HomeMy WebLinkAbout1583 Baker
In Re: Matthew Baker, : File Docket: 10-002
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1583
: Date Decided: 5/16/11
: Date Mailed: 5/23/11
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 allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the
Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as
an “Investigative Complaint.” An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived.
The averments in the Investigative Complaint are admitted and are set forth as the
following Findings. The record is complete.
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Matthew Baker, a (public official/public employee) in his capacity as a
Supervisor of Hopewell Township, Huntingdon County, violated the following provisions of
the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his public position for
the private pecuniary benefit of himself and members of his immediate family by
participating in actions of the Board of Supervisors to hire members of his immediate family
to perform labor and hauling services for the Township; and when contracts in excess of
$500.00 were entered into with members of his immediate family without an open and
public process; and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar
years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a)Conflict of interest.—
No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f)Contract.—
No public official or public employee or
Baker, 10-002
Page 2
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).
§ 1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed
(a) Public official or public employee.--
Each
public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of
financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the
commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds
such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position.
Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth
shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding
calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in
which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no
later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other
public employee or public official shall file a statement of
financial interests with the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is
appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a
position. Persons who are full-time or part-time solicitors for
political subdivisions are required to file under this section.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
§ 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
Baker, 10-002
Page 3
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
II.FINDINGS:
1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn
complaint alleging that Matthew Baker violated provisions of the State Ethics Act
(Act 93 of 1998).
2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary
inquiry on February 1, 2010.
3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
4. On April 1, 2010, a letter was forwarded to Matthew Baker by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7009 0820 0000 1856 8543.
b. The letter was returned to the Investigative Division by the United States
Postal Service marked “unclaimed.”
5. On May 14, 2010, the above referenced letter was personally served upon Matthew
Baker’s adult uncle, David Baker, at Matthew Baker’s residence by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission informing Matthew Bakerthat a complaint
against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation
was being commenced.
6. On August 3, 2010, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed
an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
7. The Commission issued an order on August 16, 2010, granting the ninety day
extension.
8. On November 22, 2010, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
filed an application for a second ninety day extension of time to complete the
Investigation.
9. The Commission issued an order on December 15, 2010, granting the ninety day
extension.
10. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Baker in accordance with the provisions of
the Ethics Act advising him of the general status of the investigation.
11. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was mailed to the Respondent on
March 25, 2011.
12. Matthew Baker has served as a Hopewell Township Supervisor since approximately
January 2003.
a. Baker served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (Board) from January
2003 until approximately 2008.
13. Hopewell Township is a Second Class Township located in Huntingdon County that
Baker, 10-002
Page 4
is governed by a three-Member Board of Supervisors who each serve 6-year terms.
14. Baker has served Hopewell Township as Roadmaster since January 2003.
a. As Township Roadmaster, Baker is responsible for the maintenance of
Township roads and to ensure that the roads are in acceptable condition for
travel.
b. Baker determines which Township laborers are used to perform Township
various [sic] assignments related to road maintenance.
1. Road maintenance projects are determined by the Board.
2. The Township has no full-time laborers.
3. Baker has the authority to select laborers and does so based on the
time of year and type of project.
4. Baker consults with the other Members of the Board when selecting
part-time employees.
c. Baker selects vendors/individuals to haul material such as antiskid, ashes,
stone, and pipe for the Township.
1. Baker has discussed vendors to be utilized with the other Supervisors
and will get their concurrence prior to authorizing services.
2. These discussions do not occur at public meetings.
d. Baker determines the vendor from whom equipment is rented for work on
Township roads.
e. Baker also performs some labor on the roads including winter maintenance.
15. Signature authority over Township accounts is held by all three Supervisors and the
Secretary/Treasurer.
a. Township checks require the signature of two Supervisors and the
Secretary/Treasurer.
b. No facsimile signature stamps are utilized in the Township.
16. Voting at Hopewell Township Supervisor Meetings occurs by a yes or no vote after
a motion is made and subsequently seconded.
a. Any abstentions or objections made to a motion are specifically noted in the
minutes.
17. Payroll is generated based upon time sheets submitted by employees.
a. Paychecks are then signed by two Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer.
b. The signing of the paychecks constitutes approval of payroll.
18. Baker’s Farm, located at RD 1 Box 122, James Creek, Pennsylvania, is a
partnership of Baker and his father.
Baker, 10-002
Page 5
a. Documents registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State,
Corporation Bureau confirm that Baker’s Farm is an equal partnership
between Baker and his father, Ronald Baker.
1. The address listed on the document is Baker’s home address of
[residence address redacted].
19. Baker’s Hauling, located at RD 1 Box 113, James Creek, Pennsylvania, is a
trucking company owned and operated by Adam Baker.
a. Adam Baker is Matthew Baker’s brother.
b. Adam Baker also does business as Baker’s Snow Removal at times when
performing snow plowing services for the Township.
c. No documents are on file with the Pennsylvania Department of State in the
name of Baker’s Hauling or Baker’s Snow Removal.
20. Baker’s immediate family members and businesses with which they are associated
have provided services as to the Township since or about the time that Baker
began serving as a Township Supervisor.
a. These immediate family members included Ronald Baker (father), Adam
Baker (brother), Matthew Baker II (son), and Zachary Baker (son).
b. Prior to 2010 there is no record in the Hopewell Township meeting minutes
of a formal vote to hire any of Baker’s respective immediate family members
as Township employees.
c. None of the family members were employed by the Township prior to Baker
serving the Township as Supervisor.
21. Hopewell Township maintained a pool of part-time laborers that were available to
perform work for the Township as needed.
a. Township residents are given priority to complete Township related labor
when it is available.
1. Ronald Baker, Adam Baker, Matthew Baker II, and Zachary Baker
were all Township residents at the time that they completed work for
the Township.
b. Township officials expressed difficulty in finding workers to complete
Township labor, because of the low hourly wage offered by the Township
and the inconsistency of the hours of work.
c. Baker’s father, brother and sons were part of the pool of part-time laborers.
22. During the summer months, the Township employed Township residents Dale
Fisher and Allen Black most frequently as laborers.
a. Members of Baker’s family worked more often during the winter months.
b. Baker’s sons were utilized primarily when no other part-time workers were
available.
Baker, 10-002
Page 6
23. Prior to 2010 the Township did not advertise for the appointment of part-time
laborers.
a. Beginning in 2010 the Township required interested applicants to submit
resumes or letters of interest.
b. As Township Roadmaster, Baker was responsible for contacting laborers to
be utilized for Township projects.
24. Minutes from the January 4, 2010, Hopewell Township Supervisors reorganization
meeting confirm a motion by Baker and a second by Supervisor Dunn to advertise
for resumes for laborers with bids to be opened at the February meeting and
interviews to be conducted at a later date.
a. The motion passed by a vote of 2 to 0.
25. Minutes from the February 13, 2010, Supervisor meeting reflect that bids for
resumes for laborers to work the Township roads were received. A motion was
made by Supervisor Brown and seconded by Supervisor Dunn to accept the
resumes of Ronald Baker, Matthew Baker, II and Zack Baker. The motion carried
by a vote of 2 to 0 with Matthew Baker abstaining from the vote.
a. The resumes of Thomas Chamberlain, Harley Brown, Dale Fisher, and Alan
Black were also accepted via subsequent motions.
b. Letters were sent to applicants Lester Hammond and Daniel Gallo that their
resumes were to be kept on file if additional work was available.
1. Lester Hammond and Daniel Gallo were not residents of Hopewell
Township.
c. The minutes confirm that all of the received resumes were reviewed by all
three Supervisors, including Baker, at the meeting.
1. Baker made no recommendations to hire his family members.
26. The following charts outline hours worked by Baker’s immediate family members for
Hopewell Township in a part-time capacity from 2005 through 2010:
a. Adam Baker (brother):
Period Total Gross
Ending Hours Rate Pay
1/31/2005 36 $8.00 $288.00
2/28/2005 9 $8.00 $72.00
3/31/2005 25 $8.00 $200.00
5/31/2005 10 $8.00 $80.00
Subtotal:
8/31/2005 8 $8.00 $64.00 $704.00
3/31/2006 10 $8.00 $80.00
4/30/2006 6 $8.00 $48.00
7/31/2006 32 $8.00 $256.00
7/31/2006 7 $8.00 $56.00
Subtotal:
12/31/2006 10 $8.00 $80.00 $520.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 7
1/31/2007 38 $8.00 $304.00
2/28/2007 62 $8.00 $496.00
3/31/2007 35 $8.00 $280.00
5/31/2007 26 $8.00 $208.00
11/30/2007 12 $8.00 $96.00
Subtotal:
12/31/2007 5 $8.00 $40.00 $1,424.00
1/31/2008 6 $8.25 $49.50
10/31/2008 2 $8.25 $16.50 Subtotal: $66.00
Total $2,714.00
b. Matthew Baker II (son):
Period Total Gross
Ending Hours Rate Pay
12/14/2005 8 $8.00 $64.00
Subtotal:
12/31/2005 13 $8.00 $104.00 $168.00
4/30/2006 4 $8.00 $32.00 Subtotal: $32.00
2/28/2007 14 $8.00 $112.00
3/31/2007 5 $8.00 $40.00 Subtotal $152.00
Total $352.00
c. Ronald Baker (father):
Period Total Gross
Ending Hours Rate Pay
11/30/2007 20 $8.00 $160.00
Subtotal:
12/31/2007 20 $8.00 $160.00 $320.00
1/31/2008 11 $8.25 $90.75
2/29/2008 30 $8.25 $247.50
4/30/2008 4 $8.25 $33.00
5/31/2008 8 $8.25 $66.00
5/31/2008 8 $8.25 $66.00
Subtotal:
11/30/2008 13 $8.25 $107.25 $610.50
Subtotal:
1/31/2009 57 $8.50 $484.50 $484.50
Total $1,415.00
d. Zachary Baker (son):
Period Total Gross
Ending Hours Rate Pay
2/29/2008 10 $8.25 $82.50
6/30/2008 14 $8.25 $115.50
9/30/2008 10 $8.25 $82.50
11/30/2008 2 $8.25 $16.50
Total $297.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 8
e. Employee time sheets were not available for review for calendar year 2010.
27. Baker routinely signed checks issued by the Township to his immediate family
members.
a. Baker signed 15 of 20 checks issued to Adam Baker, 4 of 5 checks issued to
Matthew Baker II, 9 of 14 checks issued to Ronald Baker, and 3 of 9 checks
issued to Zachary Baker for work as laborers for the Township as shown
below:
Adam Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed
1/31/2005 6412 $253.85 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
2/28/2005 6436 $63.47 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
3/31/2005 6465 $176.30 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
5/31/2005 6510 $70.52 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
8/31/2005 6584 $56.41 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
12/31/2005 6676 $21.16 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
1/31/2006 6701 $42.30 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
3/31/2006 6744 $70.52 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
5/31/2006 6789 $42.30 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
7/31/2006 6841 $225.66 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
8/5/2006 6855 $49.35 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
12/31/2006 6936 $70.51 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
1/31/2007 6971 $267.97 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
2/28/2007 6996 $437.22 Baker, Brown, Fouse
3/31/2007 7018 $246.82 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
5/5/2007 7045 $162.19 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
6/2/2007 7067 $183.34 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
12/31/2007 7207 $84.63 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
1/31/2008 7229 $43.63 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
11/1/2008 7439 $14.54 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
Total $2,582.69
Matthew Baker II:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed
Baker, Dunn,
12/16/2005 6658 $56.42 Fouse
Baker, Brown,
1/5/2006 6688 $91.88 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2006 6790 $28.22 Fouse
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2007 6995 $98.73 Fouse
3/31/2007 7020 $35.26 Baker, Dunn,
Baker, 10-002
Page 9
Fouse
Total $310.51
Ronald Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed
12/31/2007 7209 $141.04 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
1/31/2008 7230 $79.99 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
3/3/2008 7263 $218.16 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
5/3/2008 7302 $29.07 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
5/15/2008 7311 $58.17 Baker, Brown, Fouse
5/31/2008 7321 $58.17 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
12/6/2008 7458 $98.18 Dunn, Brown, Fouse
1/31/2009 7490 $427.07 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
1/31/2009 7481 $36.35 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
12/31/2009 7698 $509.50 Baker, Dunn, Fouse
2/6/2010 7731 $138.61 Baker, Brown, Fouse
2/15/2010 7736 $194.81 Baker, Brown, Fouse
2/28/2010 7758 $14.98 Baker, Brown, Fouse
12/31/2010 7978 $141.50 Dunn, Fouse
Total $2,145.60
1. Some of these checks include compensation for loading services
provided by Ronald Baker.
Zachary Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed
Dunn, Brown,
3/3/2008 7264 $72.62 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
6/30/2008 7349 $101.82 Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
9/30/2008 7403 $72.71 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
12/6/2008 7459 $14.54 Fouse
Baker, Brown,
2/15/2010 7737 $37.46 Fouse
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2010 7759 $67.44 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
4/30/2010 7789 $14.99 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
10/31/2010 7932 $22.48 Fouse
12/31/2010 7977 $37.45 Dunn, Fouse
Total $441.51
Baker, 10-002
Page 10
28. Baker routinely voted to approve bill lists, which included payments to members of
his immediate family.
a. Baker voted to approve 14 of 20 payments to Adam Baker, 4 of 5 payments
to Matthew Baker II, 11 of 14 payments to Ronald Baker, and 8 of 9
payments to Zachary Baker for work performed for Hopewell Township as
laborers as shown below:
Adam Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Meeting Date Action Recorded Vote
1/31/2005 6412 $253.85 2/5/2005 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2005 6436 $63.47 3/5/2005 absent 2 to 0
3/31/2005 6465 $176.30 4/2/2005 motion, vote 2 to 0
5/31/2005 6510 $70.52 6/4/2005 absent 2 to 0
8/31/2005 6584 $56.41 9/3/2005 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2005 6676 $21.16 1/2/2006 motion, vote 3 to 0
1/31/2006 6701 $42.30 2/4/2006 motion, vote 2 to 0
3/31/2006 6744 $70.52 4/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2006 6789 $42.30 5/6/2006 motion, vote 3 to 0
7/31/2006 6841 $225.66 7/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
8/5/2006 6855 $49.35 9/2/2006 absent 2 to 0
12/31/2006 6936 $70.51 12/2/2006 absent 2 to 0
1/31/2007 6971 $267.97 2/3/2007 second, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2007 6996 $437.22 3/3/2007 motion, vote 3 to 0
3/31/2007 7018 $246.82 4/7/2007 motion, vote 2 to 0
5/5/2007 7045 $162.19 6/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
6/2/2007 7067 $183.34 7/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2007 7207 $84.63 1/7/2008 vote 3 to 0
1/31/2008 7229 $43.63 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
11/1/2008 7439 $14.54 11/1/2008 vote 3 to 0
Matthew Baker II:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Meeting Date Action Recorded Vote
12/16/2005 6658 $56.42 1/2/2006 motion, vote 3 to 0
1/5/2006 6688 $91.88 2/4/2006 motion, vote 2 to 0
5/31/2006 6790 $28.22 6/3/2006 absent 2 to 0
2/28/2007 6995 $98.73 3/3/2007 motion, vote 3 to 0
3/31/2007 7020 $35.26 4/7/2007 motion, vote 2 to 0
Ronald Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Meeting Date Action Recorded Vote
12/31/2007 7209 $141.04 1/7/2008 vote 3 to 0
1/31/2008 7230 $79.99 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
3/3/2008 7263 $218.16 4/5/2008 second, vote 3 to 0
5/3/2008 7302 $29.07 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
Baker, 10-002
Page 11
5/15/2008 7311 $58.17 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2008 7321 $58.17 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
12/6/2008 7458 $98.18 1/5/2009 motion, vote 2 to 0
1/31/2009 7490 $427.07 2/7/2009 motion, vote 3 to 0
1/31/2009 7481 $36.35 2/7/2009 motion, vote 3 to 0
12/31/2009 7698 $509.50 1/4/2010 motion, vote 2 to 0
2/6/2010 7732 $138.61 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/15/2010 7736 $194.81 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2010 7758 $14.98 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7978 $141.55 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
Zachary Baker:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Meeting Date Action Recorded Vote
3/3/2008 7264 $72.62 4/5/2008 second, vote 3 to 0
6/30/2008 7349 $101.82 7/11/2008 absent 2 to 0
9/30/2008 7403 $72.71 10/4/2008 second, vote 3 to 0
12/6/2008 7459 $14.54 1/5/2009 motion, vote 2 to 0
2/15/2010 7737 $37.46 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2010 7759 $67.44 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
4/30/2010 7789 $14.99 4/3/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
10/31/2010 7932 $22.48 10/2/2010 second, vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7977 $37.45 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
29. Baker’s actions as Hopewell Township Supervisor and Roadmaster including
participating in Board decisions to hire family members for Township labor and his
subsequent approvals of payments to family members resulted in payments of
$4,778.58 as outlined in the below chart:
Immediate Family Financial
Member Gain
Adam Baker $1,940.98
Matthew Baker II $250.49
Ronald Baker $2,145.60
Zachary Baker $441.51
Total Financial Gain $4,778.58
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT RONALD BAKER
[SIC] USED THE AUTHORITY OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION FOR THE PRIVATE
PECUNIARY BENEFIT OF HIS FATHER.
30. Ronald Baker, Baker’s father, performed loading services for Hopewell Township
between 2003 and 2009.
a. The services consisted of loading cinders and stone stored on Baker’s Farm
property onto Township trucks on an as needed basis.
1. The loading occurred when cinders or stone was needed for road
projects.
b. Ronald Baker was compensated at a flat rate of $7.00 per load to load the
Baker, 10-002
Page 12
Township purchased material that was stored on the Baker’s Farm into
Township designated trucks for use on Township roads.
1. The rate was agreed upon by the Board, including Baker.
2. The services were not publicly bid.
31. Ronald Baker also rented Baker’s Farm’s equipment to Hopewell Township.
a. The rental was authorized by Baker as Township Supervisor and
Roadmaster.
1. The other Members of the Board were aware of Baker’s actions and
concurred with the rentals.
2. Township records confirm no vote of the Board authorizing the rental
or rates.
b. Rented equipment included a tractor with a brush hog attachment for mowing
along Township roads during the summer months and a skid loader that was
used for cleaning ditches.
c. The only equipment that Hopewell Township owns is a truck and hand tools.
32. As Supervisor and Roadmaster, Baker participated in decisions to utilize his father
to perform services for the Township.
a. Baker’s father was authorized to load material the Township stored on
Baker’s Farm property.
1. The Township did not have sufficient space to store cinders and
stone and Baker’s Farm agreed to store the material at no charge to
the Township.
2. The Township does not own a building or any land that could be used
to store its materials.
3. The Township stored cinders and stone [at] Baker’s Farm prior to
Baker’s service as a Township Supervisor.
b. Baker’s Farm/Ronald Baker owned equipment, a skid steer, which was used
to load stone and cinders.
c. The Township does not own a loader or any type of equipment to load
material on Township trucks.
d. Prior to the Township utilizing Ronald Baker, Township employees loaded
materials on a township truck using shovels.
33. Baker participated in Board decisions to authorize his father to be compensated for
loading services on an as needed basis after discussing the matter informally with
other Members of the Board. The discussion was not recorded in the minutes of the
Township meetings.
a. The Board agreed to use Ronald Baker due to convenience (materials were
stored on the Baker farm) and low cost.
Baker, 10-002
Page 13
34. Prior to 2010, the Township did not advertise for bids for equipment rental services.
a. Minutes of the September 4, 2010, Board meeting reflect the following:
“One bid was received for the use of a skid steer by load and by hour.
The bid of Ronald Baker for $7.00 a load and $35.00 per hour. A
motion by David Brown, seconded by William Dunn to accept this bid.
Motion carried.”
b. Baker was absent from the meeting.
35. Invoices were submitted to Hopewell Township in the name of both Ronald Baker
for loading services and in the name of Baker’s Farm for equipment rentals as
follows:
a. Ronald Baker:
Invoice
Date No. Amount
3/31/2005 370466 $200.00
5/31/2005 453906 $320.00
12/30/2005 11724 $32.66
1/31/2006 453992 $270.00
Total $822.66
b. Baker’s Farm:
Invoice
Date No. Amount
6/25/2008 634408 $962.50
8/12/2008 634422 $632.00
Total $1,594.50
36. Payments for the invoices submitted by Ronald Baker were issued by the Board of
Supervisors, including Matthew Baker as outlined below:
a. Ronald Baker:
Invoice Check Check
Date No. Amount Date No. Amount Signed
Baker, Dunn,
3/31/2005 370466 $200.00 3/31/2005 6462 $200.00 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2005 453906 $320.00 5/31/2005 6504 $320.00 Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
12/30/2005 11724 $32.66 12/31/2005 6673 $32.66 Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2006 453992 $270.00 1/31/2006 6704 $270.00 Fouse
b. Baker’s Farm:
Invoice Check Check
Date No. Amount Date No. Amount Signed
6/25/2008 634408 $962.50 6/30/2008 7342 $962.50 Baker, Brown,
Baker, 10-002
Page 14
Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
8/12/2008 634422 $632.00 8/21/2008 7376 $422.00 Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
8/22/2008 7377 $210.00 Fouse
c. Baker signed 6 of 7 checks totaling $2,417.16 issued to Ronald
Baker/Baker’s Farm.
37. Payments were also made by the Township to Ronald Baker for which no invoices
were submitted by Ronald Baker or Ronald Baker d/b/a Baker’s Farm.
a. Some loading services and equipment rentals provided by Ronald Brown
[sic] to the Township were listed on either Township payroll reports or Penn
DOT reports, but were not invoiced.
b. The documentation was recorded on ledgers by Township Secretary Reba
Fouse.
1. Some of the services not invoiced by Ronald Baker were initially
documented on Township payroll sheets.
a. These payroll sheets were approved by all three Members of
the Board of Supervisors, including Matthew Baker.
2. Other services not invoiced were recorded on Penn DOT pay records,
which were approved solely by Matthew Baker as Township
Roadmaster.
3. Fouse would use the Penn DOT and payroll sheets to record services
on ledgers and then issue payments to Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm.
38. The following outlines entries on Township ledgers for loading services provided by
Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm for the Township:
Period
Ending Loads Rate Gross Pay
1/31/2005 32 $7.00 $224.00
2/14/2005 9 $7.00 $63.00
5/31/2005 9 $7.00 $63.00
7/31/2005 8 $7.00 $56.00
8/31/2005 8 $7.00 $56.00
9/30/2005 5 $7.00 $35.00
12/14/2005 12 $7.00 $84.00
12/31/2005 10 $7.00 $70.00
1/31/2006 4 $7.00 $28.00
3/31/2006 8 $7.00 $56.00
4/15/2006 10 $7.00 $70.00
4/30/2006 8 $7.00 $56.00
5/31/2006 5 $7.00 $35.00
6/15/2006 4 $7.00 $28.00
6/29/2006 3 $7.00 $21.00
7/15/2006 2 $7.00 $14.00
10/15/2006 4 $7.00 $28.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 15
12/31/2006 5 $7.00 $35.00
1/31/2007 33 $7.00 $231.00
2/28/2007 46 $7.00 $322.00
3/31/2007 23 $7.00 $161.00
5/31/2007 2 $7.00 $14.00
6/30/2007 14 $7.00 $98.00
7/31/2007 6 $7.00 $42.00
8/30/2007 4 $7.00 $28.00
9/30/2007 2 $7.00 $14.00
12/31/2007 12 $7.00 $84.00
1/31/2008 12 $7.00 $84.00
2/29/2008 31 $7.00 $217.00
5/31/2008 6 $7.00 $42.00
7/31/2008 9 $7.00 $63.00
8/31/2008 8 $7.00 $56.00
9/30/2008 11 $7.00 $77.00
10/31/2008 1 $7.00 $7.00
11/30/2008 8 $7.00 $56.00
4/30/2009 7 $7.00 $49.00
6/30/2009 8 $7.00 $56.00
7/30/2009 11 $7.00 $77.00
8/31/2009 2 $7.00 $14.00
9/30/2009 2 $7.00 $14.00
Total $ 2,828.00
39. The following information was documented on Township ledgers for equipment
rentals made from Ronald Baker between 2005 and 2008 for which no invoice was
submitted:
Period Total Gross
Ending Hours Rate Pay
6/30/2005 7 $35.00 $245.00
7/31/2005 5 $40.00 $200.00
4/30/2006 2 $40.00 $80.00
7/31/2006 12 $32.00 $384.00
5/31/2007 17 $35.00 $595.00
7/9/2007 29 $35.00 $1,015.00
11/30/2007 5 $35.00 $175.00
10/31/2008 7 $35.00 $245.00
Total $2,939.00
These dates and hours related to equipment rental from Ronald Baker were initially
logged on Township payroll records by Township employees.
40. Township checks were issued to Ronald Baker and/or Baker’s Farm, which
contained notations in the memo portion of checks stating the purpose of the
payment.
a. No invoices were submitted by Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm prior to payments
Baker, 10-002
Page 16
being issued.
b. Payments were made based on Township payroll records.
41. The following checks issued by the Township to Ronald Baker included an
explanation of payment and were signed by the Supervisors as indicated below:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed Memo
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2005 6410 $224.00 Fouse 32 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
2/28/2005 6438 $91.00 Fouse 13 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
3/31/2005 6463 $35.00 Fouse 5 loads ashes @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
4/30/2005 6483 $70.00 Fouse 10 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2005 6508 $63.00 Fouse Loading 9 @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
6/30/2005 6530 $245.00 Fouse Mowing 7 hrs @ 35.00
Baker, Brown,
7/31/2005 6557 $200.00 Fouse skid loader 5 @ 40.00
Baker, Brown,
7/31/2005 6558 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
8/31/2005 6578 $56.00 Fouse Loading 8 @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
9/30/2005 6599 $35.00 Fouse 5 loads stone @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
12/16/2005 6659 $84.00 Fouse 12 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
1/5/2006 6689 $70.00 Fouse 10 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2006 6699 $28.00 Fouse 4 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
4/15/2006 6756 $70.00 Fouse 10 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
4/30/2006 6769 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown, to replace check# 6713
4/30/2006 6774 $63.00 Fouse Lost
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2006 6785 $35.00 Fouse 5 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown, Backhoe 2 hrs @
5/31/2006 6786 $80.00 Fouse 40.00
Baker, Brown,
6/6/2006 6807 $28.00 Fouse 4 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
6/30/2006 6819 $21.00 Fouse 3 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
7/18/2006 6835 $14.00 Fouse 2 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn, Tractor without
8/5/2006 6853 $384.00 Fouse operator
Baker, Brown,
10/13/2006 6900 $28.00 Fouse 4 loads @ 7.00
1/31/2007 6964 $35.00 Baker, Dunn, 5 loads @ 7.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 17
Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2007 6969 $231.00 Fouse 33 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2007 6979 $322.00 Fouse 46 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
3/31/2007 7017 $161.00 Fouse 23 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/5/2007 7046 $672.00 Fouse skid loader
5/31/2007 7057 $14.00 Baker, Fouse 2 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
6/2/2007 7069 $595.00 Fouse 17 hours skid loader
Baker, Dunn,
6/30/2007 7080 $98.00 Fouse 14 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
7/13/2007 7092 $1,015.00 Fouse mowing 29 @ 35.00
Dunn, Brown,
7/31/2007 7104 $42.00 Fouse 6 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
8/31/2007 7127 $28.00 Fouse 4 loads @ 7.00
William Dunn,
9/30/2007 7148 $14.00 Fouse 2 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
12/31/2007 7189 $175.00 Fouse 5 hrs @ 35.00
Baker, Dunn,
12/31/2007 7211 $84.00 Fouse 12 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2008 7233 $84.00 Fouse 12 @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown, 31 loads of ashes @
3/3/2008 7261 $217.00 Fouse 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2009 7480 $117.50 Fouse 5 hrs @ 23.50
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2009 7482 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
7/31/2009 7610 $77.00 Fouse 11 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
4/30/2010 7791 $91.00 Fouse 13 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2010 7812 $63.00 Fouse 9 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
6/30/2010 7828 $21.00 Fouse 3 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
7/31/2010 7856 $35.00 Fouse 5 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
8/31/2010 7875 $70.00 Fouse 10 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
9/30/2010 7896 $77.00 Fouse 11 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
11/6/2010 7943 $49.00 Fouse 7 loads @ 7.00
11 loads of ashes @
12/31/2010 7974 $77.00 Dunn, Fouse 7.00
mileage 107 miles @
12/31/2010 7973 $42.80 Dunn, Fouse .40
12/31/2010 7975 $70.00 Dunn, Fouse skid loader 2 hrs @
Baker, 10-002
Page 18
35.00
a. Baker signed 31 of the 52 checks issued to Ronald Baker.
42. Baker participated in the approval of 40 of 56 payments totaling $7,491.96 issued to
Ronald Baker for loading and/or equipment rental services for the Township for
which no invoice exists as shown in the below chart:
Check Check Meeting Recorded
Date No. Amount Date Action Vote
motion,
1/31/2005 6410 $224.00 2/5/2005 vote 3 to 0
2/28/2005 6438 $91.00 3/5/2005 absent 2 to 0
motion,
3/31/2005 6462 $200.00 4/2/2005 vote 2 to 0
motion,
3/31/2005 6463 $35.00 4/2/2005 vote 2 to 0
motion,
4/30/2005 6483 $70.00 5/7/2005 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2005 6504 $320.00 6/4/2005 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2005 6508 $63.00 6/4/2005 absent 2 to 0
second,
6/30/2005 6530 $245.00 7/2/2005 vote 3 to 0
7/31/2005 6557 $200.00 8/6/2005 vote 3 to 0
7/31/2005 6558 $56.00 8/6/2005 vote 3 to 0
8/31/2005 6578 $56.00 9/3/2005 vote 3 to 0
9/30/2005 6599 $35.00 10/1/2005 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/16/2005 6659 $84.00 1/2/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/31/2005 6673 $32.66 1/2/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
1/5/2006 6689 $70.00 2/4/2006 vote 2 to 0
motion,
1/31/2006 6699 $28.00 2/4/2006 vote 2 to 0
motion,
1/31/2006 6704 $270.00 2/4/2006 vote 2 to 0
motion,
4/15/2006 6756 $70.00 5/6/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
4/30/2006 6769 $56.00 5/6/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
4/30/2006 6774 $63.00 5/6/2006 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2006 6785 $35.00 6/3/2006 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2006 6786 $80.00 6/3/2006 absent 2 to 0
6/6/2006 6807 $28.00 7/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2006 6819 $21.00 7/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
motion,
7/18/2006 6835 $14.00 8/5/2006 vote 2 to 0
8/5/2006 6853 $384.00 9/2/2006 absent 2 to 0
motion,
10/13/2006 6900 $28.00 11/4/2006 vote 3 to 0
second,
1/31/2007 6964 $35.00 2/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
Baker, 10-002
Page 19
second,
1/31/2007 6969 $231.00 2/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/28/2007 6979 $322.00 3/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
motion,
3/31/2007 7017 $161.00 4/7/2007 vote 2 to 0
5/5/2007 7046 $672.00 6/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2007 7057 $14.00 6/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
6/2/2007 7069 $595.00 7/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
6/30/2007 7080 $98.00 7/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
7/13/2007 7092 $1,015.00 8/4/2007 absent 2 to 0
7/31/2007 7104 $42.00 8/4/2007 absent 2 to 0
8/31/2007 7127 $28.00 9/8/2007 vote 3 to 0
9/30/2007 7148 $14.00 10/6/2007 absent 2 to 0
12/31/2007 7189 $175.00 1/7/2008 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2007 7211 $84.00 1/7/2008 vote 3 to 0
1/31/2008 7233 $84.00 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
second,
3/3/2008 7261 $217.00 4/5/2008 vote 3 to 0
motion,
1/31/2009 7480 $117.50 2/7/2009 vote 3 to 0
motion,
1/31/2009 7482 $56.00 2/7/2009 vote 3 to 0
7/31/2009 7610 $77.00 8/1/2009 absent 2 to 0
motion,
4/30/2010 7791 $91.00 4/3/2010 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2010 7812 $63.00 5/1/2010 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2010 7828 $21.00 6/5/2010 absent 2 to 0
second,
7/31/2010 7856 $35.00 7/10/2010 vote 3 to 0
8/31/2010 7875 $70.00 8/7/2010 absent 2 to 0
9/30/2010 7896 $77.00 9/4/2010 absent 2 to 0
motion,
11/6/2010 7943 $49.00 11/6/2010 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7973 $42.80 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7974 $77.00 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7975 $70.00 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
43. Ronald Baker received payments totaling $7,491.96 as a result of Matthew Baker’s
role in the decision to utilize his services to provide loading services and equipment
rental services to Hopewell Township.
44. Payments were also issued by the Township to Baker’s Farm for loading services
and equipment rentals, which listed in the memo portion of the check the services
provided.
a. The type of service listed on the check was written by Secretary-Treasurer
Fouse based on her review of payroll reports.
45. The following Township checks were issued to Baker’s Farm for loading services
and for equipment rentals, which included in the memo portion of the check the
purpose of the payment:
Baker, 10-002
Page 20
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed Memo
Dunn, Brown,
3/31/2006 6742 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/3/2008 7299 $49.00 Fouse 7 loads blacktop @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/3/2008 7300 $280.00 Fouse skid loader 8 hours @ 35.00
Baker, Brown,
5/15/2008 7310 $2,047.50 Fouse 58.5 hours @ 35.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2008 7319 $945.00 Fouse skid loader
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2008 7320 $42.00 Fouse 6 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
6/30/2008 7343 $210.00 Fouse 6 hours skid loader @ 35.00
Dunn, Brown,
7/31/2008 7364 $63.00 Fouse 9 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
8/31/2008 7383 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
9/30/2008 7404 $77.00 Fouse 11 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown, 1 load @ 7.00, 7 hours skid
11/1/2008 7435 $252.00 Fouse loader
Baker, Brown,
12/6/2008 7456 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
1/31/2009 7491 $301.00 Fouse 43 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
4/30/2009 7551 $49.00 Fouse 7 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
5/31/2009 7567 $28.00 Fouse 4 loads @ 7.00
Dunn, Brown,
6/30/2009 7588 $56.00 Fouse 8 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
9/30/2009 7645 $14.00 Fouse 2 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
12/31/2009 7700 $231.00 Fouse 33 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
2/6/2010 7730 $91.00 Fouse 13 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Dunn,
2/15/2010 7739 $175.00 Fouse 25 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2010 7750 $42.00 Fouse 6 loads @ 7.00
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2010 7756 $175.00 Fouse skid loader 5 hrs @ 35.00
a. Baker signed 14 of 22 checks issued to Baker’s Farm for loading services
and equipment rentals.
46. Baker participated in the approval of 14 of 25 checks totaling $6,890.00 issued to
Baker’s Farm from Hopewell Township for loading services and equipment rentals
for which no invoice exists as shown below:
Check Check Meeting Recorded
Date No. Amount Date Action Vote
Baker, 10-002
Page 21
3/31/2006 6742 $56.00 4/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
5/3/2008 7299 $49.00 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
5/3/2008 7300 $280.00 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
5/15/2008 7310 $2,047.50 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2008 7319 $945.00 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2008 7320 $42.00 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2008 7342 $962.50 7/11/2008 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2008 7343 $210.00 7/11/2008 absent 2 to 0
motion,
7/31/2008 7364 $63.00 8/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
motion,
8/21/2008 7376 $422.00 9/6/2008 vote 3 to 0
motion,
8/22/2008 7377 $210.00 9/6/2008 vote 3 to 0
motion,
8/31/2008 7383 $56.00 9/6/2008 vote 3 to 0
second,
9/30/2008 7404 $77.00 10/4/2008 vote 3 to 0
11/1/2008 7435 $252.00 12/6/2008 absent 2 to 0
motion,
12/6/2008 7456 $56.00 1/5/2009 vote 2 to 0
motion,
1/31/2009 7491 $301.00 2/7/2009 vote 3 to 0
motion,
4/30/2009 7551 $49.00 5/2/2009 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2009 7567 $28.00 6/6/2009 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2009 7588 $56.00 7/11/2009 absent 2 to 0
second,
9/30/2009 7645 $14.00 12/5/2009 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/31/2009 7700 $231.00 1/4/2010 vote 2 to 0
motion,
2/6/2010 7730 $91.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/15/2010 7739 $175.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/28/2010 7750 $42.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/28/2010 7756 $175.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
47. The Township issued payments totaling $14,381.96 to Ronald Baker and/or Baker’s
Farm for loading services and equipment rental, which were not invoiced.
48. From 2006 through 2010 payments totaling $15,807.06 were made by the Township
to Ronald Baker and Baker’s Farm.
a. Matthew Baker’s use of the authority of his public position included
participating in the selection of Baker’s Farm to provide services to the
Township, voting to approve payments and signing checks issued to Baker’s
Farm.
49. At the time he was participating in authorizing payments to Ronald Baker/Baker’s
Farm, Baker was compensated by Baker’s Farm from Baker’s Farm account as
follows:
Baker, 10-002
Page 22
Total Deposits Baker’s Total Payments to M.
Year Farm Baker Percentage
2006 $116,464.43 $13,850.00 11.892%
2007 $105,958.44 $5,100.00 4.813%
2008 $71,472.75 $500.00 0.700%
2009 $48,423.92 $6,400.00 13.217%
2010 $39,754.50 $700.00 1.761%
Total $382,074.04 $26,550.00 6.949%
50. Payments from the Township to Baker’s Farm averaged 2.588% of all deposits to
Baker’s Farm account for the period of 2005 to 2010 as indicated below:
Total Township Bakers Township R. Total
Year Deposits Farms Baker Township Percentage
$
2005 $161,266.82 - $1,711.66 $1,711.66 1.0614%
2006 $116,464.43 $56.00 $1,147.00 $1,203.00 1.0329%
$
2007 $105,958.44 - $3,486.00 $3,486.00 3.2900%
2008 $71,472.75 $5,672.00 $301.00 $5,973.00 8.3570%
2009 $48,423.92 $679.00 $250.50 $929.50 1.9195%
2010 $39,754.50 $483.00 $280.00 $763.00 1.9193%
Total $543,340.86 $6,890.00 $7,176.16 $14,066.16 2.5888%
51. Ronald Baker asserted to SEC investigators a profit of approximately $5.00 per
hour profit for equipment rented to the Township.
a. Ronald Baker rented a skid steer and mower to the Township between
2005 and 2010.
b. Ronald Baker claimed no profit from loading services provided to the
Township at the rate of $7.00/load.
1. Baker asserted no profit due to his not charging the Township any
costs for an operator, storage fees for material stored on his
property and wear and tear on his machinery.
52. Township records confirm approximately 236.3 hours of equipment rental from
Baker’s Farm from 2006 through 2010.
a. Based on Ronald Baker’s estimated profit of $5.00/hour for such service a
profit of $1,181.50 (236.3 x $5.00/hr) was realized by the Baker’s Farm.
1. This is an average of $236.30 profit per year.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO MATTHEW BAKER’S USE OF THE
AUTHORITY OF HIS OFFICE TO AWARD SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTS AND
HAULING WORK TO HIS BROTHER ADAM BAKER’S BUSINESS, BAKER’S HAULING.
53. Adam Baker, Matthew Baker’s brother, owns and operates Baker’s Hauling and
Baker’s Snow Removal.
a. Adam Baker has performed snowplowing services for the Township as both
Baker’s Hauling and as Baker’s Snow Removal.
Baker, 10-002
Page 23
b. Since at least 2006 Adam Baker has annually submitted quotes to the
Township to provide this service.
54. Minutes of Township Board of Supervisors meetings confirm that beginning in 2006
the Township advertised for snowplowing services.
a. Adam Baker d/b/a Baker’s Hauling and Baker’s Snow Removal is recorded
in meeting minutes as annually submitting bids to provide service.
b. Adam Baker, d/b/a Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal, was the only
bidder for 2006, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
1. In 2007 one other vendor submitted a quote, but Adam Baker was
the low bidder.
2. Baker abstained from the 2007 vote, but voted in years when only (1)
bid was received.
55. Minutes of Township meetings from 2006 through 2009 confirm the following:
a. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
October 1, 2005, confirm that a motion was made by Supervisor William
Dunn and seconded by Supervisor David Brown to advertise for
snowplowing for 2006. The motion carried by a vote of 2-0.
1. Baker was absent from the meeting.
b. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
November 5, 2005, reflect that one bid was received for snow plowing for
2006. The lone bid was received from Baker’s Hauling at a rate of $23.50
per hour. A motion was made by Dunn and seconded by Baker to accept
the bid. The motion carried by a vote of 2-0.
1. Baker seconded and voted in favor of the motion.
c. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
October 7, 2006, indicate that a motion was made by Dunn and seconded by
Baker to advertise for snowplowing for the year 2007. The motion carried
unanimously.
d. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
November 4, 2006, state that two bids were received for snowplowing for the
year 2007. The first bid was from Barry Myers at the rate of $27.50 per hour.
The second bid was from Baker’s Hauling at the rate of $23.50 per hour. A
motion was made by Dunn to accept the lower bid of Baker’s Hauling with
Myers to be used as a backup. The motion was seconded by Brown and
was approved by a 2-0 vote.
1. Baker abstained from the vote.
e. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
November 2, 2007, show that a motion was made by Baker and seconded by
Brown to have the Secretary advertise for snow and ice plowing for the year
2008. The motion carried by a vote of 3 to 0.
f. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
Baker, 10-002
Page 24
December 1, 2007, confirm that one bid was received for snow removal for
2008. The received bid was from Baker’s Hauling at the rate of $23.50 an
hour. A motion was made by Dunn and seconded by Brown to accept the
bid from Baker’s Hauling. The motion carried by vote of 3-0.
1. Baker voted in favor of the motion.
g. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
October 4, 2008, show that the Secretary was to advertise for snow plowing
for the year 2009. The minutes do not show a specific motion or vote to
advertise for the snow plowing bids.
h. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
November 1, 2008, confirm one bid was received for the snow plowing for
the year 2009 from Baker’s Hauling at the rate of $25.00 per hour. A motion
was made by David Brown and seconded by William Dunn to accept the bid
of Baker’s Hauling. The motion carried by a vote of 3-0.
1. Baker voted in favor of the motion.
i. Hopewell Township Supervisors regular monthly meeting minutes from
December 5, 2009, reflect the Secretary was directed to advertise for snow
removal bids. The minutes do not show a specific motion or vote to
advertise for the snow plowing bids.
j. Hopewell Township Supervisors re-organization meeting minutes from
January 4, 2010, confirm one bid was received for the advertised snow
removal for the year 2010. Baker’s Hauling submitted a bid of $35.00 per
hour. A motion was made by Dunn and seconded by Baker to accept the
bid. The motion carried by a vote of 2-0.
1. Baker seconded and voted in favor of the motion.
56. Payments to Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal were approved by vote of the
Supervisors as part of bill lists submitted at regular meetings.
57. Baker participated in the approval of 15 of 17 payments totaling $6,896.75 that
were made to Baker’s Hauling for snow removal services by the Township as shown
below:
Check Check Meeting Recorded
Date No. Amount Date Action Vote
1/31/2005 6409 $540.00 2/5/2005 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2005 6440 $460.00 3/5/2005 absent 2 to 0
12/31/2005 6675 $270.00 5/7/2005 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2006 6716 $58.75 3/4/2006 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2007 6993 $458.25 3/3/2007 motion, vote 3 to 0
3/31/2007 7016 $352.50 4/7/2007 motion, vote 2 to 0
12/31/2007 7203 $387.75 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
1/31/2008 7235 $399.50 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
3/3/2008 7260 $658.00 4/5/2008 second, vote 3 to 0
12/6/2008 7455 $188.00 12/6/2008 absent 2 to 0
1/31/2009 7497 $475.00 2/7/2009 motion, vote 3 to 0
1/31/2009 7483 $211.50 2/7/2009 motion, vote 3 to 0
Baker, 10-002
Page 25
12/31/2009 7693 $125.00 1/4/2010 motion, vote 2 to 0
2/28/2010 7740 $1,225.00 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
2/28/2010 7749 $350.00 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7971 $665.00 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
2/6/2010 7728 $72.50 2/13/2010 motion, vote 3 to 0
58. Between 2005 and 2009, Baker’s Hauling also performed hauling services for
Hopewell Township, which were not advertised or publicly bid.
a. The selection of Baker’s Hauling was not approved by a formal vote of the
Board of Supervisors.
b. Baker’s Hauling was utilized to haul stone and other material from the New
Enterprise, Stone and Lime Company, Roaring Spring Plant to be delivered
to stock pile in Hopewell Township at the Baker’s Farm.
1. The Township made bulk stone and material purchases regularly from
New Enterprise.
c. As Roadmaster, Baker advised Baker’s Hauling to pick up material on behalf
of the Township.
1. Baker’s Hauling was selected due to the low rates charged and
availability.
2. The other Members of the Board were aware of the use of Baker’s
Hauling and agreed with the decision.
d. The Township did not utilize the delivery service offered by New Enterprise
as the delivery fee charged by New Enterprise exceeded the fee charged by
Baker’s Hauling.
59. No other companies were available in the Township to perform the hauling services
at [rates similar to or lower than the] rates charged by Baker’s Hauling.
60. Baker’s Hauling invoices were included as part of bill lists for Supervisor approval
at regular Township meetings.
61. Baker’s Hauling submitted invoices to the Township for services rendered, which
would be reviewed and approved by a vote of the Board of Supervisors.
a. Payments were subsequently made, which were signed by at least two of
three Supervisors and Secretary Fouse.
62. The following confirms payments totaling $12,873.50 made by the Township to
Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal for invoices submitted:
Check Check Invoice Invoice
Date No. Amount Signed Date No. Amount
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2005 6408 $225.00 Fouse 12/23/2004 370362 $165.00
1/30/2005 370203 $60.00
Baker,
1/31/2005 6409 $540.00 Dunn, 1/30/2005 370160 $540.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 26
Fouse
Dunn,
Brown,
2/28/2005 6440 $460.00 Fouse 3/2/2005 370170 $460.00
Dunn,
Brown,
5/31/2005 6505 $290.00 Fouse 5/28/2005 370250 $290.00
Baker,
Dunn,
8/31/2005 6583 $210.00 Fouse 8/24/2005 370270 $210.00
Baker,
Brown,
12/3/2005 6653 $120.00 Fouse 12/1/2005 453960 $120.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2005 6674 $195.00 Fouse 12/27/2005 453973 $195.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2005 6675 $270.00 Fouse 12/27/2005 453971 $270.00
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2006 6698 $150.00 Fouse 1/31/2006 453998 $150.00
Baker,
Dunn,
2/28/2006 6715 $60.00 Fouse 2/25/2006 353154 $60.00
Baker,
Dunn,
2/28/2006 6716 $58.75 Fouse 2/25/2006 353153 $58.75
Dunn,
Brown,
3/31/2006 6741 $65.00 Fouse 3/27/2006 353173 $65.00
Dunn,
Brown,
5/31/2006 6783 $130.00 Fouse 4/25/2006 353189 $130.00
Baker,
Dunn,
7/31/2006 6837 $120.00 Fouse 6/29/2006 353242 $120.00
Dunn,
Brown,
8/31/2006 6866 $60.00 Fouse 8/28/2006 111222 $60.00
Baker,
Brown,
11/4/2006 6915 $85.00 Fouse 9/25/2006 477189 $85.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2006 6934 $60.00 Fouse 12/30/2006 477314 $60.00
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2007 6966 $320.00 Fouse 1/31/2007 477345 $320.00
Baker,
Dunn,
2/28/2007 6992 $180.00 Fouse 2/27/2007 477252 $180.00
Baker,
Dunn,
3/31/2007 7016 $352.50 Fouse 3/28/2007 477275 $352.50
6/2/2007 7068 $625.00 Baker, 5/31/2007 55369 $625.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 27
Dunn,
Fouse
Dunn,
Brown,
7/31/2007 7107 $130.00 Fouse 6/27/2007 55377 $130.00
Baker,
Brown,
10/31/2007 7172 $180.00 Fouse N/A 201913 $180.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2007 7203 $387.75 Fouse 12/26/2007 201943 $387.75
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2008 7234 $120.00 Fouse 1/31/2008 902561 $120.00
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2008 7235 $399.50 Fouse 1/31/2008 901602 $399.50
Baker,
Brown,
3/3/2008 7259 $195.00 Fouse 2/29/2008 902565 $195.00
Dunn,
Brown,
3/3/2008 7260 $658.00 Fouse 2/29/2008 901613 $658.00
Dunn,
Brown,
5/3/2008 7298 $260.00 Fouse 3/28/2008 902578 $130.00
4/23/2008 901633 $130.00
Baker,
Brown,
6/30/2008 7340 $170.00 Fouse N/A 611677 $170.00
Baker,
Brown,
6/30/2008 7341 $500.00 Fouse 6/15/2008 947723 $500.00
Baker,
Brown,
9/30/2008 7394 $325.00 Fouse 9/18/2008 309605 $325.00
Baker,
Brown,
10/31/2008 7429 $300.00 Fouse 10/31/2008 309645 $300.00
Dunn,
Brown,
12/6/2008 7454 $210.00 Fouse 11/30/2008 919913 $210.00
Dunn,
Brown,
12/6/2008 7455 $188.00 Fouse 11/30/2008 916406 $200.00
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2009 7483 $211.50 Fouse 12/31/2008 916408 $222.00
Dunn,
Brown,
1/31/2009 7484 $130.00 Fouse 12/31/2008 919933 $130.00
Baker,
Dunn,
1/31/2009 7497 $475.00 Fouse 1/31/2009 916423 $475.00
Dunn,
1/31/2009 7498 $390.00 Brown, 1/31/2009 919940 $390.00
Baker, 10-002
Page 28
Fouse
Baker,
Brown,
9/30/2009 7648 $450.00 Fouse 7/25/2009 948404 $450.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2009 7692 $370.00 Fouse 12/30/2009 N/A $370.00
Baker,
Dunn,
12/31/2009 7693 $125.00 Fouse 12/30/2009 N/A $125.00
Baker,
Brown,
2/6/2010 7728 $72.50 Fouse 1/31/2010 N/A $72.50
Baker,
Brown,
2/6/2010 7729 $290.00 Fouse 1/31/2010 N/A $290.00
Dunn,
Brown,
4/30/2010 7793 $260.00 Fouse 4/25/2010 N/A $260.00
Dunn,
Brown,
9/30/2010 7890 $480.00 Fouse 9/20/2010 N/A $480.00
12/31/2001 Dunn,
[sic] 7970 $355.00 Fouse 12/28/2010 N/A $355.00
Dunn,
12/31/2010 7971 $665.00 Fouse 12/28/2010 N/A $760.00
Baker signed 32 of 48 checks issued to Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal.
63. Payments were also issued by the Township to Baker’s Hauling for which no
invoices were submitted.
a. The services were related [to] either snow removal or hauling of stone.
b. Some of the services provided are detailed in the memo portion of the
checks issued.
64. The following confirms payments totaling $2,714.45 made by the Township to
Baker’s Hauling, which include in the memo portion of the check the purpose of the
payment as either snow plowing or hauling.
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed Memo
Baker, Dunn,
2/28/2007 6993 $458.25 Fouse 19 1/2 hours @ 23.50
Baker, Brown, 35 hours @ 35.00 snow
2/28/2010 7740 $1,225.00 Fouse plowing
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2010 7748 $325.00 Fouse 5 loads at 65.00
Baker, Brown,
2/28/2010 7749 $350.00 Fouse 10 hours @ 35.00
Baker, Brown,
11/6/2010 7945 $356.20 Fouse stone and grass seed
a. Baker signed all five of the checks indicating payment approvals.
Baker, 10-002
Page 29
65. Four payments were issued to Baker’s Hauling between March 2005 and January
2006 for which no invoice is on file with the Township or no record of the purpose of
the payment.
a. Baker signed two of the checks issued to Baker’s Hauling.
66. The following outlines $670.00 in payments made to Baker’s Hauling for which no
record of the purpose of the payment is on file:
Check Check
Date No. Amount Signed
Dunn, Brown,
2/28/2005 6439 $170.00 Fouse
Baker, Brown,
4/30/2005 6482 $110.00 Fouse
Baker, Dunn,
12/31/2007 7204 $260.00 Fouse
Dunn, Brown,
11/30/2009 7681 $130.00 Fouse
67. The following reflects approvals of all payments to Baker’s Hauling and the actions
of Matthew Baker in the approval process:
Check Check Meeting Recorded
Date No. Amount Date Action Vote
motion,
1/31/2005 6408 $225.00 2/5/2005 vote 3 to 0
2/28/2005 6439 $170.00 3/5/2005 absent 2 to 0
motion,
4/30/2005 6482 $110.00 5/7/2005 vote 3 to 0
5/31/2005 6505 $290.00 6/4/2005 absent 2 to 0
8/31/2005 6583 $210.00 9/3/2005 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/3/2005 6653 $120.00 1/2/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/31/2005 6674 $195.00 1/2/2006 vote 3 to 0
motion,
1/31/2006 6698 $150.00 2/4/2006 vote 2 to 0
motion,
2/28/2006 6715 $60.00 3/4/2006 vote 3 to 0
3/31/2006 6741 $65.00 4/1/2006 absent 2 to 0
5/31/2006 6783 $130.00 6/3/2006 absent 2 to 0
motion,
7/31/2006 6837 $120.00 8/5/2006 vote 2 to 0
8/31/2006 6866 $60.00 9/2/2006 absent 2 to 0
11/4/2006 6915 $85.00 12/2/2006 absent 2 to 0
motion,
12/31/2006 6934 $60.00 1/2/2007 vote 2 to 0
second,
1/31/2007 6966 $320.00 2/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/28/2007 6992 $180.00 3/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
6/2/2007 7068 $625.00 7/7/2007 vote 3 to 0
7/31/2007 7107 $130.00 8/4/2007 absent 2 to 0
Baker, 10-002
Page 30
motion,
10/31/2007 7172 $180.00 11/3/2007 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2007 7204 $260.00 1/7/2008 vote 3 to 0
1/31/2008 7234 $120.00 2/2/2008 vote 3 to 0
second,
3/3/2008 7259 $195.00 4/5/2008 vote 3 to 0
5/3/2008 7298 $260.00 6/7/2008 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2008 7340 $170.00 7/11/2008 absent 2 to 0
6/30/2008 7341 $500.00 7/11/2008 absent 2 to 0
second,
9/30/2008 7394 $325.00 10/4/2008 vote 3 to 0
10/31/2008 7429 $300.00 11/1/2008 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/6/2008 7454 $210.00 1/5/2009 vote 2 to 0
motion,
1/31/2009 7484 $130.00 2/7/2009 vote 3 to 0
motion,
1/31/2009 7498 $390.00 2/7/2009 vote 3 to 0
second,
9/30/2009 7648 $450.00 12/5/2009 vote 3 to 0
second,
11/30/2009 7681 $130.00 12/5/2009 vote 3 to 0
motion,
12/31/2009 7692 $370.00 1/4/2010 vote 2 to 0
motion,
2/6/2010 7729 $290.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
motion,
2/28/2010 7748 $325.00 2/13/2010 vote 3 to 0
motion,
4/30/2010 7793 $260.00 4/3/2010 vote 3 to 0
9/30/2010 7890 $480.00 9/4/2010 absent 2 to 0
motion,
11/6/2010 7945 $356.20 11/6/2010 vote 3 to 0
12/31/2010 7970 $355.00 12/4/2010 vote 3 to 0
68. Adam Baker, Matthew Baker’s brother, received payments of $16,257.95 from the
Township as a result of Baker’s participation in actions of the Board of Supervisors
to hire Baker’s Hauling to perform snow removal and hauling services for the
Township and his role in approving payments to Baker’s Hauling/Snow removal as
outlined below:
Finding #58 $12,873.50
Finding #60 $2,714.45
Finding #62 $670.00
Total $16,257.95
a. Between 2006 and 2010 the payments totaled $13,667.95.
69. Adam Baker claimed no profits when providing snowplowing services to the
Township due to damage to his equipment caused by the poor condition of
Township roads and continually rising fuel costs.
a. Adam Baker estimated a profit of approximately $10.00 per load hauled for
Baker, 10-002
Page 31
the Township.
70. Township records confirm that Baker’s Hauling was compensated for hauling 110
loads of stone/cinders for the Township from 2006 through 2010.
a. Based on Adam Baker’s estimated profit of $10.00/load, Baker’s Hauling
realized a profit of $1,100 for the five-year period or an average of $220 per
year.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MATTHEW
BAKER FAILED TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR
YEARS 2005, 2006, AND 2007.
71. As a Supervisor for Hopewell Township, Matthew Baker was annually required to
st
file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 containing information for the
prior calendar year.
72. A Statement of Financial Interests compliance review conducted by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission on March 17, 2010, confirmed
the following form on file with Hopewell Township for Baker:
a. Calendar Year: 2008
Filed: 6/17/09 on SEC form 01/09
Position: Township Supervisor
Creditors: None
Direct/indirect sources of income: Baker’s Farm
Office, Directorship or employment in any business: Baker’s Farm,
Partnership
Financial interest in any business: Baker’s Farm, 50%
All other financial interests: None
b. This form was filed by Baker at the Huntingdon County Courthouse when he
was completing documents for his reelection in 2009.
1. The form was subsequently forwarded to the Township by the County.
73. No record exists in Hopewell Township of Matthew Baker filing Statements of
Financial Interests for the following years:
a. 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006.
b. 2006 calendar year by May 1, 2007.
c. 2007 calendar year by May 1, 2008.
74. The Township Secretary, Reba Fouse, received the forms from the State Ethics
Commission in 2005, 2006, and 2007, but did not distribute the forms to any
Township officials to file.
a. Baker was not provided Statement of Financial Interests forms from Fouse to
complete in 2005, 2006, or 2007.
75. During the years when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests, Baker
received compensation as a Township Supervisor as follows:
Year Amount
Baker, 10-002
Page 32
2005 $246.80
2006 $308.50
2007 $308.50
Total $863.80
76. Baker’s family members received a private pecuniary gain as a result of the use of
Matthew Baker’s position as follows:
a. Matthew Baker II (son): $254.09
b. Zachary Baker (son): $441.51
c. Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm:
Labor: $1,415.00
Equipment: $1,181.50
$2,596.50
d. Adam Baker (brother):
Labor: $2,010.00
Hauling: $1,100.00
$3,110.00
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor of Hopewell Township (“Township”) since approximately January
2003, Respondent Matthew Baker, hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,”
“Respondent Baker,” and “Baker,” 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 Respondent Baker violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), and
1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself and members of his immediate family by participating in
actions of the Township Board of Supervisors (“Board”) to hire members of his immediate
family to perform labor and hauling services for the Township; and when contracts in
excess of $500.00 were entered into with members of his immediate family without an open
and public process; and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) for
calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a)Conflict of interest.—
No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
Baker, 10-002
Page 33
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. The term does not include an action
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from
using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f)Contract.—
No public official or public employee or
his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which
the public official or public employee is associated or any
subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official or public employee is associated,
unless the contract has been awarded through an open and
public process, including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee
shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the
implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract
or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official/public
employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official/public employee
or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official/public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee
must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and
the year after he leaves it.
Baker, 10-002
Page 34
We shall now summarize the facts pertaining to this case. Given Respondent’s
failure to file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint, the facts as averred by the
Investigative Complaint are deemed admitted by Respondent. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e); 51
Pa. Code § 21.5(k)(1).
Respondent has served as a Township Supervisor since approximately January
2003. Respondent served as Chairman of the Board from January 2003 until
approximately 2008.
The Board consists of three Supervisors. All three Township Supervisors and the
Township Secretary/Treasurer have signature authority over Township accounts.
Township checks require the signature of two Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer.
No facsimile signature stamps are utilized in the Township.
Township payroll is generated based upon time sheets submitted by employees.
Paychecks are then signed by two Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer. The signing
of the paychecks constitutes approval of payroll.
Respondent has served as the Township Roadmaster since January 2003.
Road maintenance projects are determined by the Board. Respondent determines
which Township laborers are used to perform Township assignments related to road
maintenance. Respondent consults with the other Board Members when selecting part-
time employees.
Respondent determines the vendor from which equipment is rented for work on
Township roads.
Respondent also selects vendors/individuals to haul material for the Township.
Respondent will get the concurrence of the other Supervisors prior to authorizing vendor
services. These discussions do not occur at public meetings.
Respondent’s immediate family members include Ronald Baker (Respondent’s
father), Adam Baker (Respondent’s brother), Matthew Baker II (Respondent’s son), and
Zachary Baker (Respondent’s son).
Ronald Baker, Adam Baker, Matthew Baker II, and Zachary Baker began working
for the Township as part-time laborers in the Township’s part-time laborer pool after
Respondent became a Township Supervisor. None of these family members were
employed by the Township prior to Respondent serving as a Township Supervisor. Prior
to 2010 there is no record in the Township meeting minutes of a formal vote to hire any of
Respondent’s aforesaid immediate family members as Township employees.
Beginning in 2010, the Township required persons seeking to work as Township
laborers to submit resumes or letters of interest. In January 2010, Respondent made a
motion and voted to advertise for resumes for laborers. In February 2010, Respondent
reviewed all of the resumes received, including those of his family members. However, in
2010, Respondent neither recommended the hiring of his immediate family members nor
participated in the formal vote to hire his immediate family members as part-time laborers
for the Township.
Per the Fact Findings, deemed admitted by Respondent, Respondent’s aforesaid
immediate family members received compensation in the following amounts for working as
part-time laborers for the Township during the indicated time periods (see, Fact Findings
26-27 a and 76): (1) Ronald Baker, $1,415.00 for November 2007 through January 2009;
(2) Adam Baker, $2,010.00 for 2006 through 2008; (3) Matthew Baker II, $254.09 for 2006
through March 2007; and (4) Zachary Baker, $441.51 for 2008 through December 2010.
Baker, 10-002
Page 35
Respondent signed as an authorized Township signatory 9 of 14 checks issued to
Ronald Baker, 15 of 20 checks issued to Adam Baker, 4 of 5 checks issued to Matthew
Baker II, and 3 of 9 checks issued to Zachary Baker for work as laborers for the Township,
as set forth in Fact Finding 27 a.
Respondent voted to approve 11 of 14 payments to Ronald Baker, 14 of 20
payments to Adam Baker, 4 of 5 payments to Matthew Baker II, and 8 of 9 payments to
Zachary Baker for work performed for the Township as laborers, as detailed in Fact
Finding 28 a.
Respondent and Ronald Baker are equal partners in a business named “Baker’s
Farm.” As a Township Supervisor and Roadmaster, Respondent participated in decisions
to utilize Ronald Baker to load Township materials stored at Baker’s Farm onto Township
designated trucks for use on Township roads.
Per the Fact Findings, the Township contracts for loading services were with Ronald
Baker individually (see, Fact Findings 30, 30 b, 32, 32 a, 32 d, 33, 33 a), although some of
the Township payments for such services appear to have been issued to Baker’s Farm
(see, Fact Findings 38, 45-47).
The materials that Ronald Baker loaded for the Township were stored at Baker’s
Farm at no charge to the Township. Ronald Baker was compensated at a flat rate of $7.00
per load for loading such materials. The rate was agreed upon by the Board, including
Respondent, based upon informal discussions. The loading services were not publicly bid.
Ronald Baker rented Baker’s Farm equipment to the Township. The rental was
authorized by Respondent as a Township Supervisor and Roadmaster. The other
Members of the Board were aware of Respondent’s actions and concurred with the rentals.
Township records confirm no vote of the Board authorizing the rental or rates.
Additionally, prior to 2010, the Township did not advertise for bids for equipment rental
services.
Collectively, and in at least the following instances, individually, Township payments
for Baker’s Farm equipment rentals were in excess of $500.00: (1) the rental of
unspecified equipment paid by check number 7342 dated 6/30/2008 in the amount of
$962.50; (2) the rental of a skid loader paid by check number 7319 dated 5/31/2008 in the
amount of $945.00; (3) the rental of unspecified equipment paid by check number 7310
dated 5/15/2008 in the amount of $2,047.50; (4) the rental of mowing equipment paid by
check number 7092 dated 7/13/2007 in the amount of $1,015.00; (5) the rental of a skid
loader paid by check number 7069 dated 6/2/2007 in the amount of $595.00; and (6) the
rental of a skid loader paid by check number 7046 dated 5/5/2007 in the amount of
$672.00. (See, Fact Findings 35 b, 36 b, 39, 41, 45). These equipment rentals occurred
in years prior to 2010, when the Township did not advertise for bids for equipment rental
services.
Respondent participated in the Board vote to approve two of the six aforesaid
checks, specifically, check numbers 7046 and 7069. Respondent signed as an authorized
Township signatory four of the six aforesaid Township checks, specifically, check numbers
7069, 7092, 7310, and 7342. Respondent also signed various other Township checks
paying for equipment rental from Baker’s Farm.
As set forth in Fact Findings 35-36 c, Respondent signed as an authorized
Township signatory six of seven Township checks totaling $2,417.16 issued to Ronald
Baker/Baker’s Farm for loading services and equipment rentals invoiced from March 2005
through August 2008.
Baker, 10-002
Page 36
Payments were also made by the Township to Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm for which
no invoices were submitted. Some of the services not invoiced by Ronald Baker were
initially documented on Township payroll sheets that were approved by all three
Supervisors, including Respondent. Other services not invoiced were recorded on Penn
DOT pay records, which were approved solely by Respondent as Township Roadmaster.
Township Secretary Reba Fouse recorded such non-invoiced services on ledgers and
issued payments to Ronald Baker/Baker’s Farm.
Per Fact Findings 42 and 43, from 2005 through 2010, Respondent participated in
the approval of 40 of 56 payments totaling $7,491.96 issued to Ronald Baker for loading
and/or equipment rental services for the Township for which no invoice exists.
Respondent signed 31 of those checks as an authorized Township signatory.
Per Fact Finding 46, Respondent also participated in the approval of 14 of 25
Township checks totaling $6,890.00 issued to Baker’s Farm for loading services and
equipment rentals for which no invoice exists. Respondent signed 14 of the checks as an
authorized Township signatory.
Ronald Baker claimed no profit from loading services provided to the Township at
the rate of $7.00 per load, due to his not charging the Township any costs for an operator,
storage fees for material stored on the Baker’s Farm property, and wear and tear on
machinery.
Ronald Baker asserted to State Ethics Commission investigators a profit of
approximately $5.00 per hour for equipment rented to the Township. Township records
confirm approximately 236.3 hours of equipment rental from Baker’s Farm from 2006
through 2010. Based upon Ronald Baker’s estimated profit of $5.00 per hour for such
service, a profit of $1,181.50 (236.3 x $5.00 per hour) was realized by Baker’s Farm.
Adam Baker owns and operates a trucking company named “Baker’s Hauling.”
Adam Baker also does business as “Baker’s Snow Removal.” Per Fact Finding 68,
Respondent participated as a Township Supervisor in actions of the Board to hire Baker’s
Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal to perform both hauling services and snow removal
services for the Township. However, the selection of Baker’s Hauling to perform hauling
services was not approved by a formal vote of the Board. Fact Finding 58 a.
Beginning in 2006 the Township advertised for snowplowing services. Adam Baker,
d/b/a Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal, was the only bidder for 2006, 2008, 2009
and 2010. In 2007 one other vendor submitted a quote, but Adam Baker was the low
bidder. Respondent abstained from the Board’s vote to accept his brother’s bid for the
year 2007. Respondent voted in favor of accepting his brother’s bids for the years 2006,
2008, 2009, and 2010.
Between 2005 and 2009, Baker’s Hauling also performed hauling services for the
Township, which were not advertised or publicly bid. As Roadmaster, Respondent advised
Baker’s Hauling to haul stone and other materials for the Township. Baker’s Hauling was
selected due to the low rates charged and availability. No other companies were available
in the Township to perform the hauling services at rates similar to or lower than the rates
charged by Baker’s Hauling.
From January 31, 2005, through December 31, 2010, the Township made payments
totaling $12,873.50 to Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal for invoices submitted, as
detailed in Fact Finding 62. Respondent signed 32 of 48 of these checks issued to
Baker’s Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal.
Payments were also issued by the Township to Baker’s Hauling for which no
invoices were submitted. The services related to either snow removal or hauling of stone.
Baker, 10-002
Page 37
In February 2007, February 2010, and November 2010, the Township made five
payments totaling $2,714.45 to Baker’s Hauling for the noted purpose of either snow
plowing or hauling, as detailed in Fact Finding 64. Respondent signed all five of these
checks indicating payment approvals.
Between March 2005 and January 2006, four payments were issued to Baker’s
Hauling for which no invoice is on file with the Township or there is no record of the
purpose of the payment. Baker signed two of these checks issued to Baker’s Hauling.
Additionally, Fact Finding 66 outlines $670.00 in Township payments made to
Baker’s Hauling in 2005, 2007, and 2009 for which no record of the purpose of the
payment is on file. Respondent signed as an authorized Township signatory two of the
four checks by which these payments were made.
Respondent participated in votes to approve payments to Baker’s Hauling as
detailed in Fact Finding 67.
There were at least two payments for hauling as to which Respondent both signed
the Township check as an authorized Township signatory and voted to approve the
payment. (See, check number 7748 dated 2/28/2010 in the amount of $325; check
number 7945 dated 11/6/2010 in the amount of $356.20. Fact Findings 64, 67.)
Adam Baker received payments in the total amount of $16,257.95 from the
Township as a result of Respondent’s participation in actions of the Board to hire Baker’s
Hauling/Baker’s Snow Removal to perform hauling and snow removal services for the
Township and Respondent’s role in approving payments to Baker’s Hauling/Snow removal
as outlined in Fact Finding 68. Between 2006 and 2010 the payments totaled $13,667.95.
Adam Baker claimed no profits when providing snowplowing services to the
Township due to damage to his equipment caused by the poor condition of Township
roads and continually rising fuel costs. Adam Baker estimated a profit of approximately
$10.00 per load hauled for the Township. Township records confirm that Baker’s Hauling
was compensated for hauling 110 loads of stone/cinders for the Township from 2006
through 2010. Based upon Adam Baker’s estimated profit of $10.00 per load, Baker’s
Hauling realized a profit of $1,100.00 for the five-year period.
Per Fact Finding 76, Respondent’s aforesaid actions resulted in private pecuniary
gains as follows: (1) payments totaling $1,415.00 to Ronald Baker, $2,010.00 to Adam
Baker, $254.09 to Matthew Baker II, and $441.51 to Zachery Baker for labor performed as
part-time laborers for the Township; (2) profits totaling $1,181.50 for Baker’s Farm
equipment rentals to the Township; and (3) profits totaling $1,100.00 for hauling services
provided by Baker’s Hauling to the Township.
With regard to Respondent’s SFIs, an SFI compliance review conducted by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission on March 17, 2010, confirmed that
the Township has no record of Respondent filing SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006 or
2007.
We must now determine, based upon the record, whether the actions of
Respondent violated the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process
requires that we not depart from the allegations. Pennsy v. Department of State, 594 A.2d
845 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must be based upon clear and
convincing proof. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). Clear and convincing proof is “so ‘clear, direct,
weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.’” In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595,
601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998) (Citation omitted).
Baker, 10-002
Page 38
We shall first consider whether Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act with regard to the hiring of his immediate family members as part-time laborers for the
Township.
Factually, Ronald Baker, Adam Baker, Matthew Baker II, and Zachary Baker began
working for the Township as part-time laborers in the Township’s part-time laborer pool
after Respondent became a Township Supervisor. Respondent determines which
Township laborers are used to perform Township assignments related to road
maintenance. Respondent consults with the other Board Members when selecting part-
time employees.
As there was no formal Board vote to hire Respondent’s immediate family members
as part-time laborers prior to 2010, the Supervisors’ approval of the payroll of
Respondent’s immediate family members as well as Board votes to approve payments to
Respondent’s immediate family members for their work as Township laborers constituted
the only formal Board action approving the hiring of Respondent’s immediate family
members as part-time laborers for the years preceding 2010.
In 2010 Respondent neither recommended the hiring of his immediate family
members nor participated in the formal vote to hire his immediate family members as part-
time laborers for the Township.
Using the authority of his public office as a Township Supervisor, Respondent
signed as an authorized Township signatory 9 of 14 checks issued to Ronald Baker, 15 of
20 checks issued to Adam Baker, 4 of 5 checks issued to Matthew Baker II, and 3 of 9
checks issued to Zachary Baker for work as laborers for the Township. Additionally,
Respondent used the authority of his public position as a Township Supervisor when he
voted to approve 11 of 14 payments to Ronald Baker, 14 of 20 payments to Adam Baker, 4
of 5 payments to Matthew Baker II, and 8 of 9 payments to Zachary Baker for work
performed for the Township as laborers.
During the time period under review, Respondent’s aforesaid immediate family
members received total compensation in the amount of $4,120.60 for working as part-time
laborers for the Township, calculated as the sum of the following: (1) Ronald Baker,
$1,415.00 for November 2007 through January 2009; (2) Adam Baker, $2,010.00 for 2006
through 2008; (3) Matthew Baker II, $254.09 for 2006 through March 2007; and (4)
Zachary Baker, $441.51 for 2008 through December 2010.
Based upon the above, we hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary
benefit of members of his immediate family by participating in actions of the Board to hire
members of his immediate family to perform labor for the Township.
In considering the remaining allegations as to Sections 1103(a)/1103(f) of the Ethics
Act, we are mindful of the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in Bixler v. State Ethics
Commission, 847 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), which addressed both Section 1103(a)
and Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act.
With respect to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, the Commonwealth Court held in
Bixler that a net profit in the amount of $561.77 resulting from business transactions
between a township supervisor’s employer and the township would fall within the “de
minimis” exclusion to the definition of “conflict of interest.” The Court considered both the
impact upon the political subdivision and the impact upon the public official’s employer.
Based upon Bixler, if all of the relevant economic impacts are insignificant, the de minimis
exclusion should be found to apply; however, if any one of them is significant, the de
minimis exclusion should not apply.
Baker, 10-002
Page 39
With respect to Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, the Commonwealth Court held in
Bixler that a township supervisor did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a
business that employed him entered into a contract in excess of $500 with his township
without an open and public process, but the supervisor himself was neither a party to the
contract nor a principal of the contracting business. Id. The Court determined that Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act prohibited the conduct of entering into the contract under such
circumstances. The Court concluded that although a violation of Section 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act would be established under such circumstances, it would not be the public
official who would be in violation of the law. Id. See also, Means, Opinion 04-007.
In the instant matter, the loading services provided to the Township by Ronald
Baker and the snowplowing services provided to the Township by Adam Baker and his
business(es) would not form the basis for violations by Respondent of either Section
1103(a) or Section 1103(f). As to such services, there was no pecuniary benefit to support
a violation of Section 1103(a), and Respondent was neither a party to any related contract
nor a principal of a contracting business. See, Bixler, supra.
Additionally, the hiring of Respondent’s immediate family members as part-time
laborers for the Township and the hauling services provided to the Township by Adam
Baker/Baker’s Hauling would not form the basis for a violation by Respondent of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act because Respondent was neither a party to any related contract
nor a principal of a contracting business. Id.
As for equipment rentals by Baker’s Farm to the Township, we find violations of both
Section 1103(a) and Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act.
Respondent is an equal partner with Ronald Baker in the Baker’s Farm business.
The rental of Baker’s Farm equipment to the Township was authorized by Respondent as a
Township Supervisor and Roadmaster, with the concurrence of the other Members of the
Board. There was no vote of the Board authorizing the rental or rates.
Collectively, and in at least the following instances, individually, Township payments
for Baker’s Farm equipment rentals were in excess of $500.00: (1) the rental of
unspecified equipment paid by check number 7342 dated 6/30/2008 in the amount of
$962.50; (2) the rental of a skid loader paid by check number 7319 dated 5/31/2008 in the
amount of $945.00; (3) the rental of unspecified equipment paid by check number 7310
dated 5/15/2008 in the amount of $2,047.50; (4) the rental of mowing equipment paid by
check number 7092 dated 7/13/2007 in the amount of $1,015.00; (5) the rental of a skid
loader paid by check number 7069 dated 6/2/2007 in the amount of $595.00; and (6) the
rental of a skid loader paid by check number 7046 dated 5/5/2007 in the amount of
$672.00. (See, Fact Findings 35 b, 36 b, 39, 41, 45.) These equipment rentals occurred
in years prior to 2010, when the Township did not advertise for bids for equipment rental
services.
Respondent participated in the Board vote to approve two of the six aforesaid
checks, specifically, check numbers 7046 and 7069. Respondent signed as an authorized
Township signatory four of the six aforesaid Township checks, specifically, check numbers
7069, 7092, 7310, and 7342. Respondent also signed various other Township checks
paying for equipment rental from Baker’s Farm.
Based upon Ronald Baker’s estimated profit of $5.00 per hour for equipment rented
to the Township, a profit of $1,181.50 (236.3 x $5.00 per hour) was realized by Baker’s
Farm. We may consider the aggregate of the equipment rental profit as the private
pecuniary benefit received by Baker’s Farm (cf., Keller v. State Ethics Commission, 860
A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)), which amount of $1,181.50 we determine was not de
minimis as to Baker’s Farm.
Baker, 10-002
Page 40
With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act established,
we hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the
authority of his public office by authorizing equipment rentals and participating in the
approval of payments for equipment rentals by the Township from Baker’s Farm, a
business with which he is associated as a partner.
Additionally, while Ronald Baker entered into the equipment rental contracts with
the Township on behalf of Baker’s Farm, given Respondent’s status as a partner in Baker’s
Farm, we further hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when
Baker’s Farm entered into equipment rental contracts with the Township that were in
excess of $500.00 without an open and public process.
In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act with respect to the hauling services
provided to the Township by Baker’s Hauling, we note that per the admitted Fact Findings,
Respondent participated as a Township Supervisor in actions of the Board to hire Baker’s
Hauling to perform hauling services for the Township, even though the selection of Baker’s
Hauling was not approved by a formal vote of the Board. Fact Findings 58 a, 68. Such
services were not advertised or publicly bid. As Roadmaster, Respondent advised Baker’s
Hauling to haul materials for the Township.
The Fact Findings do not establish the purpose of every Township payment to
Baker’s Hauling. It is clear that there were at least two payments for hauling as to which
Respondent further used the authority of his public office as Supervisor by signing the
Township check as an authorized Township signatory and voting to approve the payment.
(See, check number 7748 dated 2/28/2010 in the amount of $325; check number 7945
dated 11/6/2010 in the amount of $356.20. Fact Findings 64, 67.)
Based upon Adam Baker’s estimated profit of $10.00 per load, Baker’s Hauling
realized a profit of $1,100.00 for hauling for the Township for the five-year period. As
noted above, we may consider the aggregate of the profit as the private pecuniary benefit
received by Baker’s Hauling (cf., Keller, supra), which amount of $1,100.00 we determine
was not de minimis as to Adam Baker/Baker’s Hauling.
With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act established,
we hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the
authority of his public office by authorizing hauling services and participating in the
approval of payments for hauling services provided to the Township by Baker’s Hauling, a
business with which his brother is associated.
We further hold that Respondent violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he
failed to file SFIs with the Township for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose restitution
in instances where a public official/public employee has obtained a financial gain in
violation of the Ethics Act. We determine that restitution is warranted in this case as to the
profits for Baker’s Farm equipment rental in the amount of $1,181.50 and for hauling
services by Adam Baker/Baker’s Hauling in the amount of $1,100.00.
Accordingly, Respondent Baker is directed to make payment of restitution in the
amount of $2,281.50 payable to Hopewell Township and forwarded to this Commission by
th
no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Respondent Baker is further directed to not accept any reimbursement,
compensation or other payment from the Township representing a full or partial
reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution.
Baker, 10-002
Page 41
To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent Baker is directed to file with
the Township SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007 and to forward copies of such
th
filings to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of
this adjudication and Order.
Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Supervisor of Hopewell Township (“Township”) since approximately January
2003, Respondent Matthew Baker (“Baker”) 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.
2. Baker violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of members of his immediate family
by participating in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to hire members of
his immediate family to perform labor for the Township.
3. Baker violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public office by authorizing equipment rentals and participating in the approval of
payments for equipment rentals by the Township from Baker’s Farm, a business
with which he is associated as a partner.
4. Baker violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when Baker’s Farm entered into
equipment rental contracts with the Township that were in excess of $500.00
without an open and public process.
5. Baker violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public office by authorizing hauling services and participating in the approval of
payments for hauling services provided to the Township by Baker’s Hauling, a
business with which his brother is associated.
6. Baker violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of
Financial Interests with the Township for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
In Re: Matthew Baker, : File Docket: 10-002
Respondent : Date Decided: 5/16/11
: Date Mailed: 5/23/11
ORDER NO. 1583
1. As a Supervisor of Hopewell Township (“Township”), Matthew Baker (“Baker”)
violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics
Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public position for the
private pecuniary benefit of members of his immediate family by participating in
actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to hire members of his immediate
family to perform labor for the Township.
2. Baker violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public office by authorizing equipment rentals and participating in the approval of
payments for equipment rentals by the Township from Baker’s Farm, a business
with which he is associated as a partner.
3. Baker violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when Baker’s Farm entered into
equipment rental contracts with the Township that were in excess of $500.00
without an open and public process.
4. Baker violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his
public office by authorizing hauling services and participating in the approval of
payments for hauling services provided to the Township by Baker’s Hauling, a
business with which his brother is associated.
5. Baker violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of
Financial Interests with the Township for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007.
6. Baker is directed to make payment of restitution in the amount of $2,281.50 payable
to Hopewell Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission
th
by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order.
7. Baker is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment
from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid
restitution.
8. To the extent he has not already done so, Baker is directed to file with the
Township Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005, 2006, and
2007 and to forward copies of such filings to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
th
Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
Order.
9. Noncompliance with paragraph 6, 7, or 8 of this Order will result in the institution of
an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
___________________________
Baker, 10-002
Page 43
Louis W. Fryman, Chair