Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1566 Haywood In Re: David Haywood, : File Docket: 09-032 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1566 : Date Decided: 10/19/10 : Date Mailed: 10/26/10 Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella Mark Volk This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above-named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an “Investigative Complaint.” An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. 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. Haywood, 09-032 Page 2 I.ALLEGATIONS: That David Haywood, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1104(a), when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary benefit, including but not limited to increasing his rate of compensation as a Board Member without approval of the South Pymatuning Township Board of Supervisors, the appointing authority; and then subsequently participating in actions of the Authority Board to issue payments to him; and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005 and 2006 calendar year[s]. II.FINDINGS: 1. David Haywood served as a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (hereafter Authority) from February 11, 2002, through August 31, 2006. a. Haywood served as the Treasurer of the Authority Board from January 6, 2003, through August 31, 2006. b. Haywood submitted an undated letter of resignation effective September 1, 2006, regarding his position on the Authority Board. 1. The South Pymatuning Township Supervisors formally accepted Haywood’s resignation at the September 12, 2006, Supervisors meeting. 2. The South Pymatuning Township Supervisors created the Authority via Ordinance presented at a meeting of the Township Supervisors on September 30, 1968. a. The Township Supervisors created the Authority pursuant to the authority granted them in the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. b. The Authority provides sewage service for approximately sixty percent of South Pymatuning Township. 3. The South Pymatuning Township Supervisors are responsible for appointing the Members of the Authority Board and setting Board Member compensation. a. Authority Board Members serve five year terms. b. Pursuant to the provisions of the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for Authority Board Members must be established by the appointing authority. 1. Board Members are not permitted to receive an increase or decrease in compensation during their existing terms. 2. Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term after the increase/decrease is enacted. 4. The original Articles of Incorporation associated with the Authority provided for a five Member Board of Directors. a. The Articles of Incorporation specifically mandated that the Authority was limited to the undertaking of only those projects which it was directed to undertake by resolution or ordinance of the Board of Supervisors. Haywood, 09-032 Page 3 5. The Authority is currently governed by a five Member Board of Directors. a. The Authority Board holds one regularly scheduled meeting per month on the first Tuesday of each month. 1. Special meetings are held as necessary. b. The Township Supervisors appointed a specific alternate Member to the Authority Board in March 2003, January 2007, January 2008, and January 2009. 1. The initial alternate Board Member appointed served as such from March 2003 until December 2005. 2. No alternate Board Member was specifically appointed by the Township Supervisors in 2007. 6. Voting at Authority meetings is normally conducted via group “aye/nay” vote after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. All Board Members, including the Board Chairman, vote on motions presented. b. If any Authority Member objects during the group vote, an individual roll call vote is taken and recorded. c. Any objections or abstentions cast are specifically noted in the minutes. 1. Minutes of Authority Board meetings are approved for accuracy at subsequent meetings. 7. No specific meeting packets are compiled for Authority Board Members to review prior to Authority Board meetings. a. Documents provided to the Authority Board Members at each meeting include an agenda developed by the Board Chairman, a report developed by the Authority engineer, and a Treasurer’s report generated by the recording secretary. b. The recording secretary also compiles a bill list which is presented to the board for review at the regular monthly meeting. 1. The bill list represents all those bills received by the Authority since the prior legislative meeting. 8. Signature authority over Authority accounts is maintained by all five Members of the Authority Board. a. Authority checks require two live signatures. b. Facsimile stamps are not utilized by the Authority. 9. The Township Board of Supervisors set Authority Board Members’ compensation at the rate of $50.00 (gross) per meeting. a. The Board of Supervisors set this compensation in December 2002 (Finding Haywood, 09-032 Page 4 No. 18). 1. Prior to this time Authority Members were not compensated. b. Board Members must be present in order to receive the $50.00 payment. c. The $50.00 per meeting payment is applicable to Authority meetings as well as any meetings attended which relate to Authority business. 10. Payment issued to Authority Board Members for meeting attendance is specifically documented on the bill list presented for review and approval. a. The Authority secretary sends an e-mail message to every Board Member on a monthly basis in order to determine the amount of compensation to issue to each respective Board Member. 1. The e-mail requests each respective Board Member to inform the secretary of the number of meetings which were attended during the prior month. b. The Authority secretary generates checks for each respective Board Member based on the response received. c. The Authority secretary transports the checks to the Authority meeting for required signatures and subsequent distribution. 11. The desire of Authority Board Members to receive compensation for service on the Board was first presented to the Township Supervisors for consideration at least as early as December 17, 2001. a. Authority Board Members had historically served as unpaid volunteers in their positions through that time. 12. Minutes of the December 17, 2001, Supervisors Special Meeting document then Authority Board Member Mark Presley questioning the Supervisors regarding Authority Board Members receiving compensation. a. The entire Authority Board and Authority solicitor were in attendance at the meeting with the exception of Board Member David Sopko. b. The Township did not approve compensation for Authority Board Members at that time. 13. At the January 2, 2002, Authority meeting, the Authority Board requested its solicitor to inform the Township Supervisors of the Authority’s position on various issues under consideration. a. Issues under consideration included the size of the Board, appointment of new Board Members, and salaries for Board Members. 14. In correspondence dated January 4, 2002, to the Township Supervisors, the Authority solicitor noted the following regarding compensation for Authority Members: a. The Authority Board was renewing its request that its members be paid for each regular meeting attended at the rate of fifty dollars per meeting. Haywood, 09-032 Page 5 1. The correspondence identified extra Board Member responsibilities regarding the Authority beyond regular meeting attendance including managing finances, answering concerns of the public, attending meetings with the Borough of Clark Sewer Committee, and attending meetings of the Upper Shenango Valley Water Pollution Control Authority (USVWPCA). 2. The correspondence documented that all extra responsibilities would remain uncompensated including attending special meetings or meetings with the Township Supervisors. b. The Township Supervisors did not approve compensation for Authority Board Members as a result of the second request made on January 4, 2002. c. Authority Board Members continued to serve as unpaid volunteers in their positions through 2002. 15. At the November 14, 2002, Authority meeting, the Authority Board again requested its solicitor to inform the Township Supervisors of the Authority’s position on various issues under consideration by both the Authority and the Supervisors. a. Issues under consideration again included the size of the Authority Board, appointment of new Board Members, and salaries for Board Members. 16. In correspondence to the Township Supervisors dated November 19, 2002, the Authority solicitor presented the Authority’s position on multiple issues, including: a. The reappointment of Evelyn Klein to the Authority Board for a five year term expiring on December 31, 2007. b. [Approval] for establishment of a salary for Authority Members at the rate of fifty dollars per regular meeting attended. 17. A motion was made at the November 22, 2002, Supervisors meeting by DeVries, seconded by Nashtock, to appoint Nashtock to the Authority Board. a. The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote. 1. Supervisor Derr was not present at the meeting. 18. At the December 4, 2002, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, a motion was made by Nashtock, seconded by DeVries, to set compensation for Authority Board Members to be paid from Authority accounts as designated by the Authority Board. a. The motion called for Authority Board Members to receive compensation in the amount of $50.00 per meeting. 1. The $50.00 per meeting payment was documented as being effective January 1, 2003, for Board Members starting their term on or after this date. b. The motion passed via 2-0 unanimous vote. c. The motion did not specify if Authority Board Members were entitled to receive the $50.00 per meeting attended for meetings outside regular Authority meetings (i.e., meetings with the Authority engineer, attendance at USVWPCA meetings, etc.). Haywood, 09-032 Page 6 19. Prior to December 2002, the South Pymatuning Township Supervisors had never approved Members of the Authority Board to receive compensation for their service/meeting attendance. a. The Authority Board had initiated requests to the Township Supervisors to approve compensation for Board Members as early as, if not prior to, December 2001. b. Individuals serving as Board Members had done so as unpaid volunteers from the inception of the Authority. 20. Between 2005 and 2008, the Authority increased Member compensation on three separate occasions. a. Haywood was a member of the Authority in 2005 and 2006 and participated in the unanimous votes to increase Member compensation. 21. Minutes of the Authority meetings confirm the following regarding increases to Member compensation: January 5, 2005: The Authority went into executive session. The Authority returned from executive session. Vince DeJulia made a motion to increase Lori Gill’s salary to $1,000.00 per month, Dave Haywood seconded. All Members approved. Dave Haywood made a motion [to] increase the Board Members pay per meeting to $75.00 per meeting, Vince DeJulia seconded. All Members approved. 1. Board Member Klein was not present for this meeting. Members voting were Nashtock, DeVries, DeJulia and Haywood. January 4, 2006: Dave Haywood made a motion to pay the Authority Members $100.00 per meeting for the South Pymatuning Municipal Authority and $75.00 per meeting for the USVWPCA, Vince DeJulia seconded. All Members approved. 1. Members present and voting were Nashtock, DeVries, DeJulia, Klein and Haywood. January 18, 2008: At 6:00 p.m. the Board went into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters and reconvened at 6:10 p.m. A motion was made by Mr. DeVries, seconded by Mrs. Klein to set the regular monthly meeting pay for all Board Members to $150.00 and reduce the extra meeting and continued meeting pays to $50.00 per meeting. Any Member that attends a USVWPCA meeting will be credited with an extra meeting pay. The rate increase is effective February 1, 2008. Motion carried. 1. Board Members voting were DeJulia, DeVries, Klein, Nashtock and Schenker. 22. When compensation was increased at the above listed meetings, current and Haywood, 09-032 Page 7 former members of the Board of Supervisors were also serving as Authority Members. a. Former Supervisor DeVries and Supervisor Nashtock were present at the 2005, 2006 and 2008 meetings. 23. At the times of the votes to increase compensation, Authority Members believed that since current and former Members of the Board of Supervisors voted to increase compensation, no other formal action was required. a. The Authority Solicitor did not advise the Authority that separate Board of Supervisor approval was required. b. DeVries and Nashtock did not believe any additional action of the Supervisors was required. 24. Checks issued to Authority Board Members as compensation for meeting attendance originated from Authority Account Numbers XXXX406 and XXXXX526 at First National Bank (FNB). 25. Haywood participated in actions as an Authority Board Member in approving monthly bill lists [that included] payment to Haywood for attendance at Authority and additional outside meetings. a. Haywood voted to approve monthly bill lists on sixteen occasions in which payment to Haywood for meeting attendance was approved. 1. A total of nineteen regular Authority meetings were held from February 2005 through August 2006. 26. From February 2005 through December 2006, Haywood received and negotiated checks from Authority accounts which included compensation for attendance at Authority and additional outside meetings not specifically approved by the Board of Supervisors. Check Check Check Authorized Number Date Amount Signatories (Gross) 2165 03/01/05 75.00 EK/DH 2177 03/01/05 75.00 EK/MN 2221 05/03/05 75.00 EK/MN 2238 06/07/05 75.00 EK/MN 2259 07/13/05 75.00 EK/DH 2284 08/02/05 75.00 EK/DH 2315 09/06/05 75.00 JP/DH 2330 10/04/05 75.00 EK/DH 2351 11/01/05 75.00 EK/MN 2371 12/01/05 150.00 EK/MN 2389 01/04/06 75.00 EK/DH 2411 02/01/06 100.00 EK/MN 2426 03/07/06 100.00 EK/MN 2441 04/04/06 175.00 EK/MN 2458 05/01/06 175.00 EK/DH 2478 06/06/06 100.00 EK/MN 2494 07/05/06 100.00 EK/MN 2499 08/01/06 100.00 EK/MN Haywood, 09-032 Page 8 Check Check Check Authorized Number Date Amount Signatories (Gross) 1067 12/11/06 75.00 MN/BD Key: EK=Evelyn Klein MN=Michael Nashtock BD=Burt DeVries VD=Vincent DeJulia DH=David Haywood JS=Jason Schenker JP=James Pritchard a. Haywood signed seven (7) of the checks issued to him totaling $625.00. 27. Haywood was erroneously not issued payment for the Authority meeting held on October 5, 2004, which he attended. a. Minutes document Haywood’s attendance at the meeting. b. Compensation due Haywood for attendance at the meeting totaled $50.00. c. Total compensation received by Haywood not approved by the appointing authority was $675.00. 28. During an interview with Commission investigator(s) conducted on May 4, 2010, Haywood stated the following: a. Haywood was not aware that Authority Board Members were prohibited from establishing their own compensation amounts; 1. Haywood was not aware that compensation for Authority Board Members was required to be established by the Township Supervisors as the appointing body. 2. Haywood was not on the Authority Board when compensation was initially set in 2002. b. Haywood was not aware that any legitimate increases in Authority Board compensation became effective only at the beginning of a Board Member’s new term. c. Haywood recalled no concern raised by the Authority solicitor regarding votes taken by the Authority Board [Members] to increase their own compensation. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT HAYWOOD FAILED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN HIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY BOARD FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2005 AND 2006. 29. On May 20, 2009, and August 26, 2009, a review of various records including Statements of Financial Interests was conducted at the South Pymatuning Township municipal building. a. No Statements of Financial Interests were present for Haywood in his position as an Authority Board Member for calendar years 2005 or 2006. Haywood, 09-032 Page 9 III.DISCUSSION: As a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”) from February 11, 2002, through August 31, 2006, Respondent David Haywood, hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Haywood,” and “Haywood,” was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Respondent Haywood violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary benefit, including but not limited to increasing his rate of compensation as a Board Member without approval of the South Pymatuning Township (“Township”) Board of Supervisors, the appointing authority, and then subsequently participating in actions of the Authority Board to issue payments to him; and (2) when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) 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. Haywood, 09-032 Page 10 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 Authority was created in 1968 pursuant to the Municipality Authorities Act. The Members of the Authority Board are appointed by the Township Board of Supervisors. Pursuant to the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for Authority Board Members must be established by the Township Board of Supervisors as the appointing authority. Authority Board Members are not permitted to receive an increase or decrease in compensation during their existing terms. Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term. Respondent Haywood served as a Member of the Authority from February 11, 2002, through August 31, 2006. Haywood served as the Treasurer of the Authority Board from January 6, 2003, through August 31, 2006. Haywood submitted an undated letter of resignation effective September 1, 2006, regarding his position on the Authority Board. The Township Board of Supervisors formally accepted Haywood’s resignation at the September 12, 2006, Supervisors meeting. In December 2002 the Township Board of Supervisors set the compensation of Authority Board Members at the rate of $50.00 gross per meeting attended. The $50.00 per meeting payment was documented as being effective January 1, 2003, for Board Members starting their term on or after that date. Although the approved motion did not specify whether Authority Board Members would be entitled to compensation for meetings outside regular Authority meetings (Fact Finding 18 c), the parties have stipulated that the $50.00 per meeting payment is applicable to Authority meetings as well as any meetings attended that relate to Authority business (Fact Finding 9c). At Authority Board meetings held on January 5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18, 2008, the Authority Board voted to increase its Members’ compensation as detailed in Fact Findings 20-21. The Authority Solicitor did not advise the Authority that separate Board of Supervisor approval was required. Former Supervisor DeVries and Supervisor Nashtock, who served as Authority Members, did not believe any additional action of the Supervisors was required. At the January 5, 2005, and January 4, 2006, Authority Board meetings, Haywood made the motions and participated in the Authority Board votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation. The parties have stipulated that at the times of the votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation, Authority Board Members believed that since current and former Members of the Township Board of Supervisors (DeVries and Nashtock) voted to increase compensation, no other formal action was required. A total of nineteen regular Authority meetings were held from February 2005 through August 2006. Haywood voted to approve monthly bill lists on sixteen occasions in which payment to Haywood for meeting attendance was approved. From February 2005 through December 2006, Haywood received and negotiated Authority checks that included meeting compensation to Haywood which had not been approved by the Township Board of Supervisors. Haywood signed as an authorized Authority signatory seven (7) of the aforesaid checks issued to him. The total compensation received by Haywood that had not been approved by the Township Board of Supervisors was $675.00. Haywood was erroneously not issued payment for the Authority meeting held on October 5, 2004, which he attended. Compensation due Haywood for attendance at that meeting totaled $50.00. Haywood, 09-032 Page 11 During an interview with Commission investigator(s) conducted on May 4, 2010, Haywood stated that he was not aware that Authority Board Members were prohibited from establishing their own compensation amounts or that any legitimate increases in Authority Board compensation became effective only at the beginning of a Board Member’s new term. On May 20, 2009, and August 26, 2009, a review of SFIs was conducted at the Township municipal building. No SFIs were present for Haywood as an Authority Board Member for calendar years 2005 or 2006. 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 when Haywood participated in increasing his rate of compensation, as a Board Member, without approval of the South Pymatuning Township Board of Supervisors, the appointing Authority; and his receipt of said compensation. b. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a), occurred in relation to Haywood’s failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years with the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority. 4. Haywood agrees to make payment in the amount of $400.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 5. To the extent he has not already done so, Haywood agrees to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005 and 2006 with the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority, and forward copies to this Commission. 6. 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. Haywood, 09-032 Page 12 Consent Agreement, at 1-2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Haywood participated in increasing his rate of compensation as an Authority Board Member, without approval of the Township Board of Supervisors, and received said compensation. Haywood used the authority of his public office as an Authority Board Member at the January 5, 2005, and January 4, 2006, Authority Board meetings, when he made the motions and participated in the Authority Board votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation. Haywood voted to approve some of the monthly bill lists that included payment to him for meeting attendance. Additionally, Haywood signed as an authorized Authority signatory seven (7) of the Authority checks issued to him that included meeting compensation which had not been approved by the Township Board of Supervisors. The resulting private pecuniary benefit to Haywood consisted of a total of $675.00 of unauthorized meeting pay that Haywood received. Intent is not a requisite element for a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, e.g., Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Nevertheless, based upon the Stipulated Findings, it would appear that the aforesaid violation was unintentional. The parties have stipulated that at the times of the votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation, Authority Board Members believed that since current and former Members of the Township Board of Supervisors (DeVries and Nashtock) voted to increase compensation, no other formal action was required. We hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Haywood participated in increasing his rate of compensation as an Authority Board Member, without approval of the Township Board of Supervisors (the appointing authority), and received said compensation. Cf., Russell v. State Ethics Commission, 987 A.2d 835 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), allocatur denied, No. 22 WAL 2010 (Pa. August 11, 2010). We further hold that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Haywood’s failure to file SFIs for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years with the Authority. As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the amount of $400.00 payable to the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent has further agreed to file with the Authority SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 and to forward copies of such filings to this Commission. 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 Haywood is directed to make payment in the amount of $400.00 payable to the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the th thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent Haywood is directed to file Haywood, 09-032 Page 13 with the Authority SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 and to forward copies of such th filings 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 Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”) from February 11, 2002, through August 31, 2006, Respondent David Haywood (“Haywood”) was 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. Haywood unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he participated in increasing his rate of compensation as an Authority Board Member, without approval of the South Pymatuning Township Board of Supervisors (the appointing authority), and received said compensation. 3. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in relation to Haywood’s failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years with the Authority. In Re: David Haywood, : File Docket: 09-032 Respondent : Date Decided: 10/19/10 : Date Mailed: 10/26/10 ORDER NO. 1566 1. As a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”), David Haywood (“Haywood”) unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he participated in increasing his rate of compensation as an Authority Board Member, without approval of the South Pymatuning Township Board of Supervisors (the appointing authority), and received said compensation. 2. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in relation to Haywood’s failure to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) for the 2005 and 2006 calendar years with the Authority. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Haywood is directed to make payment in the amount of $400.00 payable to the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later th than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 4. To the extent he has not already done so, Haywood is directed to file with the Authority SFIs for calendar years 2005 and 2006 and to forward copies of such filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth th (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 5. Compliance with Paragraphs 3 and 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