HomeMy WebLinkAbout1575 Wilson
In Re: Paul Wilson, : File Docket: 09-027
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1575
: Date Decided: 12/15/10
: Date Mailed: 12/20/10
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.” 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.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 2
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Paul Wilson, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor
of East Finley Township, Washington County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), 1104(a),
and 1105(b) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1103(f),
1104(a), and 1105(b), when he participated in discussions and actions of the Board of
Supervisors to award contracts to a business owned by his son, Wilson Outdoor Services;
when the projects valued at in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and
public process; when he participated in actions of the Board of Supervisors to authorize
payments to his son’s company; and when he failed to file a Statement of Financial
Interests for the 2006 calendar year by May 1, 2007; and when he failed to disclose all
direct/indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2004,
2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Paul Wilson served as a Supervisor for East Finley Township (hereafter Township),
Washington County, from March 22, 2004, to July 17, 2009.
a. Wilson served as Roadmaster from January 2, 2001, to June 15, 2009.
1. Wilson served as a Road Laborer from June 1984 to January 2, 2001.
b. Wilson served as Vice-Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2007, 2008
and 2009.
c. Wilson submitted a letter of resignation on July 17, 2009, stating that his
resignation was due to “a potential conflict of interest” that could occur now
due to his employment with a company that does business with the
Township.
2. East Finley Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three-Member
Board of Supervisors (Board).
a. The Board holds regular monthly meetings on the second Tuesday of each
month.
b. Special meetings are held as necessary.
3. East Finley Township Supervisors are compensated $1,875.00 a year for their
services.
4. Board voting procedures occur in an aye/nay group vote after a motion is made and
seconded.
a. All objections and abstentions are noted in the minutes.
1. The minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each
subsequent meeting.
5. Actual bill lists were not generated for review at the monthly meetings until
approximately June 2009.
a. Prior to June 2009, bills were considered approved when the Township
checks issued to pay the bills were signed by the Supervisors.
1. Some checks were signed after the Supervisors reviewed the bills
Wilson, 09-027
Page 3
provided at the Township meetings.
2. There was no vote of the Board to approve checks which were signed
on the day of Township meetings.
6. The Supervisors also reviewed bills and signed checks prior to Township meetings.
a. Bills were reviewed and checks were signed prior to Township meetings in
order to:
1. Avoid late fees.
2. To appease those Supervisors that requested that bills be paid in
advance of meeting dates.
b. Bills paid in advance were not reviewed at subsequent meetings or made
available for public review.
7. On two separate occasions (April 10, 2007, and April 8, 2008) the Township elected
Auditors recommended to the Supervisors that bills for the Township be presented,
reviewed, and approved at monthly meetings by the Supervisors.
a. The Township elected Auditors recommended that bills be paid at Township
meetings so that all the Township officials (not just those signing checks)
were notified of what bills were being paid.
b. The Township elected Auditors also made the recommendation so that the
public had the opportunity to review the bills presented at the meetings.
8. As of June 2009, bill lists have been generated and provided at monthly meetings
for review and approval.
a. Bill lists approved for payment represent all those bills received at the
Township in the period of time from the previous monthly meeting to the
subsequent monthly meeting.
9. All three Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer maintain signature authority over
the financial accounts associated with the Township.
a. Three signatures are required on all checks issued by the Township.
1. Facsimile stamps are not utilized.
2. Checks have to be signed by the Secretary/Treasurer and any
combination of two Supervisor signatures.
10. Wilson, as Roadmaster, was responsible for performing the duties described in the
Second Class Township Code.
a. Article XXIII, Section 2302 of the Second Class Township Code details the
duties of a Roadmaster as follows:
1. Report to the Board of Supervisors any information that may be
required by the Board of Supervisors and by the Department of
Transportation.
2. Inspect all roads and bridges as directed by the Board of Supervisors.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 4
3. Do or direct to be done all work necessary to carry out the
responsibilities imposed by the Board of Supervisors with respect to
the maintenance, repair, and construction of Township roads.
11. Wilson was responsible for performing the duties detailed in the Second Class
Township Code, as well as other responsibilities, including soliciting quotes/bids
related to road projects, since becoming Roadmaster in 2001.
a. The Roadmaster was typically the individual responsible for reviewing the
quotes/bids related to road projects and recommending a responsible
contractor to the Supervisors for utilization.
12. Article XXIII, Section 3102 of the Second Class Township Code outlines parameters
that must be followed when selecting a contractor, as detailed, in part, below:
a. Written or telephonic price quotations from at least three qualified and
responsible contractors shall be requested for all contracts that exceed
$4,000.00 but are less than $10,000.00.
b. All contracts in excess of the required public advertising amount of
$10,000.00 shall not be made except with and from the lowest responsible
bidder due to notice published for circulation.
13. Article XXIII, Section 3102, Subsection (i) of the Second Class Township Code
further stipulates that the following condition must be met when selecting a
contractor:
a. No township official, either elected or appointed, or township employee who
knows, or who by the exercise of reasonable diligence could know, shall be
interested to any appreciable degree, either directly or indirectly, in any
contract for the sale or furnishing of supplies or materials for the use of the
township or for any work to be done for the township involving the payment
by the township of more than five hundred dollars ($500) in any year unless
the contract is awarded through the public bid process.
14. Wilson did not always formally solicit quotes/bids from contractors for Township
road related projects during his tenure as Roadmaster.
a. The selection of contractors resulted from Supervisors’ discussions that did
not include obtaining or reviewing quotes/bids.
1. Most of these discussions did not occur during meetings of the
Supervisors.
15. On occasion, the Supervisors (including Wilson) formally discussed and selected
the utilization of contractors for road related projects at Township meetings.
16. James Wilson is the owner and operator of Wilson’s Outdoor Services (hereafter
WOS), located at [residence address redacted].
a. James Wilson is Paul Wilson’s son.
1. WOS operates out of James Wilson’s residence.
b. WOS specializes in ditching of roadways, excavating, mowing grass, and
seeding lawns.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 5
c. WOS is not incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
17. James Wilson established WOS as a business in approximately 2000-2001 and is
the sole owner.
a. Initially, James Wilson was the only full-time employee of WOS.
1. James Wilson occasionally hired sub-contractors to assist with
projects prior to hiring seven full-time employees in 2009.
b. Paul Wilson is currently a part-time employee of his son’s business.
18. East Finley Township contracted with WOS from June 2004 through March 2009.
a. East Finley Township’s contract with WOS for ditching/road related projects
occurred approximately three months after Wilson became Supervisor.
1. The first WOS invoice submitted to the Township for these projects
was paid on June 14, 2004.
2. Paul Wilson became a Supervisor on March 22, 2004.
b. The Township continued to award contracts to WOS during Wilson’s tenure
as Supervisor/Roadmaster.
1. The contracts awarded to WOS were done without public bidding or
by vote of the Board.
c. The Township ended its relationship with WOS after Wilson’s [July 2009]
resignation as Supervisor/Roadmaster.
*
19. From 1984 until 2004, when Wilson was appointed Roadmaster, the Township
Road Crew completed most, if not all, road related projects without the assistance of
a contractor.
a. Since Wilson’s resignation in July 2009, Township road related projects
were completed by Township employees.
b. WOS was utilized by the Township as a result of Wilson’s actions as
Supervisor and Roadmaster to select his son’s company.
*
[Cf., Fact Finding 1 a.]
20. Wilson introduced his son’s business to the other Supervisors shortly after
becoming Supervisor in March 2004.
a. Wilson organized an equipment demonstration for the Board with his son’s
business so that the other Supervisors could witness the capabilities of his
son’s skid-loader/high-lift which included a custom bucket attached.
1. Wilson wanted to demonstrate that the custom bucket made it easier
to ditch road berms without removing gravel that the Township would
have to pay to have replaced.
2. Wilson participated in making modifications to the bucket by adding
"wings" to it so that when the bucket was used for Township work,
Wilson, 09-027
Page 6
leaves would not get scooped into the bucket.
b. No other contractors provided an equipment demonstration for the
Supervisors.
21. At the conclusion of the equipment demonstration, the Supervisors (including
Wilson) agreed that Wilson’s son’s business would be utilized by the Township for
ditching/road related projects.
a. The Supervisors did not receive or review any quotes/bids from WOS or any
other contractor prior to selecting WOS to be utilized by the Township.
b. There was no vote of the Board at a public meeting authorizing contracts
with WOS.
c. The informal meeting arranged by Wilson resulted in the Township utilizing
WOS for road projects as recommended by Wilson.
22. Minutes of Board meetings reflect that work performed for the Township by WOS
was not publicly discussed until April 2006 when the Board discussed work
performed by WOS.
a. Minutes of the April 11, 2006, Board meeting reflect the following:
“Supervisors discussed Jim Wilson of Wilson Outdoor Services being hired
as a [sic] contractor by the Township. All seems to be working well.”
23. WOS was subsequently approved as a contractor for the Township by Board votes
beginning in May 2006.
a. The votes of the Board after May 2006 authorized WOS as an approved
contractor, but not for any specific contract.
1. WOS was approved as an emergency contractor during meetings of
the Board when other emergency contractors were appointed.
b. The contractor appointments occurred after the auditor report on April 10,
2007.
24. Board meetings reflect the following actions resulting in the selection of WOS as a
contractor:
Meeting Board Action Wilson’s Official Action(s)
Date
May 24, “Supervisor Rudy Barbisch motioned to Voted to approve WOS
2006 accept Wilson Outdoor Services to work on
Township roads doing ditch work. Chairman
Ernie [sic] Moorehead seconded.” Wilson
was present at the meeting when the vote
occurred. No abstention or no vote is
recorded for Wilson.
May 8, 2007 “Supervisors discussed using Wilson Wilson participated in the
Outdoor Services as a subcontractor for discussion leading up to the
ditching our Township roads at a rate of vote. Wilson informed the
$60.00 per hour and we supply the fuel for Board of his son’s intentions
the machine. Supervisor Barbisch made the to serve as a contractor and
motion to approve this hire, Chairman provided the Board with
Wilson, 09-027
Page 7
Meeting Board Action Wilson’s Official Action(s)
Date
Moorehead seconded the motion, and Vice-WOS’s rates.
Chairman Wilson abstained from the vote. Abstained from the vote
Motion passed.”
Supervisor Ernie Moorehead motioned for Wilson abstained from the
January 7, WOS to be the Township’s excavating vote. Wilson participated in
2008 contactor; Moorehead’s motion was discussion and provide[d]
seconded by Supervisor Ralph “Rudy” rates for WOS.
Barbisch.
The Supervisors via a 3-0 vote appointed Wilson participated in the
January 5, WOS as a designated Township contractor. vote to appoint his son's
2009 company to be utilized by
the Township.
25. Between 2004 and 2009, the Board did not solicit bids or quotes from any other
contractors prior to selecting WOS as the Township excavating contractor.
a. The only company considered was WOS.
b. Wilson, as Supervisor and Roadmaster, recommended WOS every year
from 2006 through 2009 and provided the Board with WOS rates.
c. Wilson voted to approve his son’s business as a Township contractor in
2006 and 2009.
d. WOS’s appointment in 2008 and 2009 was to serve as an emergency
contractor.
e. There were no votes in either 2004 or 2005 to utilize WOS.
26. As Roadmaster, Wilson made the decision when to utilize WOS and the specific
projects for which WOS would be utilized.
a. Wilson would fragment these projects so that the $10,000.00 bidding
threshold of the Second Class Township Code would not be exceeded.
b. Wilson would authorize WOS for ditching on Township roads and label each
road as a separate contract keeping the cost of each road under $10,000.
1. Keeping contracts under $10,000.00 eliminated the requirement for
public bidding.
27. The Road Crew assisted WOS during the time period that WOS completed road
related projects for the Township (2004 through 2009).
a. Wilson, as Roadmaster, directed the Road Crew to provide assistance to
WOS to complete road related projects by providing Township equipment
and personnel.
b. On occasion, a member of the Township Road Crew operated WOS
equipment if the WOS operator did not report to the Township work site.
1. Wilson directed the Road Crew members to operate WOS equipment
if WOS operators did not report to the Township work site.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 8
aa. WOS equipment was hauled to designated work sites based
on directives Wilson provided to his son via telephone.
28. Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz advised Wilson as early as September 19, 2006,
at a Township meeting that the Second Class Township Code bidding procedures
must be followed when awarding contracts, including those awarded to his son’s
company.
a. Wilson was also informed of the Second Class [Township Code] bidding
procedures within months of becoming a Supervisor in 2004.
b. Wilson ignored Metz’s advice and continued to participate in the award of
contracts to his son’s business without public advertisement or soliciting
bids/quotes.
29. Following the audit of 2006 Township accounts, the elected Auditors determined
that the Supervisors failed to perform the following actions in 2006 that resulted in
contracts being awarded through methods considered non-public in nature:
a. Solicit quotes/bids from contractors.
b. Vote to award contracts at public meetings.
c. Vote to approve the payment of bills at Township meetings.
30. In an attempt to rectify the situation and make the Township more transparent to the
public, the elected Auditors made the following recommendations to the
Supervisors at the April 10, 2007, meeting:
a. Approve a list of contractors at the beginning of each year for emergency
use.
1. The Auditors recommended that an emergency list of contractors be
approved so that at a minimum the public was aware as to whom the
Supervisors would contact in case of an emergency.
b. Obtain rates from the approved emergency contractors in case the
Supervisors would want to utilize them for non-emergency projects.
1. The Auditors recommended that rates be obtained so that the
Supervisors would have an idea as to how much a project might cost.
aa. By determining the approximate price of the project
based on the rates, it would be easier for the
Supervisors to determine if the project would have to be
put out for public bid.
31. Auditors recommended a stronger stipulation than the Second Class Township
Code by recommending that all contracts should be on a bid basis.
32. On April 8, 2008, the Township elected Auditors again provided recommendations
to the Supervisors, which included the following:
a. That bills for the Township be presented, reviewed, and approved at the
monthly meetings by the Supervisors.
b. The Supervisors review and consult with the Township Solicitor regarding
Wilson, 09-027
Page 9
procedures outlined within the Second Class Township Code that address
conflicts of interest/contracts valued at $500.00 or more.
1. This written recommendation was made in light of the no bid contracts
awarded to WOS and other no-bid contracts awarded to another
Supervisor.
33. Wilson ignored the advice of the elected Auditors [and] continued to authorize
contracts for his son’s business in 2008 and 2009 without adhering to the public
bidding process.
34. Wilson would hand-deliver his son’s invoices to Township Secretary Metz prior to
Township meetings.
a. At Wilson’s direction, payments to WOS were made immediately upon
Metz’s receipt of the invoices.
b. Payments were made without the review of the full Board of Supervisors or
public inspection.
c. Wilson would then sign the checks as one of the three Township signatories.
35. From 2004 through early 2009, Wilson authorized WOS to complete various
Township projects for the total amount of $69,043.00.
36. Between June 14, 2004, and April 10, 2009, Wilson submitted thirty-five (35) WOS
invoices to the Township for payment totaling $69,043.00.
a. Only five of WOS’s thirty-five WOS invoices were available for Supervisor
and public inspection at a Township meeting.
b. None of the (35) invoices were approved by a vote of the Board of
Supervisors.
37. Of the thirty-five invoices submitted, thirty-three included charges in excess of
$500.00.
a. Of the thirty-three invoices charging $500.00 or more, none of the work
completed by WOS related to those invoices was put out for public bid by the
Supervisors.
38. Wilson signed thirty of the thirty-three Township checks issued to WOS.
a. Payments issued to WOS from 2004 through 2009 totaled $69,043.00.
1. Township checks signed by Wilson total $65,378.00.
39. WOS maintained a bank account at National City Bank from 2004 through 2007.
a. James Wilson and his wife, Michelle Wilson, had signature authority over
the account.
40. Payments issued to WOS by the Township from 2004 through 2007 were deposited
in Wilson’s son’s business bank account at National City Bank.
41. In 2008, WOS opened a bank account at First Federal Savings and Loan
Association of Greene County (FFSL).
Wilson, 09-027
Page 10
a. James Wilson and his wife, Michelle Wilson, had signature authority over
the account.
42. Payments issued to WOS by the Township from 2008 through 2009 were deposited
in Wilson’s son’s business bank account at FFSL.
43. In addition to checks deposited into the WOS accounts, six checks issued by the
Township to WOS totaling $11,159.00 were cashed.
44. The percentage of WOS’s gross income as a result of no bid contracts with the
Township is as follows:
2004 – 3.7%
2005 – 5.7%
2006 – 28.9%
2007 – 16.8%
2008 – 27.7%
a. Approximate income percentages for 2009 could not be determined due to
the 2009 Federal Income Tax Returns for WOS not yet being finalized.
45. WOS filed Federal Income Tax Returns for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
2008, and 2009.
a. Included in WOS’s income tax returns were Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit
or Loss From Business reports regarding WOS for each respective year.
46. WOS realized profit percentages from gross profit reported for years 2004-2008 as
shown below:
Year Gross Net Income/Profit Profit Percentage From
Income/Profit Gross Income/Profit
2004 $71,574.00 $25,276.00 35.3%
2005 $44,499.00 $3,242.00 7.3%
2006 $79,529.00 $23,549.00 29.6%
2007 $119,285.00 $72,569.00 60.8%
2008 $218,643.00 $144,071.00 65.9%
a. WOS net profit was calculated by including all expenses detailed on WOS
Schedule C forms including costs of goods, insurance, mortgage, other
repairs and maintenance, rent or lease of equipment, insurance, fuel, small
tools, other truck expenses, telephone and miscellaneous expenses.
47. WOS business realized approximate profits totaling $29,801.68 from 2004 through
2008 as a result of doing business with East Finley Township, as shown below:
Year Gross Payment Profit Percentage Profit Realized
from Township From Gross
Income/Profit
2004 $3,200.00 35.3% $1,129.60
2005 $3,150.00 7.3% $229.95
2006 $25,965.00 29.6% $7,685.64
2007 $24,319.00 60.8% $14,785.95
2008 $9,060.00 65.9% $5,970.54
Total: 29,801.68
Wilson, 09-027
Page 11
48. The issue of the Board of Supervisors awarding contracts without public bidding,
including contracts awarded to Wilson’s son, became a point of discussion during
the May 12, 2009, Board of Supervisors meeting.
a. Citizens became aware of the practice of no bid contracts partially as a
result of Auditor comments and recommendations to the Board.
b. Following the discussion on May 12, 2009, the Board took the following
action:
“Motion by Chairman Moorehead that the Finley Township
Supervisors will follow all bidding rules to the PA Second Class
Township Code from now on. Motion seconded by Barbisch, Vice-
Chairman Wilson agreed.”
49. Wilson provided State Ethics Commission investigators with sworn testimony on
July 14, 2010, during which he confirmed the following:
a. As Roadmaster/Supervisor, he was responsible for soliciting quotes and/or
bids related to Township road projects.
b. He was aware that if a road related project was going to exceed $10,000.00,
the project would have to be publicly bid.
1. If the project was less than $10,000.00 he solicited phone quotes.
c. Certain road related projects did not require him to obtain quotes or bids
because the projects were awarded to contractors approved at the January
re-organizational meeting in which the Supervisors were aware of the
approved contractors' rates.
d. Contractor selection did not always occur at a Township meeting via a vote.
1. On occasion, the Supervisors decided to utilize a contractor during
informal telephone conversations or in passing outside of
Township meetings.
e. All three Supervisors were aware of and approved of those contractors
working for the Township unless specifically noted in the minutes otherwise.
f. After witnessing what his son's equipment could do, Wilson organized an
equipment demonstration in which the potential of WOS was introduced to
the other Supervisors.
1. He introduced the utilization of his son's company shortly after
becoming Supervisor.
g. He kept in constant contact with his son in order to arrange where his son
had to deliver WOS equipment for Township projects, determine whether or
not his son was going to operate WOS equipment, etc.
1. As Roadmaster, he dispatched Township Road Laborers to assist
WOS.
2. He directed Township Road Laborers to operate WOS equipment if
Wilson, 09-027
Page 12
his son would not be available to do so.
3. He approved the use of Township equipment in assisting WOS with
Township road related projects.
h. Wilson admitted to fragmenting projects WOS worked on in order to keep
the projects from exceeding the $10,000.00 bidding threshold.
i. He did not publicly bid any projects WOS completed for the Township.
j. At the January re-organizational meetings, he informed the Supervisors as to
what his son's rates/terms would be if selected as an approved contractor.
k. He delivered his son's invoices to the Township Secretary/Treasurer for
payment.
l. He signed checks to his son's business.
m. Wilson acknowledged that he was not following the Second Class Township
Code when he voted at the May 12, 2009, meeting to “from now on” follow
the Code.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WILSON FAILED
TO FILE A STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR
BY MAY 1, 2007; AND WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL DIRECT/INDIRECT
SOURCES OF INCOME ON STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR
THE 2004, 2005, 2007, AND 2008 CALENDAR YEARS.
50. Wilson in his official capacity as Township Supervisor/Roadmaster of East Finley
Township was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) form by May
1 annually containing information for the prior calendar year.
a. Township Supervisors/Roadmasters are annually provided with blank
Statements of Financial Interests forms for completion.
51. Wilson’s W-2 forms covering the time period of 2004 through 2009 confirm the
receipt of compensation from the Township for serving as Supervisor/Roadmaster:
Calendar Year Compensation Received For Serving As
from the Township
2004 $32,285.75 Supervisor/Roadmaster
2005 $34,158.00 Supervisor/Roadmaster
2006 $34,777.15 Supervisor/Roadmaster
2007 $36,533.00 Supervisor/Roadmaster
2008 $37,888.25 Supervisor/Roadmaster
2009 $20,317.50 Supervisor/Roadmaster
a. Wilson’s total compensation as Supervisor and Roadmaster is determined
as follows:
Roadmaster Compensation Supervisor Compensation
2004: $31,000.75 $1,875.00
2005: $32,283.00 $1,875.00
2006: $32,902.15 $1,875.00
2007: $34,658.00 $1,875.00
2008: $36,013.25 $1,875.00
Wilson, 09-027
Page 13
2009: $19,223.75 $1,093.75
52. On July 30, 2009, an SFI compliance review was conducted for East Finley
Township by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission.
a. The compliance review confirmed that Wilson annually filed SFIs for
calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
b. Wilson’s SFIs for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008 did not
disclose East Finley Township as a direct/indirect source of income.
53. Wilson’s SFI for the 2006 calendar year was [an] undated form and not filed until
after May 1, 2007.
a. Lines 8 through 14, which require disclosure of financial information, were
not completed by Wilson.
b. Wilson’s non-disclosure included direct/indirect sources of income.
54. Wilson used his position as Supervisor/Roadmaster to recommend the use of his
son's business as a Township contractor, when contracts for road projects were
awarded to his son’s business without an open and public process, when he voted
to designate his son's business as a selected contractor for Township use, and
when he authorized Township checks to be issued to his son's business, all of
which resulted in a private pecuniary gain to WOS, a business with which his son is
associated.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor of East Finley Township (“Township”), Washington County, from
March 22, 2004, to July 17, 2009, Respondent Paul Wilson (hereinafter also referred to as
“Respondent,” “Respondent Wilson,” and “Wilson”) was a public official/public employee
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 Wilson violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f),
1104(a), and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he participated in discussions and
actions of the Township Board of Supervisors (“Board”) to award contracts to a business
owned by his son, “Wilson’s Outdoor Services” (“WOS”); (2) when the projects valued at in
excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process; (3) when he
participated in actions of the Board to authorize payments to his son’s company; (4) when
he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the 2006 calendar year by
May 1, 2007; and (5) when he failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on
SFIs filed for the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 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:
Wilson, 09-027
Page 14
§ 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 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f)Contract.—
No public official or public employee or
his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which
the public official or public employee is associated or any
subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official or public employee is associated,
unless the contract has been awarded through an open and
public process, including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee
shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the
implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract
or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official/public
employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official/public employee
or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official/public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
Wilson, 09-027
Page 15
through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded.
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(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.
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 Board consists of three Supervisors. All three Supervisors and the Township
Secretary/Treasurer have signature authority over Township accounts. Township checks
require the signatures of the Secretary/Treasurer and any combination of two Supervisors.
Prior to June 2009, bill lists were not generated for review by the Board, and
Township bills were considered approved when the Supervisors signed the Township
checks issued to pay the bills.
Respondent Wilson served as a Township Supervisor from March 22, 2004, to July
17, 2009. Wilson served as Vice-Chairman of the Board in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Wilson
served as Township Roadmaster from January 2, 2001, to June 15, 2009. As Township
Roadmaster, Wilson was responsible for soliciting quotes/bids related to road projects.
Wilson’s son, James Wilson, is the sole owner of WOS. WOS specializes in
ditching roadways, excavating, mowing grass, and seeding lawns.
After Wilson became a Township Supervisor, the Township contracted with WOS
from June 2004 through March 2009. WOS was utilized by the Township as a result of
Wilson’s actions as Supervisor and Roadmaster to select his son’s company. The
contracts awarded to WOS were done without public bidding or vote of the Board.
Wilson introduced his son’s business to the other Supervisors through a
demonstration of WOS equipment, which Wilson organized shortly after becoming
Supervisor in March 2004. No other contractors provided an equipment demonstration for
the Supervisors. At the conclusion of the equipment demonstration, the Supervisors
(including Wilson) agreed that Wilson’s son’s business would be utilized by the Township
for ditching/road related projects. The Supervisors did not receive or review any
quotes/bids from WOS or any other contractor prior to selecting WOS to be utilized by the
Township. There was no vote of the Board at a public meeting authorizing contracts with
WOS. The informal meeting arranged by Wilson resulted in the Township utilizing WOS
for road projects as recommended by Wilson.
Per the meeting minutes of the Board, the work performed for the Township by
WOS was not publicly discussed at Township Board meetings until April 2006. WOS was
subsequently approved as a contractor for the Township by Board votes beginning in May
2006. The votes of the Board after May 2006 authorized WOS as an approved contractor,
but not for any specific contract.
On May 24, 2006, the Board including Wilson voted to accept WOS to work on
Wilson, 09-027
Page 16
Township roads doing ditch work. On May 8, 2007, Wilson abstained from a Board vote to
use WOS as a subcontractor for ditching Township roads but participated in the Board’s
discussion, informed the Board of his son’s intentions to serve as a contractor, and
provided the Board with WOS rates. On January 7, 2008, Wilson abstained from a Board
vote to use WOS as the Township’s excavating contractor but participated in the Board’s
discussion and provided rates for WOS. On January 5, 2009, Wilson participated in a 3-0
vote of the Board to appoint WOS as a designated Township contractor.
Between 2004 and 2009, the Board did not solicit bids or quotes from any other
contractors prior to selecting WOS as the Township excavating contractor. The only
company considered was WOS. Wilson, as Supervisor and Roadmaster, recommended
WOS every year from 2006 through 2009 and provided the Board with WOS rates. Wilson
voted to approve his son’s business as a Township contractor in 2006 and 2009.
As Roadmaster, Wilson made the decision when to utilize WOS and the specific
projects for which WOS would be utilized. Wilson fragmented projects so that the
$10,000.00 bidding threshold of the Second Class Township Code would not be exceeded.
As Roadmaster, Wilson also directed the Township Road Crew to provide assistance to
WOS to complete road related projects by providing Township equipment and personnel.
Wilson directed the Township Road Crew members to operate WOS equipment if WOS
operators did not report to the Township work site.
Wilson would hand-deliver his son’s invoices to Township Secretary/Treasurer
Melissa Metz (“Metz”) prior to Township meetings. At Wilson’s direction, payments to
WOS were made immediately upon Metz’s receipt of the invoices. Payments were made
without the review of the full Board or public inspection. Wilson would sign Township
checks issued to WOS as one of the three Township signatories.
From 2004 through early 2009, Wilson authorized WOS to complete various
Township projects for the total amount of $69,043.00. Wilson has confirmed that he did
not publicly bid any projects WOS completed for the Township.
Between June 14, 2004, and April 10, 2009, Wilson submitted 35 WOS invoices to
the Township for payment totaling $69,043.00. Only five of WOS’s 35 invoices were
available for Supervisor and public inspection at a Township meeting. None of the 35
invoices were approved by a vote of the Board.
Of the 35 WOS invoices submitted to the Township, 33 included charges in excess
of $500.00. None of the work completed by WOS related to those 33 invoices was put out
for public bid by the Supervisors.
Township payments issued to WOS from 2004 through 2009 totaled $69,043.00.
Wilson signed 30 of the 33 Township checks issued to WOS. Township checks signed by
Wilson totaled $65,378.00.
As calculated in Fact Finding 47, from 2004 through 2008, WOS realized
approximate profits totaling $29,801.68 as a result of doing business with the Township.
The issue of the Board awarding contracts without public bidding became the
subject of discussion at the May 12, 2009, Board meeting, with the Board including Wilson
voting unanimously to follow all bidding rules of the Second Class Township Code from
then on.
In July 2009 Wilson resigned as Supervisor/Roadmaster, stating that his resignation
was due to “a potential conflict of interest” that could occur due to his employment with a
company that does business with the Township. The Township ended its relationship with
WOS after Wilson’s resignation.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 17
The parties have stipulated that Wilson used his position as Township
Supervisor/Roadmaster to recommend the use of his son's business as a Township
contractor and that Township contracts for road projects were awarded to Wilson’s son’s
business without an open and public process. The parties have further stipulated that
Wilson voted to designate his son's business as a selected contractor for Township use
and authorized Township checks to be issued to his son's business. The parties have
stipulated that Wilson’s aforesaid actions resulted in a private pecuniary gain to WOS, a
business with which his son is associated.
We shall now review the material facts pertaining to Wilson’s SFIs.
Wilson’s SFIs filed with the Township for calendar years 2004, 2005, 2007, and
2008 did not disclose the Township as a direct/indirect source of income despite the fact
that Wilson had received compensation from the Township in excess of $30,000.00 in
each of those years.
Wilson’s SFI for the 2006 calendar year was undated and was not filed until after
May 1, 2007. Lines 8 through 14 of the form, which require disclosure of financial
information, were not completed by Wilson. Such non-disclosure included direct/indirect
sources of income.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a), occurred when Wilson, as a Member
of the Board of Supervisors, participated in
discussions and actions of the Board of
Supervisors to award contracts to a business
owned by his son, Wilson Outdoor Services.
b. That a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(f), occurred when projects valued at in
excess of $500.00 were awarded to a business
owned by Wilson’s son, Wilson Outdoor
Services, without an open and public process.
c. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a), occurred when Wilson participated in
actions of the Board of Supervisor[s] to authorize
payments to Wilson’s son’s company.
d. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1104(a), occurred when Wilson failed to file a
Statement of Financial Interests for the 2006
calendar year by May 1, 2007.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 18
e. That a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1105(b), occurred when Wilson failed to
disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on
Statements of Financial Interests filed for the
2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
4. Wilson agrees to make payment in the amount of $8,000.00 in
settlement of this matter payable to East Finley Township and
forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within
thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this
matter.
5. If Wilson has not already [done] so, Wilson agrees to file
amended Statements of Financial Interests for the 2004, 2005,
2007 and 2008 calendar years disclosing all required
information as appropriate. Wilson also agrees to file a
Statement of Financial Interests for the 2006 calendar year. All
Statements of Financial Interests shall be filed with East Finley
Township within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter. Copies of said forms shall be
forwarded to the State Ethics Commission for compliance
verification purposes.
6. Wilson agrees that he will neither seek nor hold any position of
public office or of public employment in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at any time.
Consent Agreement, at 1-2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that a violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Wilson, as a Member of the Board,
participated in discussions and actions of the Board to award contracts to a business
owned by his son, specifically, WOS.
Wilson used the authority of his public office when he introduced WOS to the other
Supervisors through the equipment demonstration that he organized shortly after
becoming Supervisor in March 2004. Wilson further used the authority of his public office
when, at the conclusion of the equipment demonstration, he and the other Supervisors
agreed that WOS would be utilized by the Township for ditching/road related projects. The
equipment demonstration/informal meeting arranged by Wilson resulted in the Township
utilizing WOS for road projects as recommended by Wilson.
Wilson, as Supervisor and Roadmaster, recommended WOS every year from 2006
through 2009 and provided the Board with WOS rates. Wilson voted to approve WOS as
a Township contractor in 2006 and 2009. In 2007 and 2008, Wilson abstained from Board
votes to use WOS for Township work but participated in the Board’s discussions leading
up to the votes and provided the Board with WOS rates.
From 2004 through early 2009, Wilson authorized WOS to complete various
Township projects for the total amount of $69,043.00.
Wilson’s aforesaid actions resulted in a private pecuniary gain to WOS, a business
with which his son is associated. As calculated in Fact Finding 47, from 2004 through
2008, WOS realized approximate profits totaling $29,801.68 as a result of doing business
with the Township.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 19
With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) established, we hold that a
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when
Wilson, as a Member of the Board, participated in discussions and actions of the Board to
award contracts to WOS, a business owned by Wilson’s son. Cf., Vaughn, Order 1450.
We accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that a violation of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when Township projects valued at in excess of $500.00
were awarded to WOS without an open and public process.
In 2004 when Wilson and the other Township Supervisors agreed that WOS would
be utilized by the Township for ditching/road related projects, the Supervisors did not
receive or review any quotes/bids from WOS or any other contractor prior to selecting
WOS to be utilized by the Township. There was no vote of the Board at a public meeting
authorizing contracts with WOS. The equipment demonstration/informal meeting arranged
by Wilson resulted in the Township utilizing WOS for road projects as recommended by
Wilson.
Between 2004 and 2009, the Board did not solicit bids or quotes from any other
contractors prior to selecting WOS as the Township excavating contractor. The only
company considered was WOS.
The fact that work was being performed for the Township by WOS was not publicly
discussed at Township Board meetings until April 2006. The votes of the Board after May
2006 authorized WOS as an approved contractor, but not for any specific contract. The
contracts awarded to WOS were done without public bidding or vote of the Board.
Between June 14, 2004, and April 10, 2009, Wilson submitted 35 WOS invoices to
the Township for payment totaling $69,043.00. Only five of the 35 WOS invoices were
available for Supervisor and public inspection at a Township meeting. None of the 35
invoices were approved by a vote of the Board. Of the 35 WOS invoices submitted to the
Township, 33 included charges in excess of $500.00. None of the work completed by
WOS related to those 33 invoices was put out for public bid by the Supervisors.
We are mindful of the ruling in Bixler v. State Ethics Commission, 847 A.2d 785 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2004). In Bixler, supra, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that a
township supervisor did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a business that
employed him entered into a contract in excess of $500 with his township without an open
and public process, but the supervisor himself was neither a party to the contract nor a
principal of the contracting business. Id. The Court determined that Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act prohibited the conduct of entering into the contract under such circumstances.
The Court concluded that although a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act would be
established under such circumstances, it would not be the public official who would be in
violation of the law. Id. See also, Means, Opinion 04-007.
In the instant matter, if the parties had not determined to enter into a Consent
Agreement, we might have been presented with factual and legal issues as to whether,
under the circumstances of this case, Bixler would apply. See, Hauser, Order 1518.
However, given: (1) that the parties have entered into a comprehensive Consent
Agreement; and (2) the parties are in agreement that the finding of a violation of Section
1103(f) would be appropriate as part of an overall settlement of this case, we shall accept
the parties’ proposed disposition as to Section 1103(f).
We hold that per the Consent Agreement of the parties, a violation of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when Township projects valued at
in excess of $500.00 were awarded to WOS, a business owned by Wilson’s son, without
Wilson, 09-027
Page 20
an open and public process. We note that the Section 1103(f) determination in this case
based upon the agreement of the parties should not be considered as precedent for other
cases, which would be determined based upon their facts and circumstances.
We agree with the parties that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
occurred when Wilson participated in actions of the Board to authorize payments to his
son’s company, WOS.
Between June 14, 2004, and April 10, 2009, Wilson submitted 35 WOS invoices to
the Township for payment totaling $69,043.00. At Wilson’s direction, payments to WOS
were made immediately upon Metz’s receipt of the invoices. Wilson signed 30 of the 33
Township checks issued to WOS as one of the three Township signatories. Township
checks signed by Wilson totaled $65,378.00. The signing of such checks constituted
formal approval of the payments. None of the invoices were approved by a vote of the
Board.
We hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a),
occurred when Wilson participated in actions of the Board to authorize payments to
Wilson’s son’s company, WOS. Cf., Gold, Order 1461; Vaughn, supra.
As for the allegations involving Wilson’s SFIs, we hold that a violation of Section
1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Wilson failed to file an SFI
for the 2006 calendar year by May 1, 2007.
We further hold that a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred when Wilson failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on
SFIs filed for the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Wilson has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $8,000.00 payable to East Finley Township 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, Wilson has agreed to file with the
Township, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter,
amended SFIs for the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years, disclosing all required
information as appropriate, and an SFI for the 2006 calendar year, and to forward copies
of all such forms to this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
Finally, Wilson has agreed that he will neither seek nor hold any position of public
office or of public employment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any time.
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, Wilson is directed to make
payment in the amount of $8,000.00 payable to East Finley Township and forwarded to
th
this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
adjudication and Order.
To the extent he has not already done so, Wilson is directed to file with the
th
Township, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication
and Order, amended SFIs for the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years,
appropriately disclosing all required information, and an SFI for the 2006 calendar year,
and to forward copies of all such forms to this Commission for compliance verification
purposes.
Wilson, 09-027
Page 21
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wilson is directed that he is to neither
seek nor hold any position of public office or of public employment in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania at any time.
Compliance with the Consent Agreement and this Order will result in the closing of
this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Supervisor of East Finley Township (“Township”), Washington County, from
March 22, 2004, to July 17, 2009, Respondent Paul Wilson (“Wilson”) was a public
official/public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. Wilson violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when, as a
Member of the Township Board of Supervisors, he participated in discussions and
actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to award contracts to “Wilson’s
Outdoor Services,” a business owned by his son.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, a violation of Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when Township projects valued at in
excess of $500.00 were awarded to Wilson’s Outdoor Services, a business owned
by Wilson’s son, without an open and public process.
4. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred
when Wilson participated in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to
authorize payments to Wilson’s son’s company, Wilson’s Outdoor Services.
5. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Wilson failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the 2006
calendar year by May 1, 2007.
6. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred
when Wilson failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on SFIs filed for
the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
In Re: Paul Wilson, : File Docket: 09-027
Respondent : Date Decided: 12/15/10
: Date Mailed: 12/20/10
ORDER NO. 1575
1. As a Supervisor of East Finley Township (“Township”), Washington County, Paul
Wilson (“Wilson”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when, as a Member of the Township
Board of Supervisors, he participated in discussions and actions of the Township
Board of Supervisors to award contracts to “Wilson’s Outdoor Services,” a business
owned by his son.
2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, a violation of Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when Township projects valued at in
excess of $500.00 were awarded to Wilson’s Outdoor Services, a business owned
by Wilson’s son, without an open and public process.
3. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred
when Wilson participated in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to
authorize payments to Wilson’s son’s company, Wilson’s Outdoor Services.
4. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Wilson failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the 2006
calendar year by May 1, 2007.
5. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred
when Wilson failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on SFIs filed for
the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years.
6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wilson is directed to make payment in
the amount of $8,000.00 payable to East Finley Township and forwarded to the
th
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after
the mailing date of this Order.
7. To the extent he has not already done so, Wilson is directed to file with the
th
Township, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
Order, amended SFIs for the 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2008 calendar years,
appropriately disclosing all required information, and an SFI for the 2006 calendar
year, and to forward copies of all such forms to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission for compliance verification purposes.
8. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wilson is directed that he is to neither
seek nor hold any position of public office or of public employment in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any time.
9. Compliance with the Consent Agreement and 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,
___________________________
Wilson, 09-027
Page 23
Louis W. Fryman, Chair