HomeMy WebLinkAbout1570 Nashtock
In Re: Michael P. Nashtock, Jr., : File Docket: 09-023
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1570
: 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 filed and a hearing was requested. A
Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were
subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The
Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement
has been approved.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act and
will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above.
However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a
detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in
conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the
finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by
the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 2
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Michael Nashtock, Jr., a public official/public employee in his capacity as a
Supervisor of South Pymatuning Township, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a) and
1105(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1104(a) and
1105(a), when he used the authority of his public position for private gain by participating
in actions of the Board of Supervisors to appoint him to a compensated position on the
South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority and when he participated in actions of the
Board of Supervisors to approve compensation for Authority Members; and when, as a
Member of the Authority, he voted to increase compensation for Members of the Authority;
when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests with South Pymatuning Township
for the 2007 calendar year; when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests as an
Authority Board Member for calendar year 2006; when he failed to disclose income
received from the Authority on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years
2004, 2005 and 2008; and when he failed to disclose income received from the Township
on his Statement of Financial Interests (original and amended) filed for calendar year
2008.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Michael P. Nashtock has served as a Supervisor for South Pymatuning Township,
Mercer County, from January 2, 1990, through the present.
a. Nashtock served as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from January
2, 1996, until January 2, 2007, and from January 4, 2010, to the present.
b. Nashtock served as the Assistant Chairman from January 2, 2007, until
January 4, 2010.
2. Nashtock has also served as a Member of the South Pymatuning Township
Municipal Authority (hereafter Authority) from November 22, 2002, through the
present.
a. Nashtock was initially appointed by the South Pymatuning Board of
Supervisors to fill a vacancy on the Authority Board and was subsequently
re-appointed to a complete five year term in January 2006.
b. Nashtock served as the Chairman of the Authority Board from January 4,
2005, through the present and Vice-Chairman of the Authority Board from
January 7, 2003, through January 3, 2005.
3. South Pymatuning Township is a second class township governed by a three
Member Board of Supervisors.
a. The South Pymatuning Township Supervisors hold one legislative meeting
per month on the second Tuesday of the month.
1. Workshop meetings are held approximately one hour prior to the start
of the regular legislative meeting.
b. Special meetings are held as necessary.
4. South Pymatuning Township Supervisors are compensated in the amount of
$1,875.00 annually in their Supervisor positions.
a. Supervisors receive compensation due in quarterly installments.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 3
b. Supervisors need not be present at Township meetings in order to receive
compensation.
5. Voting at South Pymatuning Township meetings occurs via group aye or nay vote
after a motion is made and properly seconded.
a. Objections or abstentions cast during voting are specifically documented in
the minutes.
1. Minutes of Township meetings are approved for accuracy at each
subsequent meeting.
6. 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 provisions
of the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act.
1. Per the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for
Authority Board Members must be established by the appointing
authority, with the exception of Authority officer compensation.
aa. Board Members are not permitted to receive an increase or
decrease in compensation during their existing terms, unless
related to officer pay.
1. Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective
only upon the beginning of a new term after the
increase/decrease is enacted, except for changes in
officer’s pay.
b. The Authority was incorporated with the Pennsylvania Department of State,
Corporation Bureau, as a municipal authority under Entity Number 336376
on October 28, 1968.
1. Department of State Corporation Bureau records document no
registered office address for the Authority.
2. The Authority utilizes the address of the South Pymatuning Township
municipal building (located at 3483 Tamarack Drive, Sharpsville, PA
16150) as its registered office.
c. The Authority provides sewage service for only a portion of South
Pymatuning Township.
1. Approximately sixty percent of the Township is tapped into the public
sewage system.
aa. South Pymatuning Township does not maintain its own
sewage processing plant.
1. Sewage from properties tapped into the infrastructure is
pumped to processing plants operated by the Sharon
Municipal Authority and the Hermitage Municipal
Authority respectively.
2. Remaining Township residents utilize on-lot septic systems for
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 4
sewage disposal purposes.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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, on occasion, an
individual roll call vote would be 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.
11. 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.
12. Payment issued to Authority Board Members for meeting attendance is specifically
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 5
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.
13. 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.
14. Although originally incorporated as a five Member Board, frequent lack of meeting
attendance by Board Members prompted the Authority Board to consider increasing
the size of the Authority Board.
a. From the mid-1990s through 1999 Authority Board meetings were often
cancelled due to the lack of a quorum of the total Members.
b. The Authority Board petitioned the Township for an increase in the size of
the Authority Board from five Members to seven Members. The rationale of
the Authority was that:
1. A quorum of four out of seven Members would be easier to achieve
than three out of five Members.
2. An increase in Board Members would provide residents of the
Township with larger representation on the Authority.
15. At the March 7, 2000, meeting of the Authority Board, the Authority passed
Resolution 1-2000 to be presented to the Township Supervisors proposing that the
membership of the Authority be increased.
a. Resolution 1-2000 called for the increase of Members on the Authority Board
from five to seven Members.
b. Resolution 1-2000 passed via unanimous 4-0 vote.
1. Board Member James Pritchard was not present for the meeting.
16. Upon submission to the Township Supervisors, the Supervisors adopted Resolution
4 of 2000 titled, “A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Township of South
Pymatuning, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, Adopted March 17, 2000 Approving An
Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of the South Pymatuning Township
Municipal Authority to Increase the Number of Members of the Board of the
Authority.”
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 6
a. The Supervisors approved the amendments to the Authority’s Articles of
Incorporation as documented in the resolution presented for consideration at
the March 17, 2000, Supervisor’s continuation meeting.
1. The Supervisors approved the general increase in size of the
Authority Board at the March 13, 2000, Supervisor’s meeting.
b. Nashtock signed Resolution 4 of 2000 as the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors signifying Township approval of the addition of two seats to the
Authority Board.
1. The Authority failed to provide the amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation to the Pennsylvania Department of State.
17. The Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 mandates that members of boards of
authorities (with the exception of school district authorities) may receive salaries as
determined by the governing body of the appointing municipality.
a. Members of authority boards are not permitted to establish, increase, or
decrease their own compensation, with the exception of compensation of
authority officers.
b. Salaries of board members cannot be increased or diminished during the
term for which the member was appointed.
18. Authority Board Members compensation as approved by the South Pymatuning
Township is $50.00 (gross) per meeting.
a. The South Pymatuning Township Supervisors approved $50.00 per meeting
pay for Authority Members on December 4, 2002.
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 the Authority or Authority business.
d. Prior to December 2002 Authority Members were not compensated.
19. The Authority Board Members’ request to receive compensation for service on the
Authority 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.
b. No action was taken by the Board of Supervisors until December 4, 2002.
c. Nashtock was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at the time of this
request.
20. Minutes of the December 17, 2001, Board of 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.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 7
b. The Board of Supervisors did not approve compensation for Authority Board
Members at that time.
1. Nashtock participated in the decision to not set compensation as
requested.
21. 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 compensation for Board Members.
22. In correspondence dated January 4, 2002, to the Township Supervisors, the
Authority solicitor presented the Authority’s position that:
a. The Authority Board was opposed to reducing its membership to five
Members and would refuse to adopt the required resolution to do so;
b. The Authority recommended David Haywood be appointed to a vacant
position on the Board as well as additional term amendments in order to
achieve required term staggering; and
c. 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.
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.
23. The Township Supervisors did not approve compensation for Authority Board
Members as a result of the second request.
a. Nashtock was a Member and Chairman of the Board in 2001 and 2002 when
the Board would take no action to set compensation for Authority Members.
b. Authority Board Members continued to serve as unpaid volunteers in their
positions through 2002.
24. 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 compensation for Board Members.
b. Additionally considered were the advantages and disadvantages of
disbanding the Authority and creating a Sewer Committee as well as
increasing Township revenues by performing services for the Authority.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 8
c. Nashtock and Township Supervisor Burt DeVries were present at and
participated in the discussions held at the November 14, 2002, Authority
Board meeting.
25. In correspondence to the Township Supervisors dated November 19, 2002, the
Authority solicitor presented the Authority’s position on multiple issues, including:
a. That the Authority Board be reduced from seven to five Members;
b. That appointments/reappointments be made as follows:
1. Reappointment of Klein to the Authority Board for a five year term
expiring on December 31, 2007.
2. Appointment of an interested Supervisor to complete Robert Mocker’s
unexpired term of office to expire on December 31, 2005.
aa. Appointment of an interested Supervisor was recommended to
provide the Supervisors with a direct role in the administration
of the Authority and problems encountered by the Authority.
bb. The Authority Board recommended Mocker’s removal due to
the fact that Mocker had attended only one meeting in 2002 to
date.
3. Appointment of Vincent J. DeJulia as an alternate Member of the
Authority Board.
bb. Appointment of an alternate Member was recommended in
order to provide a “back-up” Member for purposes of achieving
a quorum when needed.
c. [Approval] for establishment of a salary for Authority Members at the rate of
fifty dollars per regular meeting attended.
d. The Supervisors would be confronted with solving all of the problems
encountered by the Authority and lose the comfort of having the Authority
serve as a buffer for the Supervisors if the Authority was disbanded.
26. As of November 18, 2002, Board Members still serving on the Authority for the 2002
calendar year were Pritchard, Mocker, Klein, Chris Novak, and David Haywood.
a. Mocker was removed from his position as an Authority Board Member at the
November 18, 2002, continuation meeting of the Township Supervisors.
1. Nashtock motioned, seconded by DeVries, for the removal of Mocker
from the Authority Board for failure to attend more than three
consecutive meetings pursuant 53 Pa.C.S.§ 5610(f) which reads:
Unless excused by the board, a member of a board who fails to
attend three consecutive meetings of the board may be
removed by the appointing municipality up to 60 days after the
date of the third meeting of the board which the member failed
to attend.
53 Pa.C.S. § 5610 (f).
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 9
2. The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote.
aa. Supervisor Michael Derr was not present at the meeting.
b. Authority Members Francis Pavcik and Mark Presley resigned as Board
Members prior to November 2002.
27. The specific size of the Authority Board was reduced from seven Members to five
Members at the November 22, 2002, meeting of the Township Supervisors.
a. Nashtock made the motion and voted in favor of reducing the size of the
Authority Board from seven to five Members.
1. The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote.
aa. Derr was not present at the meeting.
b. The Supervisors passed no specific Resolution documenting the reduction in
size of the Authority Board from seven to five Members.
28. Subsequent to the reduction in size of the Authority Board, a motion was made by
DeVries at the November 22, 2002, Supervisors meeting to appoint Nashtock to the
Authority Board.
a. Nashtock seconded the motion and voted in favor of his appointment to the
Authority Board.
b. The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote.
1. Supervisor Derr was not present at the meeting.
29. At the December 4, 2002, meeting of the Township Supervisors, multiple motions
were made and unanimously approved relating to the Authority, including setting
compensation of Authority Members and appointing new Members.
a. Nashtock motioned, seconded by DeVries, to accept the resignations of
Pritchard, Novak, and Haywood.
1. Haywood and Pritchard were subsequently re-appointed to the
Authority Board at the January 6, 2003, re-organization meeting of
the Township Supervisors.
b. Nashtock motioned, seconded by DeVries, to appoint DeVries to fill Novak’s
position on the Authority Board.
1. DeVries cast the deciding vote to appoint himself as a Member of the
Authority Board.
c. Both of the motions passed via unanimous 2-0 vote.
1. Derr was not present at the meeting.
30. At the December 4, 2002, meeting an additional motion was made by Nashtock,
seconded by DeVries, to set compensation of Authority Board Members from
Authority accounts as designated by the Authority Board.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 10
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.
1. Nashtock participated in and voted to approve compensation for
Authority Board Members approximately twelve days after voting to
appoint himself to the Authority Board.
31. Nashtock, along with Supervisor DeVries, approved the motion to set compensation
for Authority Members one meeting after voting to appoint himself to the Authority.
32. From January 1, 2003, through the present, Authority Board Members were eligible
to receive $50.00 per meeting attended pursuant to the motion approved by
Nashtock and DeVries at the December 4, 2002, Supervisors meeting.
a. The Township Supervisors did not approve any increase in Authority Board
Member compensation from January 1, 2003, through the present.
33. Between 2005 and 2008, the Authority Board increased compensation of Board
Members without the approval of the South Pymatuning Board of Supervisors.
a. Nashtock was a Member of the Authority at the times in 2005, 2006 and
2008 when actions were taken to increase compensation.
b. Nashtock participated in actions to increase compensation absent approval
by the Board of Supervisors.
c. Nashtock asserts that the Authority had the power to increase compensation
for officers of the Authority pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 5607(d)(8) and 53
Pa.C.S.A. § 5610(e) without the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
1. Nashtock believed that all Members of the Authority were officers
thereof.
2. Meeting minutes do not specifically delineate that the increase in
compensation was limited to only Authority officer positions.
34. Nashtock participated as an Authority Board Member to routinely approve increases
in Board Member compensation as illustrated in the chart below:
Meeting Date Members Meeting Meeting Compensation Vote
Present Compensation Approved by Authority
Established by
Supervisors
January 5, 2005 M. Nashtock $50.00 per meeting $75.00 per meeting 4-0
B. DeVries
V. DeJulia
D. Haywood
January 4, 2006 M. Nashtock $50.00 per meeting $100.00 per Authority meeting 5-0
B. DeVries
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 11
Meeting Date Members Meeting Meeting Compensation Vote
Present Compensation Approved by Authority
Established by
Supervisors
V. DeJulia $75.00 per USVWPCA meeting
E. Klein
D. Haywood
January 18, 2008 M. Nashtock $50.00 per meeting $150.00 per Authority meeting 5-0
B. DeVries
V. DeJulia $50.00 per extra and continued
E. Klein meetings
J. Schenker
a. None of the increases in compensation were presented to the South
Pymatuning Township Supervisors for consideration or approval prior to
enacting.
b. Although serving as both a South Pymatuning Township Supervisor and
Authority Board Member during those years, Nashtock did not advise the
Township Supervisors of Authority Board actions to increase Board Member
compensation in 2005, 2006 or 2008.
c. Nashtock believed he could vote to increase salaries for Authority Members
in their capacity as officers thereof.
35. The Authority maintained a minimum of four separate accounts at First National
Bank (FNB) spanning the time period of May 2004 through August 2009 including
Account Numbers XXXX406 and XXXXX526.
a. Account Number XXXX406 was a preferred interest checking account.
1. Account Number XXXX406 was opened on November 21, 1979, and
closed on October 18, 2006.
b. Account Number XXXXX526 is a preferred interest checking account.
1. Account Number XXXXX526 was opened on September 6, 2009, and
is currently active.
c. Checks issued to Authority Board Members as compensation for meeting
attendance originated from Account Numbers XXXX406 and XXXXX526.
36. As a result of his November 22, 2002, vote to appoint himself a Member of the
Authority, and his subsequent vote on December 4, 2002, to set compensation,
Nashtock received compensation of $50.00 per meeting.
a. Nashtock voted to set the compensation of Authority Members less than two
weeks after voting for his appointment to the Authority.
37. From May 2004 through December 2004, Nashtock received compensation as a
result of his vote appointing him to the Authority and setting compensation.
a. Nashtock signed check number 2119.
38. From January 2005 through August 2009, Nashtock received and negotiated a
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 12
minimum of fifty-three (53) checks from Authority accounts representing payment for
attendance at Authority and additional outside meetings as shown below:
a. Of the fifty-three (53) checks issued to Nashtock representative of
attendance at Authority and additional outside meetings, Nashtock’s
signature appears as an authorized Authority signatory on at least forty
checks totaling $8,675.00.
b. Nashtock deposited into personal bank accounts or cashed all checks
received and utilized the funds for various personal use.
c. The payments include the initial rate of $50.00/meeting set by the Board of
Supervisors in December 2002 and the increases set by the Authority
between 2005 and 2007.
39. Nashtock, as an Authority Board Member, participated in actions to approve
monthly bill lists which included payments to Nashtock for his attendance at
Authority and additional outside meetings.
a. Nashtock voted to approve monthly bill lists on at least fifty-two of fifty-eight
occasions on which payment to Nashtock was documented.
1. A total of sixty-four regular Authority meetings were held from May
2004 through August 2009.
2. Votes cast at the December 2004 and June 2005 meetings could not
be determined due to the absence of minutes in Authority records for
those meetings.
3. Minutes for an additional four meetings did not record a specific
motion, second, or vote to approve monthly bills.
b. Nashtock was present at the January 5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January
18, 2008, Authority meetings and voted in favor of the motion to increase
Authority Board Member compensation as presented at the meetings.
1. Any increase in Authority Board Member compensation required
approval of the appointing municipal body, South Pymatuning
Township, unless it was to increase officer compensation.
40. Nashtock was not issued payment for his attendance at the July 7, 2009, regular
Authority meeting until the August 4, 2009, meeting.
a. Nashtock received payment for his attendance at both the July 7, 2009,
Authority meeting and the August 4, 2009, Authority meeting at the August 4,
2009, meeting.
41. From February 2005 through August 2009, Nashtock received compensation as an
Authority Board Member in excess of the amount specifically approved by the
Township Supervisors.
a. Nashtock was present for and participated in the Board vote at the January
5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18, 2008, meetings to increase Board
Member compensation as presented at the meetings.
1. Any increase in Authority Board Member compensation must be
approved by the appointing municipal body (see, Findings Numbers
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 13
17 and 44).
2. Nashtock asserts that the Authority had the power to increase
compensation for officers of the Authority pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S.A. §
5607(d)(8) and 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 5610(e) without the approval of the
Board of Supervisors.
aa. Nashtock believed that all Members of the Authority were
officers thereof.
bb. Meeting minutes do not specifically delineate that the increase
in compensation was limited to only Authority officer Positions.
b. In addition to participating in Authority Board Member votes to increase
Member compensation, Nashtock accepted the increases prior to the
beginning of a new term.
1. Nashtock accepted an increase in compensation in 2005 but did not
begin a new term until January 2006.
2. Nashtock accepted an increase in compensation in 2008 but will not
begin a new term until January 2006 [sic] (if re-appointed).
aa. Nashtock was not eligible for any legitimate increase in
compensation as an Authority Board Member with the
exception of the 2006 calendar year (see, Findings Numbers
17 and 44) and/or any properly authorized increase in
compensation as an officer of the Authority.
42. Payments to Authority Board Members were suspended by the Authority Board at
the October 6, 2009, Authority Board meeting.
a. Noted under “New Business” was that the Board hold payment for October
and future meetings until informed by the Commission of a resolution to the
potential conflict of Members adjusting their own compensation.
1. Commission refers to the State Ethics Commission.
b. The motion passed unanimously.
1. Nashtock was present at the meeting and participated in the
unanimous vote.
43. During an interview with Commission investigators on April 1, 2010, Nashtock
provided the following information:
a. Nashtock did not believe that Authority Board Members received
compensation for service on the Authority Board prior to January 2003;
b. Nashtock believed that the Authority Board Members expressed a desire to
the Township Supervisors for compensation possibly as early as the mid-
1990s;
c. The Township Supervisors had not set compensation for the Authority Board
Members prior to December 2002 per advice received by Nashtock at a
supervisors training session;
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 14
d. Nashtock recalled as a Township Supervisor approving compensation for
Authority Board Members but could not specifically recall setting the
compensation amount at $50.00 per meeting;
e. Nashtock claimed that both he and DeVries verbally acknowledged at the
applicable Supervisors meetings the possible conflict of interest in
appointing themselves to the Authority Board and authorizing compensation
for Authority Board Members;
1. Nashtock had no explanation as to why his and DeVries’s
appointments were not postponed until Derr could be present at a
Township Supervisors meeting and vote on the motions.
f. Nashtock verified the Authority Board Members increasing their own
compensation and receiving the increase in compensation without formal
approval by the Township Supervisors as the appointing body; and
g. The Authority solicitor expressed no concern over the Authority Board
increasing its own compensation at the Authority meetings.
44. Nashtock realized a private pecuniary gain when he used the authority of his office
as an Authority Board Member to participate in votes as an Authority Board Member
to increase Board Member compensation without the approval of the Township
Supervisors; when he participated in Authority votes to approve bill lists on which
payment to him as an Authority Board Member was documented; and when he
signed checks issued to him from Authority accounts as an authorized Authority
signatory.
a. Nashtock participated in actions to increase compensation absent approval
by the Board of Supervisors.
b. Nashtock asserts that the Authority had the power to increase compensation
for officers of the Authority pursuant to 53 Pa.C.S.A. § 5607(d)(8) and 53
Pa.C.S.A. § 5610(e) without the approval of the Board of Supervisors.
1. Nashtock believed that all Members of the Authority were officers
thereof.
2. Meeting minutes do not specifically delineate that the increase in
compensation was limited to only Authority officer positions.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT NASHTOCK FAILED
TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN HIS POSITION AS A SOUTH
PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP SUPERVISOR FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2007; [THAT]
NASHTOCK FAILED TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AS A
MEMBER OF THE SOUTH PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY BOARD FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2006; AND [THAT NASHTOCK] FAILED TO DISCLOSE INCOME
FROM SOUTH PYMATUNING TOWNSHIP ON HIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
INTERESTS FILED FOR THE 2008 CALENDAR YEAR AND FROM [THE] AUTHORITY
ON HIS STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR CALENDAR YEAR[S]
2005 AND 2008.
45. Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public
employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act.
st
a. Nashtock was required to file Statements of Financial Interests by May 1
annually in his position as a South Pymatuning Township Supervisor and his
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 15
position as a South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority Board
Member.
46. 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 Statement of Financial Interests was present for Nashtock in his position
as a Township Supervisor for calendar year 2007.
b. No Statement of Financial Interests was present for Nashtock in his position
as an Authority Board Member for calendar year 2006.
c. Nashtock filed Statements of Financial Interests relating to both positions for
calendar years 2004 and 2005.
47. Nashtock asserts that he properly filed Statement[s] of Financial Interests
concerning his position as a Township Supervisor for calendar year 2007 and his
position as an Authority Board Member for calendar year 2006.
a. Nashtock asserts that said calendar year Statements of Financial Interests
were misplaced, lost, or removed by an unknown individual(s).
b. Files containing Nashtock’s Statement(s) of Financial Interests were poorly
maintained, and there is no evidence contradicting his statements that same
were properly filed.
48. Section 1104(d) of the State Ethics Act mandates 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.”
49. Section 1105(b)(5) of the State Ethics Act mandates that the name and address of
any direct or indirect source of income totaling $1,300.00 or more in the aggregate
be disclosed on Statements of Financial Interests filed.
a. Nashtock neglected to disclose receipt of income from the Township in
excess of $1,300.00 on his Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar
year 2008 and from the Authority in excess of $1,300.00 on his Statements
of Financial Interests filed for calendar year[s] 2005 and 2008.
1. Nashtock received $1,875.00 (gross) in compensation from the
Township in his position as a Township Supervisor in calendar year
2008.
2. Nashtock received $1,975.00 and $2,800.00 (gross) in compensation
from the Authority in his position as an Authority Board Member in
calendar years 2005 and 2008 respectively.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for South Pymatuning Township (“Township”), Mercer County, and
as a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”),
Respondent Michael P. Nashtock, Jr., hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,”
“Respondent Nashtock,” and “Nashtock,” is a public official subject to the provisions of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 16
The allegations are that Respondent Nashtock violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a),
and 1105(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his public position(s) for
private gain by participating in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to appoint
him to a compensated position on the Authority and to approve compensation for Authority
Members, and when, as a Member of the Authority, he voted to increase compensation for
Members of the Authority; (2) when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests
(“SFI”) with the Township for the 2007 calendar year; (3) when he failed to file an SFI as
an Authority Board Member for calendar year 2006; (4) when he failed to disclose income
received from the Authority on SFIs filed for calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2008; and (5)
when he failed to disclose income received from the Township on his SFIs (original and
amended) filed for calendar year 2008.
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 1105(a) of the Ethics Act provides that the SFI shall be filed on the form
prescribed by this Commission; that all information requested on the form shall be
provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the filer; and that the form
shall be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 17
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
Respondent Nashtock has served as a Township Supervisor from January 2, 1990,
through the present. Nashtock served as the Chairman of the Township Board of
Supervisors from January 2, 1996, until January 2, 2007, and from January 4, 2010, to the
present. Nashtock served as the Assistant Chairman from January 2, 2007, until January
4, 2010.
Nashtock has also served as a Member of the Authority from November 22, 2002,
through the present. Nashtock was initially appointed by the Township Board of
Supervisors to fill a vacancy on the Authority Board and was subsequently re-appointed to
a complete five year term in January 2006. Nashtock served as the Chairman of the
Authority Board from January 4, 2005, through the present and Vice-Chairman of the
Authority Board from January 7, 2003, through January 3, 2005.
The Township is a second class township governed by a three Member Board of
Supervisors.
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 other than officer pay 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 their meeting pay/salaries during their existing terms. Any
increase or decrease becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term.
Prior to December 2002, Authority Board Members received no meeting pay/salary.
In November 2002 the Authority Board requested that an interested Supervisor be
appointed to the Authority Board and that a salary be established for Authority Members at
the rate of fifty dollars per regular meeting attended.
At the November 22, 2002, meeting of the Township Board of Supervisors,
Township Supervisor Burt DeVries (“DeVries”) made a motion to appoint Nashtock to the
Authority Board. Nashtock seconded the motion and voted in favor of his appointment to
the Authority Board. The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote. The third Supervisor,
Michael Derr (“Derr”), was not present at the meeting.
At the December 4, 2002, meeting of the Township Supervisors, Nashtock made a
motion, seconded by DeVries, to appoint DeVries to fill a position on the Authority Board.
The motion passed via unanimous 2-0 vote. Derr was not present at the meeting.
At the December 4, 2002, meeting an additional motion was made by Nashtock,
seconded by DeVries, to set compensation of Authority Board Members at the rate of
$50.00 gross per meeting attended. The motion passed via 2-0 unanimous vote. 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. 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 the Authority or Authority business (Fact Finding 18c).
As a result of his November 22, 2002, vote to appoint himself a Member of the
Authority, and his subsequent vote on December 4, 2002, to set compensation for
Authority Board Members, Nashtock received compensation of $50.00 per meeting as an
Authority Board Member.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 18
The Township Supervisors did not approve any increase in Authority Board Member
compensation from January 1, 2003, through the present. However, at Authority Board
meetings held on January 5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18, 2008, Nashtock
participated in Authority Board votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation as
detailed in Fact Findings 33-34. None of these increases in compensation were presented
to the Township Board of Supervisors for consideration or approval prior to enactment.
Nashtock did not advise the Township Board of Supervisors of the increases. Nashtock
accepted the increases prior to beginning new terms.
Nashtock asserts that the Authority had statutory power to increase compensation
for officers of the Authority without the approval of the Township Board of Supervisors.
However, meeting minutes do not specifically delineate that the increase in compensation
was limited to Authority officer positions.
From January 2005 through August 2009, Nashtock received and negotiated a
minimum of 53 checks from Authority accounts representing payment for attendance at
Authority and additional outside meetings. Nashtock’s signature appears as an authorized
Authority signatory on at least 40 of these checks totaling $8,675.00. The payments
include the initial rate of $50.00 per meeting set by the Board of Supervisors in December
2002 and the increases set by the Authority between 2005 and 2007 without approval of
the Township Board of Supervisors.
Nashtock also participated as an Authority Board Member in actions to approve
monthly bill lists that included payments to Nashtock for his attendance at Authority and
additional outside meetings. Nashtock voted to approve monthly bill lists on at least 52 of
58 occasions on which payment to Nashtock was documented.
At the October 6, 2009, Authority Board meeting, Nashtock participated in a
unanimous vote of the Authority Board to suspend further meeting payments to Authority
Board Members until informed by this Commission of a resolution to the potential conflict of
Members adjusting their own compensation.
The parties have stipulated that Nashtock realized a private pecuniary gain when he
used the authority of his office as an Authority Board Member to participate in votes as an
Authority Board Member to increase Board Member compensation without the approval of
the Township Supervisors; when he participated in Authority votes to approve bill lists on
which payment to him as an Authority Board Member was documented; and when he
signed checks issued to him from Authority accounts as an authorized Authority signatory.
On May 20, 2009, and August 26, 2009, a review of SFIs was conducted at the
Township municipal building. No SFIs were present for Nashtock in his position as a
Township Supervisor for calendar year 2007. No SFIs were present for Nashtock in his
position as an Authority Board Member for calendar year 2006. Nashtock asserts that he
properly filed such SFIs and that the SFIs were misplaced, lost, or removed by unknown
individual(s). The parties have stipulated that files containing Nashtock’s SFIs were poorly
maintained and there is no evidence contradicting his statements that the forms were
properly filed.
Nashtock failed to disclose the Township as a source of income on his SFI filed for
calendar year 2008 despite having received $1,875.00 (gross) in compensation from the
Township in his position as a Township Supervisor in calendar year 2008. Nashtock failed
to disclose the Authority as a source of income on his SFIs filed for calendar years 2005
and 2008 despite having received $1,975.00 and $2,800.00 (gross) in compensation from
the Authority in his position as an Authority Board Member in calendar years 2005 and
2008 respectively.
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 19
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
Nashtock participated in actions of the Board of
Supervisors to appoint himself to position on the
South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority
and subsequently participated in actions of the
Board of Supervisors to approve compensation
for Authority Members; and when, as a Member
of the Authority, he voted to increase
compensation for Members of the Authority,
without approval of the South Pymatuning
Township Board of Supervisors, the appointing
Authority.
b. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1104(a), occurred in relation to the allegation
that Nashtock failed to file Statements of
Financial Interests for the 2006 and 2007
calendar years with the South Pymatuning
Township Municipal Authority, due to insufficient
evidence.
c. That a technical violation of Section 1105(b) of
the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. §1105(b), occurred when Nashtock
failed to list all sources of direct or indirect
income on his 2004, 2005 and 2008 Statements
of Financial Interests, namely a failure to
disclose income received from the Authority on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for
calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2008; and
income received from the Township on
Statement of Financial Interests (original and
amended) filed for calendar year 2008.
4. Nashtock agrees to make payment in the amount of $3,000.00
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. If Nashtock has not already done so, he agrees to file
amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years
2004, 2005, and 2008 listing all sources of income; and file
Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2006 and
2007 with the South Pymatuning Township/South Pymatuning
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 20
Township Municipal Authority, and forward copies of all filings
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.
Consent Agreement, at 2.
In considering the Consent Agreement of the parties, we accept the
recommendation of the parties for the finding of an unintentional violation of Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
Factually, at the November 22, 2002, meeting of the Township Board of
Supervisors, Nashtock seconded the motion and voted in favor of his appointment to the
Authority Board. At the December 4, 2002, meeting of the Township Board of Supervisors,
Nashtock made the motion and participated in the vote to set compensation of Authority
Board Members at the rate of $50.00 gross per meeting attended. Nashtock’s aforesaid
actions in 2002 occurred prior to the time period that is subject to review in this case and
may not form the basis for a violation (see, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(m)).
However, the recommendation for an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) is
supported by Nashtock’s subsequent actions at Authority Board meetings held on January
5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18, 2008, when Nashtock participated in Authority
Board votes to increase Authority Board Member compensation as detailed in Fact
Findings 33-34. None of these increases in compensation were presented to the
Township Board of Supervisors for consideration or approval prior to enactment, and the
resulting compensation to Nashtock constituted a private pecuniary benefit.
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.
We hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred
when, after having voted as a Township Supervisor in 2002 to appoint himself to the
Authority Board and to set the compensation of Authority Board Members, Nashtock voted
as an Authority Board Member on January 5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18,
2008, to increase compensation for Members of the Authority, without approval of the
Township Board of Supervisors (the appointing authority). 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 Nashtock did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act as
alleged, based upon insufficient evidence.
Although the remaining allegations pertain to Section 1105(a) of the Ethics Act, and
the Stipulated Findings do not mention any substantive deficiencies in Nashtock’s SFI for
calendar year 2004, the parties have agreed to a finding that a technical violation of
Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred when Nashtock failed to list all direct/indirect
sources of income on his 2004, 2005 and 2008 SFIs, namely the Authority on SFIs filed for
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 21
calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2008, and the Township on SFIs (original and amended)
filed for calendar year 2008.
We accept the recommendation and hold that a technical violation of Section
1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred when Nashtock failed to list all direct/indirect sources of
income on his 2004, 2005 and 2008 SFIs, namely the Authority on SFIs filed for calendar
years 2004, 2005 and 2008, and the Township on SFIs (original and amended) filed for
calendar year 2008.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $3,000.00 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 amended SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, and
2008 listing all sources of income, and SFIs for calendar years 2006 and 2007, and to
forward copies of all 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 Nashtock is
directed to make payment in the amount of $3,000.00 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 Nashtock is directed to file
with the Authority amended SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2008 listing all
sources of income, and SFIs for calendar years 2006 and 2007, and to forward copies of
th
all such 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 Supervisor for South Pymatuning Township (“Township”), Mercer County, and
as a Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”),
Respondent Michael P. Nashtock, Jr., hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,”
“Respondent Nashtock,” and “Nashtock,” is 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. Nashtock unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), when, after having voted as a Township Supervisor in 2002 to appoint
himself to the Authority Board and to set the compensation of Authority Board
Members, he voted as an Authority Board Member on January 5, 2005, January 4,
2006, and January 18, 2008, to increase compensation for Members of the
Authority, without approval of the Township Board of Supervisors (the appointing
authority).
3. Nashtock did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), as
alleged, based upon insufficient evidence.
4. A technical violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b),
Nashtock, 09-023
Page 22
occurred when Nashtock failed to list all direct/indirect sources of income on his
2004, 2005 and 2008 Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”), namely the
Authority on SFIs filed for calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2008, and the Township
on SFIs (original and amended) filed for calendar year 2008.
In Re: Michael P. Nashtock, Jr., : File Docket: 09-023
Respondent : Date Decided: 10/19/10
: Date Mailed: 10/26/10
ORDER NO. 1570
1. Michael P. Nashtock, Jr. (“Nashtock”), a public official in his capacities as a
Supervisor for South Pymatuning Township (“Township”), Mercer County, and as a
Member of the South Pymatuning Township Municipal Authority (“Authority”),
unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when, after having voted as a Township
Supervisor in 2002 to appoint himself to the Authority Board and to set the
compensation of Authority Board Members, he voted as an Authority Board Member
on January 5, 2005, January 4, 2006, and January 18, 2008, to increase
compensation for Members of the Authority, without approval of the Township
Board of Supervisors (the appointing authority).
2. Nashtock did not violate Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), as
alleged, based upon insufficient evidence.
3. A technical violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b),
occurred when Nashtock failed to list all direct/indirect sources of income on his
2004, 2005 and 2008 Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”), namely the
Authority on SFIs filed for calendar years 2004, 2005 and 2008, and the Township
on SFIs (original and amended) filed for calendar year 2008.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Nashtock is directed to make payment in
the amount of $3,000.00 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.
5. To the extent he has not already done so, Nashtock is directed to file with the
Authority amended SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2008 listing all sources
of income, and SFIs for calendar years 2006 and 2007, and to forward copies of all
such filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the
th
thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order.
6. Compliance with Paragraphs 4 and 5 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