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