives of the State Ethics Commission, Ruff
stated her belief that the sycamore trees did not constitute a gift, as they
were utilized as part of a restoration of Sycamore Allee, an historic landmark,
and were placed within the PennDOT right-of-way.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Halifax Township (“Township”) since 2003, Respondent Linda
Ruff (hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Ruff,” and “Ruff”) 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.
Ruff, 08-073
Page 10
The allegations are that Respondent Ruff violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b) of
the Ethics Act when she used the authority of her position for a private pecuniary benefit
by authorizing the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to perform
services on her property including, but not limited to, the planting of sycamore trees and
removing damaged trees and debris from property she owns; when she failed to disclose
on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007
calendar years all sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 in form of rental income and
income from the Township; and when she failed to disclose on SFI forms filed for the 2007
calendar year the receipt of sycamore trees valued in the aggregate in excess of $250.00
and the circumstances of the gift.
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 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure
that a person required to file the SFI form must provide.
Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section
1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address
of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more.
Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section
1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address
Ruff, 08-073
Page 11
of the source and the amount of any gift or gifts valued in the aggregate at $250 or more
and the circumstances of each gift.
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 governed by a five-Member Board of Supervisors (“Board”).
Respondent has served as a Township Supervisor since 2003.
Respondent resides at a property in the Township that is hereinafter referred to as
“Respondent’s Residence.” Respondent also owns two rental properties located at 175 S.
River Road and 443 S. River Road, Halifax, Pennsylvania.
On Friday, December 1, 2006, a tornado struck the Township damaging homes,
businesses, and properties. Six businesses sustained approximately $1.3 million in
damage from the tornado. Damage to 70 homes totaled approximately $700,000.00. The
tornado caused significant damage to Respondent’s Residence, including damage to
Respondent’s home and the destruction of approximately 40 large white pine trees and
blue spruce trees.
On December 1, 2006, after the tornado had passed, Township and County officials
held a situational overview meeting. Respondent and Township Supervisors Norma
Shearer (“Shearer”) and Mike Decker (“Decker”) were present at the meeting. Supervisors
Pat Kauffman and Carol Eppley were not present. A Declaration of Disaster Emergency
was signed into effect by Shearer, Decker, and Township Secretary Carolyn Nye. The
Declaration was attested to by Respondent. Respondent also participated in discussions
of the Supervisors regarding the need to assist residents with tornado damage cleanup on
private property.
On the following day, December 2, 2006, the decision was made by Township
officials to assist Township residents with tornado damage cleanup on private property.
Respondent, Shearer and Decker participated in the decision. The decision was not made
at an official meeting. There is no written record of the decision. At the time Respondent
participated in the decision, her property was one of several properties that had sustained
heavy tornado damage.
As a result of the decision made by Respondent, Shearer, and Decker, Township
employees began the cleanup of tornado damage at approximately 50 homes and
businesses in the Township. Township equipment including a dump truck, a pay loader,
and chainsaws were used during the cleanup.
Respondent’s Residence was the first property to receive Township cleanup
assistance from Township employees and volunteers. Downed trees, limbs, branches and
other debris were cleaned up by the crew.
The Township road crew assisted all Township residents who requested assistance
with tornado cleanup. Respondent’s Residence had sustained the most significant
damage. No residents of the Township were charged for any cleanup services provided by
Township employees.
During the tornado, a total of four sycamore trees had been damaged or destroyed
along “Sycamore Allee,” a section of sycamore trees that line Route 147 and Route 225 in
the Township. Sycamore Allee is an historic landmark.
In late November 2007, George Kolkiewicz, owner of a local nursery named “Valley
Ruff, 08-073
Page 12
Ag and Turf L.L.C.,” donated to the Township six sycamore trees to be planted where trees
had been lost during the December 1, 2006, tornado. The donated trees were valued at
approximately $200.00 each.
Respondent was the Township contact person for the donation of the trees.
Respondent also contacted each property owner who lost sycamore tree(s) as a result of
the tornado and offered donated sycamore tree(s) as replacement(s).
After all property owners who had lost sycamore trees had been contacted, two
donated trees remained. Respondent had not lost sycamore trees (see, Fact Findings 6 a
1, 20 b 1, 22-23). However, Respondent offered to have the remaining trees planted along
the right-of-way at her rental property located at 175 South River Road. Respondent
received two of the sycamore trees valued at $200.00 per tree for a total value of $400.00.
The decision of where to plant the donated trees was made solely by Respondent
and Shearer without any Board vote. Respondent and Shearer authorized the planting of
the sycamore trees by the Township road crew. All donated trees, including the two
placed on Respondent’s property, were planted within the PennDOT right-of-way along
“Sycamore Allee.” Residents were not charged any fee or cost associated with the
planting of the donated trees by the Township.
With regard to Respondent’s SFIs, the parties have stipulated that Respondent
failed to list the Township as a direct/indirect source of income on her SFIs for calendar
years 2005 and 2007 despite having received compensation in excess of $1,300.00 from
the Township in each of those years. Respondent listed the Township as a direct/indirect
source of income on her SFIs for calendar years 2004 and 2006.
On her SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2007, Respondent failed to list a
direct/indirect source of income as to her rental income from her rental properties. Per the
Stipulated Findings, Respondent began earning rental income from the rental property
located at 175 S. River Road in 2005. Respondent began receiving rental income from the
rental property located at 443 S. River Road in 2007. Respondent confirmed that the
aforesaid rental payments at each property were above the $1,300.00 threshold requiring
disclosure on her SFI forms.
Respondent listed both rental properties as a direct/indirect source of income on her
SFI for calendar year 2006.
As for Respondent’s SFI for calendar year 2004, there is no basis in the Stipulated
Findings for concluding that Respondent received any rental income in 2004.
Respondent did not disclose the aforesaid sycamore trees as a gift on her SFI filed
for the 2007 calendar year. As noted above, the trees were valued at $200.00 per tree for
a total value of $400.00. The trees were not received from a spouse, parent, parent by
marriage, sibling, child, grandchild, other family member or friend. Respondent was of the
belief that the sycamore trees did not constitute a gift, as they were utilized as part of a
restoration of Sycamore Allee, an historic landmark, and were placed within the PennDOT
right-of-way.
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:
Ruff, 08-073
Page 13
a. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a), occurred in connection with the use of
the Township road crew members and
equipment to perform services on Ruff’s
property, including but not limited to, the removal
of damaged trees and debris from property she
owns; in that any action taken by Ruff affected to
the same degree, a class consisting of the
general public, which included Ruff and/or
members of her immediate family.
b. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a), occurred in connection with the use of
the Township road crew members and
equipment to plant donated sycamore trees on
property Ruff owns; in that any action taken by
Ruff affected to the same degree, a class
consisting of the general public, which included
Ruff and/or members of her immediate family,
that being all property owners who lost sycamore
trees in Halifax Township, and/or resulted in a
de minimis pecuniary gain, if any gain at all.
c. That an unintentional violation of Section
1105(b) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b), occurred in
relation to Ruff’s failure to disclose on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 [calendar years] all
sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 in the
form of rental income and income from the
Township.
d. That an unintentional violation of Section
1105(b) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b), [occurred]
when Ruff failed to disclose on Statements of
Financial Interests forms filed for the 2007
calendar year, the receipt of sycamore trees
valued in the aggregate in excess of $250.00
and the circumstances of the gift.
4. Ruff agrees to make payment in the amount of $300.00 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
Ruff, 08-073
Page 14
comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or
cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to
review this matter further.
6. To the extent she has not already done so, Ruff agrees to file
amended Statements of Financial Interests for the 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007 calendar years with Halifax Township,
providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act,
and to forward copies of all such filings to the Pennsylvania
State Ethics Commission for compliance verification purposes,
by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of
the Final Order regarding this matter.
Consent Agreement, at 1-3.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendations of the
parties for findings of no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act based upon the
applicability of exclusions to the statutory definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65
Pa.C.S. § 1102.
The statutory definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" includes two exclusions,
hereinafter referred to as the "de minimis exclusion” and the "class/subclass exclusion."
The de minimis exclusion precludes a finding of conflict of interest as to an action
having a de minimis (insignificant) economic impact. Thus, when a matter that would
otherwise constitute a conflict of interest under the Ethics Act would have an insignificant
economic impact, a conflict would not exist and Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act would not
be implicated. See, Kolb, Order 1322; Schweinsburg, Order 900.
In order for the class/subclass exclusion to apply, two criteria must be met: (1) the
affected public official/public employee, immediate family member, or business with which
the public official/public employee or immediate family member is associated must be a
member of a class consisting of the general public or a true subclass consisting of more
than one member; and (2) the public official/public employee, immediate family member, or
business with which the public official/public employee or immediate family member is
associated must be affected "to the same degree" (in no way differently) than the other
members of the class/subclass. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102; see, Kablack, Opinion 02-003;
Rubenstein, Opinion 01-007. The first criterion of the exclusion is satisfied where the
members of the proposed subclass are similarly situated as the result of relevant shared
characteristics. The second criterion of the exclusion is satisfied where the
individual/business in question and the other members of the class/subclass are
reasonably affected to the same degree by the proposed action. Kablack, supra.
In the instant matter, Respondent was a member of a class/subclass of Township
residents who sustained tornado damage to their residential properties. The Township
offered free cleanup services to all Township residents who had sustained tornado
damage to their personal properties. Although the Stipulated Findings indicate that
Respondent’s Residence had sustained the most significant damage, there is no indication
in the Stipulated Findings that Respondent received any greater benefit than the other
members of the class/subclass as to the Township-assisted cleanup. Per the Consent
Agreement, the parties are in agreement that Respondent and/or members of her
immediate family were affected by the cleanup to the same degree as the other members
of the class/subclass.
Accordingly we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred
in connection with the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to perform
services on Ruff’s property, including but not limited to, the removal of damaged trees and
Ruff, 08-073
Page 15
debris from property she owns, in that any action taken by Ruff affected to the same
degree a class/subclass of Township residents, which included Ruff and/or members of
her immediate family.
The Township offered free-of-charge the use of Township employees/equipment to
plant donated sycamore trees to replace those that had been lost as a result of the
tornado. After all property owners who had lost sycamore trees had been given the
opportunity to receive replacement trees planted for them by the Township, there were two
donated trees left. Respondent offered to have those trees planted on one of her rental
properties. The value of the trees was $400.00 total.
All donated trees, including the two placed on Respondent’s property, were planted
within the PennDOT right-of-way along “Sycamore Allee.”
Per the Stipulated Findings, Respondent was not one of the Township property
owners who had lost sycamore trees, and in that regard, she differed from the other
Township residents who received replacement trees. However, we agree with the parties
that under the particular circumstances in this case, any pecuniary gain Respondent
received as a result of the Township planting two sycamore trees within the PennDOT
right-of-way at Respondent’s rental property was de minimis.
Therefore, we accept the recommendation of the parties and hold that no violation
of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in connection with the use of the Township
road crew members and equipment to plant donated sycamore trees on property
Respondent owns, in that any action taken by Respondent resulted in a de minimis
pecuniary gain, if any gain at all.
As for Respondent’s SFIs, it is clear that the SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2007
were deficient because they failed to list: (1) the Township as a direct/indirect source of
income; and (2) a direct/indirect source of income as to Respondent’s rental income.
Respondent’s SFI for calendar year 2007 was also deficient because Respondent failed to
disclose the aforesaid sycamore trees as a gift.
Per the Consent Agreement, the parties are in agreement that Respondent’s SFIs
for the 2004 and 2006 calendar years also were deficient.
Per the Fact Findings, Respondent’s SFI for calendar year 2006 listed the Township
as a direct/indirect source of income and also listed both rental properties as a
direct/indirect source of income.
Respondent’s SFI for calendar year 2004 listed the Township as a direct/indirect
source of income, and there is no basis in the Stipulated Findings for concluding that
Respondent received any rental income in 2004.
Recognizing that when a Consent Agreement is negotiated, there is a give and take
by both sides as part of the negotiation process, we accept the parties’ recommendations
as set forth in the Consent Agreement and hold that an unintentional violation of Section
1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent’s failure to disclose on SFIs
filed for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years all sources of income in excess of
$1,300.00 in the form of rental income and income from the Township. We further hold that
an unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent
failed to disclose on SFI form(s) filed for the 2007 calendar year, the receipt of sycamore
trees valued in the aggregate in excess of $250.00 and the circumstances of the gift.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $300.00 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.
Ruff, 08-073
Page 16
Respondent has further agreed to file with the Township amended SFIs for calendar
years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, providing full financial disclosure as required by the
Ethics Act, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission for compliance
verification purposes, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of the
Final Order regarding 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, Respondent is directed to
make payment in the amount of $300.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
th
and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing
date of this adjudication and Order.
To the extent she has not already done so, Respondent is directed to file with the
Township amended SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, providing full
financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward copies of all such filings
th
to this Commission for compliance verification purposes, by no later than the thirtieth (30)
day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Supervisor for Halifax Township (“Township”) since 2003, Respondent Linda
Ruff (“Ruff”) 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. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
connection with the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to
perform services on Ruff’s property, including but not limited to, the removal of
damaged trees and debris from property she owns, in that any action taken by Ruff
affected to the same degree a class/subclass of Township residents, which included
Ruff and/or members of her immediate family.
3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
connection with the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to
plant donated sycamore trees on property Ruff owns, in that any action taken by
Ruff resulted in a de minimis pecuniary gain, if any gain at all.
4. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred in relation to Ruff’s failure to disclose on Statements of Financial
Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years all
sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 in the form of rental income and income
from the Township.
5. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred when Ruff failed to disclose on SFI form(s) filed for the 2007
calendar year, the receipt of sycamore trees valued in the aggregate in excess of
$250.00 and the circumstances of the gift.
In Re: Linda Ruff, : File Docket: 08-073
Respondent : Date Decided: 12/15/09
: Date Mailed: 12/29/09
ORDER NO. 1545
1. Linda Ruff (“Ruff”), a public official in her capacity as a Supervisor for Halifax
Township (“Township”) since 2003, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in connection
with the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to perform
services on Ruff’s property, including but not limited to, the removal of damaged
trees and debris from property she owns, in that any action taken by Ruff affected to
the same degree a class/subclass of Township residents, which included Ruff
and/or members of her immediate family.
2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
connection with the use of the Township road crew members and equipment to
plant donated sycamore trees on property Ruff owns, in that any action taken by
Ruff resulted in a de minimis pecuniary gain, if any gain at all.
3. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred in relation to Ruff’s failure to disclose on Statements of Financial
Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years all
sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 in the form of rental income and income
from the Township.
4. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred when Ruff failed to disclose on SFI form(s) filed for the 2007
calendar year, the receipt of sycamore trees valued in the aggregate in excess of
$250.00 and the circumstances of the gift.
5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Ruff is directed to make payment in the
amount of $300.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to
th
the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day
after the mailing date of this Order.
6. To the extent she has not already done so, Ruff is directed to file with the Township
amended SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, providing full
financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward copies of all such
filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for compliance verification
th
purposes, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order.
7. Compliance with Paragraphs 5 and 6 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,
___________________________
Name, Case #
Page 18
Louis W. Fryman, Chair