Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1580 Barbisch In Re: Ralph Barbisch, : File Docket: 09-028 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1580 : Date Decided: 3/3/11 : Date Mailed: 3/10/11 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 wasrequested by the Investigative Division. 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. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 2 I.ALLEGATIONS: That Ralph Barbisch, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor of East Finley Township, Washington County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b), when he used the authority of his public position, including but not limited to participating in discussions of the Board of Supervisors resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which he is associated, when the contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process; when he used the authority of his public position to authorize payments to his company, including directing that payments be made and subsequently signing checks; and when he failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. II.FINDINGS: 1. Ralph “Rudy” Barbisch has served as a Supervisor for East Finley Township (hereafter Township), Washington County from December 6, 2004, to the present. a. Barbisch served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2005 and 2006. 2. East Finley Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three-Member Board of Supervisors. a. The Supervisors hold 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. Checks were signed after the Supervisors reviewed the bills provided at the Township meetings. b. On occasion, the Supervisors reviewed bills and signed checks prior to Township meetings. 1. Bills were reviewed and checks were signed prior to Township meetings in order to: Barbisch, 09-028 Page 3 ? Avoid late fees. ? Appease those Supervisors that requested bills be paid in advance. 6. 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 said recommendation to enable the public to have an opportunity to review the bills presented at the meetings. 7. 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. 8. 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 if 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. 9. The Auditors recommended a more restrictive stipulation than the Second Class Township Code by recommending that all contracts should be on a bid basis. 10. 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. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 4 11. 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 the Supervisors’ signatures. 12. Since at least 2004, during Barbisch’s tenure as Supervisor, the Board has not solicited quotes/bids for projects when Supervisors or members of their immediate family [have sought] contracts. a. The contracts awarded to Supervisors or their immediate family members have been in excess of $500.00. b. The award of contracts would result from Supervisor discussions that did not include a solicitation of quotes/bids from other potential bidders. 1. The Supervisors would award contracts to contractors on the Township’s contractors list, which was determined by the Supervisors at the beginning of each year and listed the hourly rate for each contractor. 13. Barbisch has performed general contracting services under the name, Rudy Barbisch, for approximately thirty years. a. Barbisch is the sole owner and operator of the business. b. Barbisch’s business was previously located at 60 Fairmont Church Road, West Finley, PA 15377. Barbisch’s current business address is [residence address redacted]. 1. Barbisch operates his business out of his residence. 14. Barbisch’s business specializes in complete remodeling and new construction. a. Barbisch’s business is not incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 15. East Finley Township maintained a business relationship with Barbisch’s business in 2007, 2008 and 2010. a. Barbisch was specifically appointed as a General Contractor for the Township in 2008. 1. Barbisch was appointed as part of a list of contractors to be utilized in case of an emergency. 16. None of the services provided by Rudy Barbisch to the Township was awarded through an open and public process or at Township meetings. 17. Barbisch’s business completed two projects for the Township in 2007 and 2008, as shown below: Barbisch, 09-028 Page 5 Project Year Completed Amount Advertised Quote or Bid Solicited Remodel/Repair Old Twp. Office Bldg. 2007 $2,990.00 No No Remodel New Twp. Office Bldg. 2007-2008 $55,602.00 No No Total: $58,592.00 a. Both projects exceeded the $500.00 public bidding threshold required by the provisions [of the] Second Class Township Code and the State Ethics Act. b. Neither project was publicly bid or advertised. c. Neither project was an emergency. 18.The East Finley Township office building is currently located at 1418 East Finley Road, Claysville, PA 15323. a. The previous Township office building was located at 1394 East Finley Drive, Claysville, PA 15323 for at least twenty-five years. 1. The previous Township office building is currently being utilized by the Township Road Crew as an office/garage. 19. Prior to April 18, 2006, the old Township office building experienced structural damage caused by the mining operations of Consol Energy. a. Consol Energy is a company that specializes in mining coal. 20. Consol Energy utilized the services of Gasti Construction to generate a cost estimate identifying damages and repairs needed to the old Township office building. a. On or about April 18, 2006, Gasti Construction issued its cost estimate to the Township that identified numerous repairs. b. Gasti Construction estimated repair costs of $466,245.00 for the old Township building. 21. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) accepted the cost estimate as a fair calculation of damages and repairs needed to the old Township building. a. The majority of Supervisor discussions regarding the cost estimate occurred outside of public meetings. 22. The Supervisors discussed relocating the Township building due to concerns that the old Township building was located in an area susceptible to additional/potential mining related issues as well as weather related issues. a. In 2004, the old Township office building experienced flooding resulting in destruction of Township records due to the severity of hurricane Ivan. 23. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) negotiated with Consol Energy representatives to donate approximately ten acres of property to the Township in addition to the monetary reimbursement in the amount of $466,245.00. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 6 a. The ten acres requested by the Supervisors was known as the Peas Homestead. b. The Peas Homestead included an existing farmhouse the Supervisors discussed converting to a new Township building. c. Barbisch was a Member of the Board of Supervisors at this time and participated in the discussions. 24. On June 13, 2006, the Supervisors voted to accept the Gasti Construction cost estimate and the donation of the Peas Homestead. a. Barbisch was present at the June 13, 2006, meeting and participated in the vote. b. The vote to accept the cost estimate and donation occurred via a 3-0 vote. 25. On July 26, 2006, the Township was issued Consol Energy check #1680068486 in the amount of $466,245.00. a. The amount of the check corresponded to the cost estimate prepared by Gasti Construction. 26. The Township opened an account with the Pennsylvania Local Government Investment Trust (PLGIT) on August 1, 2006. a. The account (#XXXXXXXX051) was opened to specifically maintain those monies relevant to Township facility repairs. b. The Supervisors named the account the East Finley Township Rebuilding Fund. 27. On August 22, 2006, Consol Energy check #1680068486 in the amount of $466,245.00 was deposited into the Township’s Rebuilding Fund account. a. All three Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer have signature authority over the account. b. Checks have to be signed by the Secretary/Treasurer and any combination of the Supervisors’ signatures. 28. As early as September 19, 2006, Township Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz informed the Supervisors (including Barbisch) that the Second Class Township Code bidding procedures must be followed prior to awarding contracts and issuing payments. a. Metz advised the Supervisors of said regulation as a reminder for potential projects that were going to exceed bidding thresholds. 29. In early 2007, the Supervisors (including Barbisch) informally decided to remodel/repair a section of the old Township office building. a. The Supervisors decided to remodel/repair the old Township office building due [to] health concerns Township Secretary Metz was experiencing while working in the building. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 7 b. The Supervisors did not publicly advertise and/or solicit quotes/bids for the project. 1. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) ignored the bidding regulations that Metz advised them of in 2006. 30. Barbisch’s business was utilized to complete the remodeling/repair project of the former Township building. a. Barbisch agreed to complete the remodeling/repair work after discussing the matter with the other two Supervisors. b. The selection of Barbisch’s company to complete the project occurred outside of a Township meeting without any official vote taken. c. No other quotes were solicited by the Board. 1. The Board, including Barbisch, was aware of the bidding requirements of the Second Class Township Code. 31. In late March/early April 2007 Barbisch began the remodeling/repair project regarding the old Township building. a. The remodeling/repair project included installation of a hot water heater, removal of damaged walls, and hanging drywall. b. Barbisch spent approximately eight days completing the remodeling/repair project. 32. Barbisch submitted invoices to the Township for work completed and received payment from the Township for work totaling $2,990.00 on or about the dates shown in the chart below: Invoice Invoice Paid by Check Invoice Description Date Amount Check # Date 3-30-07 $420.00 2649 4-4-07 Install hot water heater 4-27-07 $2,570.00 2667 4-27-07 Remodel office: materials, labor (61 hrs) Total: $2,990.00 a. Neither invoice was paid on a regularly scheduled meeting date. 1. The payments were not reviewed by the Board prior to payment being issued. 2. The invoices were not available for public inspection. 33. Barbisch hand-delivered his invoices to Township Secretary Metz prior to Township meetings. a. Barbisch directed that Metz issue payment to him immediately. 34. Barbisch signed both of the Township checks issued to his business for the remodeling/repair project as an authorized Township signatory, as shown below: Barbisch, 09-028 Page 8 Check Check Check Check No. Date Amount Signed by 2649 4-4-07 $420.00 RB, PW, MM 2667 4-27-07 $2,570.00 RB, PW, MM Total: $2,990.00 Key: RB = Rudy Barbisch PW = Supervisor Paul Wilson MM = Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz a. Supervisor/Roadmaster Wilson was the second Supervisor signature on the checks issued to Barbisch. 35. Barbisch maintains a personal checking account with First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Greene County. a. Barbisch and his wife, Diana Barbisch, opened the account on June 29, 2006. b. Both Barbisch and his wife have signature authority over the account. 36. Barbisch deposited the two Township checks issued for the remodeling/repair project in his personal checking account maintained at First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Greene County, as shown below: Check No. Check Date Check Check Date Amount Signed by Deposite d 2649 4-4-07 $420.00 RB, PW, MM 4-4-07 2667 4-27-07 $2,570.00 RB, PW, MM 4-27-07 Total: $2,990.00 Key: RB = Rudy Barbisch PW = Supervisor Paul Wilson MM = Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz 37. In or about the summer of 2007, the Supervisors (including Barbisch) informally decided to convert the farmhouse on the Peas Homestead to the new Township office building. a. The decision to remodel the farmhouse occurred outside of a public meeting. b. The remodeling decision was discussed during the August 14, 2007, Board meeting. 38. During the August 14, 2007, meeting, the Board of Supervisors discussed construction of the Peas Homestead and an agreement was reached among the Board Members as to various responsibilities. a. The Supervisors agreed that Barbisch, as a Township Supervisor, would manage the construction of the remodeling project. b. Barbisch was present at, and participated in, the discussion regarding his appointment to manage construction of the facility. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 9 c. Barbisch was appointed to manage the remodeling project due to his general contracting occupation. d. There was no formal vote of the Board authorizing Barbisch’s appointment. e. No other contractors were considered. f. No records exist of any quotes/bids being sought. g. Barbisch was hired at his hourly rate. 39. Barbisch also participated in discussions and actions at Township meetings from September 2007 through June 2008 in regards to the remodeling of the farmhouse, as indicated below: Meeting Date Relevancy of Minutes 9-11-07 Minutes detail Barbisch's attendance and that "reconstruction" of the Peas Homestead had begun and that the Supervisors discussed installing a security system. 11-13-07 Minutes reflect Barbisch's attendance and that a report was given to the audience in regards to the progression of the Peas Homestead project. 5-13-08 Barbisch reported that the portico and roofing were finished in regards to the Peas Homestead and that work on the trim and siding was to begin soon. 6-10-08 Barbisch reported that everything related to the Peas homestead was finished except for the post wraps and some outside concrete work. 40. During the January 7, 2008, Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board approved by unanimous vote a list of contractors for 2008, which included the following: Ralph Metz Electric Security Wilson’s Outdoor Ser. Excavating Triple J. Construction General Contractor Rudy Barbisch General Contractor Dave Jacobs Excavating Dave Nicely Heating & AC Hughes Electric Electrical Contractor Janovich & Sons Masonry Frank Durst Masonry a. Barbisch participated in the discussion leading to the vote approving him and/or his company as a general contractor for the Township. b. Barbisch abstained from the vote. c. No other contractors were considered for the general contractor position approved for Barbisch. d. This appointment was part of a list of emergency contractors as recommended by the Township Auditors. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 10 41. Barbisch, as the Township’s Manager of the project, selected his business to complete the remodeling of the Peas Homestead. a. Barbisch did not solicit quotes/bids or publicly advertise for any of the remodeling work needed for the new Township building. 42. Barbisch fragmented the remodeling work into projects less than $10,000.00, circumventing the provisions of the Second Class Township Code which requires contracts in excess of $10,000.00 to be publicly bid. a. Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz advised the Supervisors, including Barbisch, as early as the September 19, 2006, Township meeting that the Second Class Township Code bidding procedures must be followed. b. Barbisch awarded contracts to his business for the remodeling without following bids [sic]. 43. On April 8, 2008, following conclusion of the 2007 audit, the Township elected Auditors provided written correspondence to the Supervisors with recommendations that 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 procedures outlined in the Second Class Township Code that address conflicts of interests/contracts valued at $500.00 or more. 44. Barbisch continued to utilize his business without adhering to the public bidding process, and continued to request payment of his invoices prior to Township meetings. a. Barbisch required that Metz issue payment to his business immediately without a review and approval by the Board. 45. Barbisch hand-delivered invoices for work completed on [the] Peas Homestead to Secretary Metz prior to Township meetings. a. Invoices paid prior to a Township meeting were not part of any bill list approved or available for review prior to June 2009. 46. From October 2007 to June 2008, Barbisch submitted twelve (12) invoices to the Township for work completed on the Peas Homestead and received payment from the Township totaling $55,602.00. 47. Barbisch's invoice dated 4-4-08 was the only invoice paid on the date of a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. a. All other invoices were never approved by the Board prior to payment being issued. b. All of the twelve invoices submitted by Barbisch exceeded $500.00. 48. None of the remodeling work completed by Barbisch was publicly bid or advertised. a. None of the work completed was an emergency. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 11 49. Barbisch signed ten of the twelve Township checks as an authorized Township signatory that were issued to him as payment for the remodeling work. 50. Payments issued to Barbisch by the Township from 2007 through 2008 were deposited to Barbisch's personal bank account at First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Greene County. a. Barbisch deposited all of the checks issued to him into his personal bank account. 51. Barbisch received two payments from the Township for the invoice dated December 28, 2007, in the amount of $2,355.00. a. Both of the checks issued to Barbisch were signed by Barbisch as a Township signatory. b. Check no. 551 was issued from the Township Rebuilding Fund Account on the same date of the invoice. c. Check no. 2940 was issued from the Township General Fund on January 2, 2008, five days after the date of the December 28, 2007, invoice. 52. Barbisch deposited Township checks numbers 2940 and 551 into his personal bank account maintained at First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Greene County. 53. The Township Rebuilding Fund Account (RFA) was closed by the Township on or about December 28, 2007, and the remaining funds [were] deposited to the Township General Fund. a. The RFA was closed prior to check no. 551 clearing the account. b. Check no. 551 was returned, and General Fund check no. 2940 was issued to Barbisch as a replacement. 54. Payments made by the Township to Barbisch for remodeling of the municipal building totaled $55,602.00. 55. Barbisch continued to solicit business from the Township after receiving the August 26, 2009, notice of investigation from the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission. a. The solicitation occurred in or about the spring of 2010. 56. In February of 2010, the gutters on the old Township building collapsed due to large amounts of snow and ice build-up. a. The Township filed a claim with [its] insurance company to determine if the damage would be covered. 57. In approximately March/April 2010, the Township's insurance company adjusters reviewed the damages to the gutters and concluded that the damages to the gutters were caused by "an act of God." a. Damages caused by an act of God are not covered by the Township's insurance policy. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 12 58. The Supervisors, including Barbisch, instructed Roadmaster Rick Dorsey to obtain phone quotes from companies for the necessary gutter repairs to the old Township building. a. The Supervisors had concluded after inspecting the damage that the cost of repairs would be below the limit required for formal bidding. b. Dorsey obtained phone quotes in May/June of 2010 from the following three companies: Custom Gutters, Phillips Home Repair, and Raggi Home Improvement. 1. Custom Gutters provided Dorsey with a quote of $1,087.00 to install only the gutters. 2. Phillips Home Repair provided Dorsey with a quote of $285.00 to complete the soffit and facia work necessary to install the gutters. 3. Raggi Home Improvement informed Dorsey that the business was too busy to complete the gutter project. 59. At the June 8, 2010, meeting, Dorsey informed the Supervisors of the quotes he obtained. a. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) discussed the quotes and decided not to select any of the companies solicited at that time. b. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) indicated that they wanted some time to think about which company/companies should be utilized. 60. Barbisch approached Dorsey subsequent to the June meeting and provided Dorsey with a written quote indicating that Barbisch's business could complete the gutter project for $1,825.00. a. Barbisch's written quote included installation of gutters and the soffit and facia work. b. Dorsey did not solicit a quote from Barbisch. 61. At the July 13, 2010, meeting, Dorsey informed the Supervisors of the quote provided by Barbisch. a. Barbisch’s quote for both aspects (gutters and soffit and facia) was $453.00 higher than the combined bids of Custom Gutters ($1,087.00) and Phillips Home Repair ($285.00). 1. Barbisch had access to both bids prior to the submission of his quote. 62. Minutes of the July 13, 2010, Board meeting reflect that by a 2 to 0 vote, the Supervisors selected Barbisch’s company to complete the repairs. a. Barbisch is recorded as abstaining from the vote. 63. Barbisch completed the gutter project at the old Township building on August 9, 2010, and August 10, 2010. a. Barbisch hand-delivered his invoice to Secretary Metz after completing the project on August 10, 2010. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 13 b. Barbisch's invoice dated August 10, 2010, was in the amount of $1,825.00 for the installation of the new gutters and repair of the soffit and facia. 64. At the August 10, 2010, regular meeting, the Supervisors (including Barbisch) voted to approve the bill list presented. a. Barbisch's invoice of $1,825 for the gutter project was documented on the bill list presented for approval. 65. Township check number 4008, dated August 10, 2010, in the amount of $1,825.00 was issued to Barbisch for payment of his invoice. a. Barbisch, Supervisor Roy Ealy Jr., and Metz signed the check issued to Barbisch's business. 66. The Board of Supervisors agreed to utilize Barbisch’s [business to] complete the gutter repairs even though his quote was higher than the other bidders. a. Board Members preferred to have the repairs completed by one contractor. 67. Barbisch’s business realized approximate profits totaling $43,780.00 from 2007 through 2010 as a result of doing business with East Finley Township, as shown below: Year Gross Payment from Cost for Labor Township (Profit) 2007 $25,775.00 $17,430.00 2008 $32,817.00 $24,525.00 2010 $1,825.00 $1,825.00 Total $60,417.00 $43,780.00 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT BARBISCH FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL DIRECT/INDIRECT SOURCES OF INCOME ON STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR THE 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 AND 2008 CALENDAR YEARS. 68. Barbisch, in his official capacity as Township Supervisor of East Finley Township, was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually containing information for the prior calendar year. a. Township Supervisors are annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms for completion. 69. Barbisch's W-2 forms covering the time period of 2004 through 2009 indicate his receipt of payments from the Township for serving as Supervisor as follows: Calendar Year Amount Paid to Wilson [sic] as Supervisor 2004 $156.25 2005 $1,875.00 2006 $1,562.50 2007 $1,875.00 2008 $1,875.00 2009 $1,8750.00 [sic] Barbisch, 09-028 Page 14 70. On July 30, 2009, an SFI compliance review was conducted of East Finley Township. a. Barbisch [filed annual] SFIs for [the] 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. b. Barbisch's SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were on file but did not disclose [the Township as] a direct/indirect source of income. 1. From 2005 through 2008, Barbisch’s income from the Township was in excess of $1,300.00 annually. 2. Bashore [sic] has received more than $1,300.00 from his contracting business each year between 2005 and 2008. 71. Barbisch telephonically contacted the State Ethics Commission Investigative Division on two separate occasions and made statements associated with the allegations levied against him. a. On October 15, 2009, Barbisch telephoned the Investigative Division and indicated that he "violated the Act." 1. Barbisch stated he "violated the Act" due to "ignorance" and "stupidity." b. On October 19, 2009, Barbisch telephoned the Investigative Division a second time to inquire as to why an investigation was being conducted if it was "clear" that he violated the Ethics Act. 1. Barbisch was informed that procedurally an inquiry is opened into a full investigation if a potential conflict of interest is suspected. III.DISCUSSION: As a Township Supervisor for East Finley Township (“Township”) from December 6, 2004, to the present, Respondent Ralph Barbisch, hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Barbisch,” and “Barbisch,” has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Barbisch violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his public position, including but not limited to participating in discussions of the Township Board of Supervisors (“Board”) resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which he is associated; (2) when the contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 were awarded without an open and public process; (3) when he used the authority of his public position to authorize payments to his company, including directing that payments be made and subsequently signing checks; and (4) when he failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2005, 2006, 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 Barbisch, 09-028 Page 15 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 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). Barbisch, 09-028 Page 16 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 through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the Statement of Financial Interests 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 Statement of Financial Interests 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. Respondent Barbisch has served as a Township Supervisor from December 6, 2004, to the present. Barbisch served as Vice Chairman of the Board in 2005 and 2006. 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 at monthly Board meetings, and Township bills were considered approved when the Supervisors signed the Township checks issued to pay the bills. In 2006 the Township office building--then located at 1394 East Finley Drive, Claysville, Pennsylvania (also referred to herein as the “old Township office building”)--had experienced structural damage from the mining operations of a company named “Consol Energy.” The Supervisors (including Barbisch) successfully negotiated with Consol Energy representatives for Consol Energy to donate approximately ten acres of property to the Township in addition to paying the Township the amount of $466,245.00 for damages and needed repairs. The ten acres of property, known as the “Peas Homestead,” included an existing farmhouse, which the Supervisors discussed converting to a new Township office building. Barbisch is the sole owner and operator of a business referred to herein as “Rudy Barbisch Remodeling.” In 2007, 2008 and 2010, Rudy Barbisch Remodeling provided remodeling/repair services to the Township at the old Township Office Building and the Peas Homestead farmhouse, as detailed below. The parties have stipulated that none of the services provided by Rudy Barbisch Remodeling to the Township resulted from an “open and public process.” In early 2007, the Supervisors (including Barbisch) informally decided to remodel/repair a section of the old Township office building. The project was not an emergency. The Supervisors did not publicly advertise or solicit quotes/bids for the project. Rudy Barbisch Remodeling was utilized to complete the remodeling/repair project. Barbisch agreed to complete the remodeling/repair work after discussing the matter with the other two Supervisors. The selection of Rudy Barbisch Remodeling to complete the project occurred outside of a Township meeting and without any official vote being taken. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 17 Barbisch submitted to the Township two invoices dated March 30, 2007, and April 27, 2007, totaling $2,990.00 for the remodeling/repair project. Barbisch hand-delivered the invoices to Township Secretary/Treasurer Melissa Metz (“Metz”) prior to Township meetings.Barbisch directed that Metz issue payment to him immediately. The payments were not reviewed by the Board prior to payment being issued.The invoices were not available for public inspection. In April 2007, two Township checks totaling $2,990.00 were issued to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling for the aforesaid remodeling/repair project. Barbisch signed both checks as an authorized Township signatory. Barbisch deposited the checks in his personal account. In or about the summer of 2007, the Supervisors (including Barbisch) informally decided to convert the farmhouse on the Peas Homestead to the new Township office building. The decision to remodel the farmhouse occurred outside of a public meeting. The project was not an emergency. During the August 14, 2007, Board meeting, the Supervisors agreed that Barbisch, as a Township Supervisor, would manage the construction at the Peas Homestead remodeling project. There was no formal vote of the Board authorizing Barbisch’s appointment. Barbisch participated in the discussion regarding his appointment to manage construction of the facility. As the Township’s Manager of the Peas Homestead remodeling project, Barbisch selected his own business, Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, to complete the remodeling work. Barbisch awarded contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling for the Peas Homestead remodeling project without seeking quotes/bids or publicly advertising any of the remodeling work that was needed. Barbisch fragmented the remodeling work into projects less than $10,000.00, thereby circumventing the bidding requirements of the Second Class Township Code. Barbisch hand-delivered invoices for work completed on the Peas Homestead to Metz prior to Township meetings. Barbisch required that Metz issue payment to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling immediately without a review and approval by the Board. From October 2007 to June 2008, Barbisch submitted twelve invoices to the Township for work completed on the Peas Homestead and received payment from the Township totaling $55,602.00 for the work. All twelve of the invoices submitted by Barbisch exceeded $500.00. None of the remodeling work completed by Barbisch was publicly bid or advertised. Only one of the twelve invoices was paid on the date of a regularly scheduled Board meeting. The other invoices were never approved by the Board prior to payment being issued. Barbisch signed as an authorized Township signatory ten of the twelve Township checks that were issued to him as payment for the remodeling work. In May/June of 2010, at the direction of the Supervisors including Barbisch, Township Roadmaster Rick Dorsey (“Dorsey”) obtained telephone quotes for gutter repairs at the old Township office building. Dorsey sought quotes from three companies and received two quotes. Custom Gutters provided Dorsey with a quote of $1,087.00 to install only the gutters. Phillips Home Repair provided Dorsey with a quote of $285.00 to complete the soffit and facia work necessary to install the gutters. Dorsey did not solicit a quote from Rudy Barbisch Remodeling. At the June 8, 2010, Board meeting, Dorsey informed the Supervisors of the quotes he had obtained. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) discussed the quotes and decided not to select any of the companies solicited at that time. The Supervisors (including Barbisch, 09-028 Page 18 Barbisch) indicated that they wanted some time to think about which company/companies should be utilized. Barbisch approached Dorsey subsequent to the June meeting and provided Dorsey with a written quote indicating that Rudy Barbisch Remodeling could complete the gutter project for $1,825.00. Barbisch's written quote included installation of gutters and the soffit and facia work. Dorsey had not solicited a quote from Barbisch. At the July 13, 2010, meeting, Dorsey informed the Supervisors of the quote provided by Barbisch. Barbisch’s quote for both aspects (gutters and soffit and facia) was $453.00 higher than the combined bids of Custom Gutters ($1,087.00) and Phillips Home Repair ($285.00). Barbisch had access to both bids prior to the submission of his quote. Minutes of the July 13, 2010, Board meeting reflect that by a 2-0 vote, the Supervisors selected Rudy Barbisch Remodeling to complete the repairs. Barbisch is recorded as having abstained from the vote. Barbisch completed the gutter project at the old Township office building on August 9, 2010, and August 10, 2010. Barbisch hand-delivered his invoice to Metz after completing the project on August 10, 2010. Barbisch's invoice for this work was dated August 10, 2010, and was in the amount of $1,825.00. At the August 10, 2010, regular Board meeting, Barbisch's invoice of $1,825.00 for the gutter project was documented on the bill list presented for approval. The Supervisors (including Barbisch) voted to approve the bill list presented. Township check number 4008, dated August 10, 2010, in the amount of $1,825.00 was issued to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling for payment of the invoice. Barbisch signed the check as an authorized Township signatory. From 2007 through 2010, Barbisch’s business received profits totaling approximately $43,780.00 as a result of doing business with the Township, as detailed in Fact Finding 67. As for Barbisch’s SFIs, on July 30, 2009, an SFI compliance review was conducted of the Township. Barbisch's SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were on file with the Township but did not disclose the Township as a direct/indirect source of income. From 2005 through 2008, Barbisch’s income from the Township was in excess of $1,300.00 annually. 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 in relation to Barbisch’s participation in discussions of the Board of Supervisors resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 19 b. That a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f), occurred when contracts between the Township and Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated, valued at in excess of $500.00, were awarded 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 in relation to Barbisch’s participation in authorizing payments to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, including directing that all payments be made, and subsequently sign[ing] checks. d. That a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s failure to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. 4. Barbisch agrees to make payment in the amount of $11,649.98 in settlement of this matter by certified check or money order made 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. Barbisch agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from East Finley Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 6. Barbisch agrees to file amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 disclosing all required information as appropriate 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. 7. Barbisch 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. 8. 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. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 20 Consent Agreement, at 1-3. In considering the Consent Agreement, it is clear that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Barbisch’s participation in discussions of the Board resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling. Each element of the recommended violation has been established. With regard to the 2007 remodel/repair project at the old Township office building, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he participated in the informal decision of the Supervisors to have the work done. The project was not publicly advertised. The Board did not solicit quotes or bids for the project. Rather, Barbisch agreed to complete the remodeling/repair work after discussing the matter with the other two Supervisors. The selection of Rudy Barbisch Remodeling to complete the project occurred outside of a Township meeting and without any official vote being taken. The Township paid $2,990.00 to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling for the remodeling/repair project. With regard to the Peas Homestead farmhouse remodeling project, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he participated in the Supervisors’ discussions and informal decision to convert the Peas Homestead farmhouse to serve as the new Township office building. Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he participated in the Board’s discussions resulting in his appointment to manage the construction at the Peas Homestead remodeling project. Barbisch then used the authority of his public office to award contracts for the work to his own business, Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, without seeking quotes/bids or publicly advertising any of the remodeling work that was needed. The payments made by the Township to Barbisch for remodeling the Peas Homestead farmhouse totaled $55,602.00. With regard to the 2010 gutter repair project, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he participated in directing Dorsey to obtain telephone quotes for the repairs and when he participated in the discussions and decision of the Supervisors to not select any of the companies that had submitted bids. Barbisch then provided an unsolicited quote to Dorsey, knowing the amounts of the other bids that had been provided. The Township paid Rudy Barbisch Remodeling $1,825.00 for the gutter repair project. Barbisch’s aforesaid use of the authority of his public office resulted in private pecuniary benefit(s) consisting of profits totaling approximately $43,780.00 for work performed for the Township. 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 in relation to Barbisch’s participation in discussions of the Board resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated. Cf., Wilson, Order 1575; Vaughn, Order 1450. Additionally, a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 between the Township and Rudy Barbisch Remodeling were awarded without an open and public process. The 2007 remodel/repair project at the old Township office building was not publicly advertised. No quotes/bids were solicited for the project. The project was awarded to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling outside of a Township meeting and without any official vote being taken. Likewise, the decision to remodel the Peas Homestead farmhouse was made informally, outside of a public meeting. The project was not publicly advertised. As the Township’s Manager of the project, Barbisch awarded contracts for the work to Rudy Barbisch, 09-028 Page 21 Barbisch Remodeling, without seeking quotes/bids. Barbisch fragmented the remodeling work into projects less than $10,000.00, thereby circumventing the bidding requirements of the Second Class Township Code. As for the 2010 gutter repair project, after Barbisch participated in the Board’s decision to not accept the bids that had been solicited, Barbisch’s unsolicited bid was accepted at a public meeting by a vote of the other Supervisors. The parties have stipulated that none of the services provided by Rudy Barbisch Remodeling to the Township resulted from an open and public process. We hold that a violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 between the Township and Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated, were awarded without an open and public process. We agree with the parties that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Barbisch’s participation in authorizing payments to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, including directing that all payments be made and subsequently signing checks. With regard to the 2007 remodel/repair project at the old Township office building, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he hand-delivered his business’s invoices for the work to Metz, prior to Township meetings, and directed that Metz issue payment to him immediately. The payments were not reviewed by the Board prior to payment being issued.Barbisch further used the authority of his office when he signed, as an authorized Township signatory, the two Township checks totaling $2,990.00 that were issued to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling for the remodeling/repair project. With regard to the Peas Homestead farmhouse remodeling project, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he hand-delivered his business’s invoices for the work to Metz, prior to Township meetings, and required that Metz issue payment immediately, without a review and approval by the Board. From October 2007 to June 2008 Barbisch submitted twelve invoices to the Township for work completed on the Peas Homestead and received payment from the Township totaling $55,602.00 for the work. Only one of the twelve invoices was paid on the date of a regularly scheduled Board meeting. All of the other invoices were never approved by the Board prior to payment being issued. Barbisch signed as an authorized Township signatory ten of the twelve Township checks that were issued to him as payment for the remodeling work. With regard to the 2010 gutter repair project at the old Township office building, Barbisch used the authority of his public office when he participated in the Board’s August 10, 2010, vote to approve the bill list that included his business’s invoice for the work. Barbisch further used the authority of his public office when he signed, as an authorized Township signatory, the Township check in the amount of $1,825.00 issued to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling as payment of the invoice. We hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s participation in authorizing payments to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, including directing that all payments be made and subsequently signing checks. Cf., Wilson, supra. We agree with the parties that a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Barbisch’s failure to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. Barbisch, 09-028 Page 22 Barbisch's SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 did not disclose the Township as a direct/indirect source of income despite the fact that from 2005 through 2008, Barbisch’s income from the Township was in excess of $1,300.00 annually. We hold that a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s failure to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. As part of the Consent Agreement, Barbisch has agreed to make payment in the amount of $11,649.98 by certified check or money order made payable to East Finley Township and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Barbisch has further agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from East Finley Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. Barbisch has agreed to file with the Township amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 disclosing all required information as appropriate within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter, and to forward copies of all such forms to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Barbisch 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, Barbisch is directed to make payment in the amount of $11,649.98 by certified check or money order made payable to th East Finley Township and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Barbisch is further directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. To the extent he has not already done so, Barbisch is directed to file with the Township amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 appropriately th disclosing all required information by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Barbisch 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 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 Township Supervisor for East Finley Township (“Township”) from December 6, 2004, to the present, Respondent Ralph Barbisch (“Barbisch”) has been a public Barbisch, 09-028 Page 23 official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Barbisch violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his participation in discussions of the Township Board of Supervisors resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated. 3. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 between the Township and Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated, were awarded without an open and public process. 4. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s participation in authorizing payments to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, including directing that all payments be made and subsequently signing checks. 5. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s failure to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. In Re: Ralph Barbisch, : File Docket: 09-028 Respondent : Date Decided: 3/3/11 : Date Mailed: 3/10/11 ORDER NO. 1580 1. As a Township Supervisor for East Finley Township (“Township”), Ralph Barbisch (“Barbisch”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his participation in discussions of the Township Board of Supervisors resulting in the award of contracts to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated. 2. A violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when contracts valued at in excess of $500.00 between the Township and Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, a business with which Barbisch is associated, were awarded without an open and public process. 3. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s participation in authorizing payments to Rudy Barbisch Remodeling, including directing that all payments be made and subsequently signing checks. 4. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred in relation to Barbisch’s failure to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 calendar years. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Barbisch is directed to make payment in the amount of $11,649.98 by certified check or money order made payable to East Finley Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no th later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Barbisch is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 7. To the extent he has not already done so, Barbisch is directed to file with the Township amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 th appropriately disclosing all required information by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order, and to forward copies of all such filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for compliance verification purposes. 8. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Barbisch 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 Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 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, ___________________________ Barbisch, 09-028 Page 25 Louis W. Fryman, Chair