HomeMy WebLinkAbout1591 Rhone
In Re: Kirk Rhone, : File Docket: 10-014
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1591
: Date Decided: 9/27/11
: Date Mailed: 10/4/11
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Donald M. McCurdy
Raquel K. Bergen
Nicholas A. Colafella
Mark Volk
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above-named Respondent. At the
commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent
written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the
Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as
an “Investigative Complaint.” A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving
an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for
consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The
Consent Agreement has been approved.
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That Kirk Rhone, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Member of
Starrucca Borough Council, Wayne County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the
State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1104(a), when he used the
authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or members of his
immediate family and/or a business with which he and members of his immediate family
are associated when he participated in discussions and actions of the Borough Council to
authorize repairs and/or improvements to a bridge using Borough funds for the benefit [of]
Rhone and/or members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business with
which he is associated; and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Kirk Rhone has served as a Member of Starrucca Borough Council, Wayne County,
since or about December 2004.
a. Rhone has served as President of Council continuously since January 2006.
2. Starrucca Borough is located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania.
a. The Borough is located entirely in Wayne County.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 2
3. Seven Members serve on the Borough Council.
a. Two Borough Councilmembers are elected to 2 year terms, and five Borough
Councilmembers are elected to 4 year terms.
4. Voting at Council meetings occurs by a yes or no vote and a raising of hands after a
motion is made and properly seconded.
a. Any abstentions or objections made to a motion are specifically noted in the
minutes.
5. Rhone and his wife, Alice K. Rhone, are 50% owners of the Buck Brothers Farm
that is partially located in Starrucca Borough.
a. Robert Buck (Rhone’s brother-in-law) and Buck’s wife, Lillian S. Buck, are
the other 50% owners of the farm.
1. Robert Buck also served as a Member of Starrucca Borough Council.
b. The Buck Brothers Farm encompasses in excess of 450 acres, located in
Starrucca Borough and Thompson Township.
1. Thompson Township is located adjacent to the Borough and is
located entirely in Susquehanna County.
2. The boundary line between the Borough and Thompson Township is
also the dividing line between Wayne and Susquehanna Counties.
c. The Buck Brothers Farm operated as a dairy farm.
1. The Buck Brothers Farm is no longer functioning as a dairy farm.
6. Robert and Lillian Buck and Kirk and Alice Rhone purchased the parcel where the
Buck Brothers Farm is located from Roland and Reva Buck on April 10, 1974, as
evidenced by a deed filed in the Wayne County Register and Recorders office in
book no. 306 p. 1135, and also filed in the Susquehanna County Register and
Recorder’s office in book no. 356 p. 798.
a. A corrective deed dated June 18, 1984, was filed with the Susquehanna
County Register and Recorder’s Office in book no. 421 p. 427, correcting an
error that had been made in the conveyance of the original deed.
7. Starrucca Creek runs through a portion of the Buck Brothers Farm that is located in
the Borough.
a. Starrucca Creek and Route 671 cross in a portion of the Buck Brothers Farm
that is located in the Borough.
b. A bridge (known as Buck Road Bridge, Buck Bridge, Erk Bridge, or Erk Road
Bridge) is located on Rte. 671 where it crosses the Starrucca Creek.
8. The only access to the Buck Brothers Farm is Buck Road Bridge via Route 671.
9. For purposes of this [matter], Route 671 has been considered in four separate
sections:
Rhone, 10-014
Page 3
a. Section 1: This section is located in the Borough and passes through the
Buck Brothers Farm. This section contains the Buck Bridge.
b. Section 2: This section of Route 671 begins at the Borough/Township line
and runs westerly through the Buck Brothers Farm for approximately 1.3
miles. This section comes to a dead end on the Buck Brothers Farm. This
section of Route 671 is located entirely in Thompson Township. There are
no residences located along this section of Route 671.
c. Section 3: This is a middle section of Route 671 and is located entirely in
Thompson Township. Section 3 of Route 671 was vacated by the Township
by Ordinance dated September 8, 1953, for the reason that, “it is useless,
burdensome, and unnecessary to the convenience of the traveling public.”
d. Section 4: The western-most section of Route 671 that, historically,
connected with Route 171 and is located entirely in Thompson Township.
Section 4 of Route 671 was vacated by the Township in 2001, and is located
in the Shelley Nature Preserve with no access to any open sections of Route
671.
10. The following Assessment map, filed with the Susquehanna County Assessment
Office, shows the approximate location of Route 671 and the land accessible
through Route 671:
a. As shown in the above map, Route 671 ends on the 216.2 acre parcel of
land owned by Buck Brothers Farm.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 4
11. Other properties surrounding the historical location of Route 671 include the
following:
a. Approximately 153 acres currently owned by Nicholas P. Krehel, James D.
Sanderson, and Bernard J. Povanda.
1. This parcel is mostly forested and is not used for farming.
2. This parcel is located entirely in Thompson Township, Susquehanna
County.
b. Approximately 175 acres owned by Robert Gilleran, Jr.
1. This parcel is primarily used for recreational purposes including
hunting and fishing.
2. There are no permanent structures on this parcel.
3. This parcel is not used for farming and is partially forested.
4. Robert B. Gilleran normally utilizes ATVs as a means of access to his
175 acres.
5. This parcel is located entirely in Thompson Township.
c. Two parcels – one approximately 92.7 acres, and another approximately 4.9
acres - owned by Robert Aillery.
1. Robert Aillery’s 4.9 acre parcel, which borders his 92.7 acre parcel,
has substantial frontage on LR 57054 (Little Ireland Road).
2. These two parcels are located entirely in Thompson Township,
Susquehanna County.
3. Aillery accesses his land, house, and garage via a driveway that is
located off Little Ireland Road.
4. Aillery has a house and a garage on his land that he uses as a
summer home.
5. Aillery has not accessed his land by way of the Buck Road for
approximately ten years.
a. Aillery cannot access his land by way of the Buck Road unless
he uses a four-wheel drive vehicle or ATV.
d. Four parcels totaling approximately 380 acres are owned by the Nature
Conservancy.
1. These four parcels have frontage on LR 57054 (Little Ireland Road)
and Route 171.
2. These four parcels are used as a nature conservancy and are not
used for dairy farming.
3. The portion of Route 671 in these four parcels was abandoned by
Thompson Township in 2001.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 5
4. These four parcels are located entirely in Thompson Township,
Susquehanna County.
12. The only parcels that would be accessed by Route 671 that are located in Starrucca
Borough are those parcels owned by Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone.
13. Buck Road Bridge is used nearly exclusively by Robert Buck, Kirk Rhone and Buck
Brothers Farm.
14. Since at least 1986 the Borough has incurred costs to repair the Buck Bridge.
a. At a Borough Council meeting on June 12, 1986, the Councilmembers voted
to make repairs to the Buck Bridge in the amount of $6,590.00.
b. At Borough Council meetings on October 6, 1986, and November 3, 1986,
Council discussed how the Borough should pay for Bridge repairs and voted
in favor of the Borough bearing the cost for the repairs.
15. Until 2006, the Buck Bridge was inspected approximately every two years by the
Wayne County engineers as part of a regular inspection of all County bridges.
a. Those inspections concluded that the road to the west (Buck/Rhone
property) was a dead end and that the bridge serves little traffic.
b. A November 8, 1985, inspection report indicated that the Buck Bridge should
be closed due to its poor condition.
1. The report indicated that the existing pipe railing on the bridge
collapsed and they are more of a hazard than a protection to traffic.
aa. The bridge railing had been removed in the 1980’s by Buck
and Rhone to accommodate farm equipment.
2. Bridge repairs were completed in 1986.
c. Bridge inspection reports of Wayne County Engineer Stephen Knash from
November 23, 1987, and October 27, 1989, increased the posted load
capacity to 18 tons.
1. Both reports indicate that the bridge is not serving much traffic and
there is no high priority on replacing it.
2. Both reports indicate that the road to the west is a dead end.
3. Both reports indicate that there are no rails, approach rails or any
other kind of safety devices.
d. An October 24, 1991, bridge inspection report by Wayne County Engineer
Stephen Knash indicated the following:
1. (The bridge) is on a dead end road serving one farm.
2. There were pipe rails on the deck, which are now missing.
3. It may be difficult to justify a new structure to serve one property.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 6
4. The bridge should be posted for a three-ton weight limit.
e. Bridge inspection reports from May 16, 2000, October 11, 2001, and October
8, 2003, all completed by Stephen Knash, indicated the following:
1. The bridge is located on a dead end road, which services one farm.
2. The advanced sign on the west end of Bucks road is not required
because the road is a dead end.
3. The bridge has no railing. The original steel pipe railing on the
structure has been torn off. There are remnants of the railing which
remain on the far left end of the bridge.
4. The bridge deck width is narrow. The narrow width of the structure
would probably not accommodate farm equipment if the railing was
installed.
5. The structure is obsolete with a limited load carrying capacity. The
expense of replacement may not be justifiable considering the
number of properties served and the low ADT (Average Daily Traffic)
of the structure.
f. A bridge inspection report from October 16, 2005, completed by Stephen
Knash, indicated the following:
1. The bridge is located on a dead end road, which services one farm.
2. The bridge has no railing. The original steel pipe railing has been
torn off.
3. The bridge deck is narrow.
g. From 1991 on, the County Engineer consistently recommended that the
bridge should be subject to a three-ton weight limit.
1. A three-ton weight limit would be detrimental to the Buck/Rhone
planned uses of the bridge.
16. In 2004, the Thompson Township Supervisors began discussion to vacate Section
2 of Route 671.
a. Section 2 of Route 671 begins at the Borough/Township line and runs
through the Buck Brothers Farm and dead ends on the Buck Brothers Farm.
b. The Township Supervisors considered closing Section 2 due to the poor
condition of the Buck Bridge.
c. In order to vacate the road, the Supervisors were required to give the public
60 days notice.
d. Buck and Rhone were opposed to the closing.
1. Robert and Lillian Buck and Kirk and Alice Rhone signed a letter
dated August 18, 2004, to the Township Supervisors, stating that they
strongly agree that Route 671 should remain open and under control
of Thompson Township.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 7
aa. If Section 2 of Route 671 were closed, the Bucks and Rhones
would have had to maintain the road themselves to keep it in a
usable condition.
2. Buck and Rhone sought to have the Township initiate repairs to the
bridge, but the Township refused.
17. At the Township’s September 7, 2004, meeting, the Township Supervisors voted to
temporarily close Section 2 of Route 671 instead of vacating it.
a. The reason given for temporarily closing Section 2 of Route 671 is set forth
in the September 7, 2004, meeting minutes as follows:
“Presently the road is inaccessible because a bridge in Starrucca Borough
Wayne County is in disrepair and has a weight limit of three (3) tons.
Township maintenance vehicles weigh in excess of (10) tons and cannot
safely cross the bridge to maintain the road. Private landowners have offered
right of way (ROW) across their properties, including relieving the township
of liability for damage to their land, to maintain the road. After consulting with
the township insurance carrier and solicitor the supervisors feel that the
increased risk of liability to the township was too great if personal injury to
employees or property damage to township equipment resulted from an
accident on the ROW.”
b. The Township closed the road until the bridge in Starrucca was repaired or
replaced so that Township road maintenance equipment could safely
traverse the bridge.
18. At the time the Bucks and Rhones signed the petition opposing the closing of
Section 2 of Route 671, the Buck Brothers Farm was an operating dairy farm that
utilized hayfields on the western side of the Buck Road Bridge.
a. In order to utilize and maintain the fields, the Buck Brothers Farm needed to
cross the Buck Road Bridge with tractors and manure trucks.
1. Tractors can weigh up to seven or eight tons.
2. A manure truck can weigh in excess of twenty tons.
b. Equipment that is needed to maintain the farm weighed significantly more
than the three-ton weight limit that was posted on the bridge.
c. The three-ton weight limit that was posted on the bridge would have legally
restricted the Buck Brothers Farm use of the bridge for farming purposes.
1. The Buck Brothers Farm continued to use the bridge for farming
purposes even though its equipment exceeded the weight limit.
19. After Thompson Township’s closing of Route 671, there was significant discussion
as to the ownership of the Buck Bridge in late 2004 and early 2005 by Borough
Council.
a. These discussions started after Kirk Rhone took office as a Borough
Councilman.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 8
1. Rhone was an advocate of the Borough assuming ownership of the
bridge and the responsibility for maintenance and repairs of the
bridge.
b. Kirk Rhone was a member of Council at this time and participated in Council
discussions and decisions.
c. As Borough Solicitor at that time, Michael Lehutsky’s position was that the
Buck Bridge was a County bridge, and therefore it was the responsibility of
the County to repair the Bridge.
d. The County asserted the Buck Bridge was a Borough bridge and refused to
pay for repairs.
1. Rhone asserts that the Buck Bridge is owned by Starrucca Borough.
20. In or about November 2004, Buck and Rhone contacted Delta Engineers to conduct
a study of the Buck Road Bridge to determine the costs of repairing the bridge.
a. On November 8, 2004, Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone, acting as
representatives of Buck Brothers Farm, met with Delta Engineers
representative David Kennicutt regarding the Buck Bridge.
1. During the meeting, Buck and Rhone indicated that they wished for
the load capacity of the bridge to be increased in order to support
heavy truck traffic.
2. On November 16, 2004, Delta Engineers submitted a proposal to
Buck and Rhone to prepare a Bridge Type Study that would present
options for repairs to the Buck Bridge.
3. The cost of the Engineers study was $3,000.00.
21. On December 9, 2004, Delta Engineers completed its preliminary study of Buck
Bridge.
a. The study presented two alternatives for repairing the Buck Bridge.
i. Alternative 1 – Rehabilitation Utilizing Existing Concrete Slab as a
Structural Member – had a total estimated cost of approximately
$36,000.00.
ii. Alternative 2 – Construct New Slab over Existing – had a total
estimated cost of approximately $60,000.00.
b. Buck Brothers Farm was billed $3,000.00 and privately paid for the personal
study that it commissioned.
c. Both Kirk Rhone and Darl Haynes were in contact with Delta Engineers
regarding the Bridge Type Study.
1. Haynes is a close friend of both Kirk Rhone and Robert Buck.
2. Haynes served on Starrucca Borough’s Bridge Committee with Kirk
Rhone beginning in 2006.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 9
22. On December 30, 2004, Darl Haynes informed David Kennicutt from Delta
Engineers that the decision was made by Buck and Rhone to pursue Alternative 2,
the more expensive option with more extensive repairs.
a. As of December 30, 2004, Delta’s study results had not been presented to
Council.
1. Buck was not a Member of Council at this time.
2. Kirk Rhone was appointed to Council in or about December 2004.
b. Haynes also requested that Kennicutt attend a Borough Council meeting in
February 2005 to present the study to Council.
23. On January 14, 2005, Kirk Rhone advised Kennicutt that he wanted Delta
Engineers to present Alternative 2, the more expensive option, to the Borough
Council.
a. Rhone further told Kennicutt that he wanted Alternative 1 to be “set aside.”
b. Kirk Rhone was a Member of Borough Council when he gave this direction to
Kennicutt.
24. On January 25, 2005, Darl Haynes again spoke with Kennicutt on behalf of Buck
and Rhone regarding presenting the study to Starrucca Borough Council.
a. Kennicutt’s notes from his January 25, 2005, conversation with Darl Haynes
reflect that Haynes wanted Kennicutt “…to speak with authority and reassure
the board that this project is a viable solution that meets their objectives.”
b. Kennicutt’s notes also reflect that Darl Haynes asked Kennicutt if the bridge
rehab would be suitable if a major development was built (20-25 homes).
1. Rhone asserts that he and Buck had no intention of building a major
development across the Bridge.
c. Haynes also expressed concern whether the bridge could support truck
traffic related to gravel mining.
1. The Buck Brothers previously had a stone quarry across the bridge.
25. The sole purpose for Buck and Rhone authorizing the study by Delta was to obtain
estimates for the bridge improvements to accommodate their plans for personal
uses of their property.
a. The study was then presented to Council, so that Council would pay for the
costs to improve the bridge.
26. Since at least January 2005 Kirk Rhone has participated in discussions of actions
of Borough Council relating to repairs to the bridge to his property, including
advocating that the Borough assume financial responsibility for any maintenance
and rehabilitation.
a. Rhone abstained from votes on January 3, 2006, and January 12, 2006, but
participated in every action of Council regarding Buck Bridge from January
2005 through 2008.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 10
b. Rhone’s actions included voting to authorize repairs, borrow money, and
select contractors, approving payments to contractors, and serving as the
Borough’s primary point of contact with contractors and engineers.
c. Rhone’s property was the only Borough property to benefit from the
renovations to the bridge.
1. Rhone asserts that the renovations to the bridge benefitted other
property owners as well as the general public.
27. At the Starrucca Borough Council meeting that occurred on January 3, 2005, the
Buck Road Bridge was discussed. The minutes show the following relevant
discussion:
“Kirk Rhone reported the Borough is eligible to apply for a grant at 3.75% for 10
years. The bridge will cost approximately $40,000 to $50,000 with design costs of
$10,000 to $11,000 (paid privately). A preliminary plan will be presented by Delta
Engineers at the next meeting in February. Kirk Rhone will contact DEP. Brigitte
D’Agati asked what the cost would be to the taxpayers. Kirk Rhone and Andy
Bennett emphasized that this was a preliminary plan – nothing is final at this time.”
a. At the time Rhone represented to Council costs of $40,000 to $50,000 to
repair the bridge, he knew that Delta estimates of the plan he favored were
at least $60,000.
28. An emergency meeting of the Starrucca Borough Council was held on January 12,
2005. The Buck Bridge was discussed at the meeting.
a. During the discussion, Kirk Rhone advised that design costs will be paid for
privately regardless of escalating costs and the costs for permits should
come off the cost of the bridge.
b. After further discussion, Kirk Rhone made a motion to pursue a Community
Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) for Buck Road Bridge. The motion was
seconded by Helen Haynes and passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
1. Robert Buck was not a Member of Borough Council at this time.
c. The events that occurred at this meeting were found to be in violation of the
Sunshine Law by the Borough Council and any actions taken at this meeting
were rescinded by Borough Council at the February 7, 2005, meeting of
Council.
29. At the February 7, 2005, Borough Council Meeting, Kennicutt presented the
preliminary plan to Council for the Buck Road Bridge.
a. Kennicutt stated that the cost of the bridge could realistically be addressed
for about $35,000, and that the projected cost of $50,000 was based on a
limited amount of work for the project.
b. A Borough resident expressed concerns about the burden on the Borough
for a share of the cost of repair to the Bridge.
c. Lillian Buck, Robert Buck’s wife, stated her concern that if the bridge is
closed the road will be vacated by Thompson Township.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 11
1. If the portion of the road in Thompson Township was closed, the
Thompson Township portion of the road within the Buck Brothers
Farm would no longer be maintained by government entities and
would become the responsibility of the property owners (Buck and
Rhone).
30. At the Borough Council meeting on May 2, 2005, a motion by Councilman Robert
Weldy to temporarily close the Buck Road Bridge failed to pass. The minutes read
as follows:
“Robert Weldy offered a motion to temporarily close Buck Road Bridge to prevent
public access for safety reasons. The motion was seconded by Lou Gurske and
resulted in a tie vote (3 yes – 3 no, Paul Everett abstained). Mayor Mroczka was
asked to vote because of the tie and voted no.”
a. Kirk Rhone voted against the temporary closing of the bridge.
b. If not for the vote of Councilman Kirk Rhone, the Buck Road Bridge would
have been closed at the May 2, 2005, meeting.
31. Robert Buck won election to Starrucca Borough Council during the November 2005
General Election and began serving on January 3, 2006.
32. On December 20, 2005, Kirk Rhone contacted David Kennicutt of Delta Engineers
regarding the Buck Bridge.
a. Rhone inquired if the design fee for the project would remain the same as
the fee previously set forth in the December 9, 2004, Bridge study prepared
by Delta Engineers for the Buck Brothers Farm and informed Kennicutt that
the Borough was interested in moving forward with the project.
b. At the time of Rhone’s call to Kennicutt, no formal action was taken by the
Borough to proceed with the project.
33. During a telephone conversation of December 22, 2005, with Kirk Rhone, Kennicutt
provided an updated design fee of $10,450, not including bid documents for option
two with bridge widened to 15.5 foot curb to curb was given to Rhone [sic].
a. Kennicutt informed Rhone that he could estimate costs for construction by
escalating numbers in the December 2004 report by four percent.
b. Rhone told Kennicutt that he would discuss this with Council and get back to
him in early January.
34. In January 2006, the makeup of the Borough Council changed substantially.
a. New Members of Council included friends and/or family members of Kirk
Rhone who were supportive of the Borough incurring the costs to upgrade
the Buck Bridge.
b. Beginning in January 2006, the Borough Council was comprised of the
following individuals: Robert Buck, Kirk Rhone, Fred Rhone, Donald Haynes,
Helen Haynes, Anthony Palonis, and Lou Gurske.
1. Robert Buck is co-owner of the Buck Brothers Farm with Kirk Rhone
who is married to Buck’s sister.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 12
2. Fred Rhone is the brother of Kirk Rhone.
3. Donald Haynes and Helen Haynes are son and mother, and are
friends of the Buck and Rhone families.
35. At the January 3, 2006, reorganization meeting of Borough Council, Council
discussed ownership of Buck Road Bridge and approved a motion to apply for a
CDBG grant for repairs to the Buck Road Bridge.
a. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1 with Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone
abstaining.
b. Both Kirk Rhone and Robert Buck participated in discussions regarding
bridge ownership and grant application.
36. At the January 12, 2006, special meeting of Borough Council, a motion was made
to advertise for Engineers design for the Buck Road Bridge.
a. Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone abstained from voting.
b. The motion passed 4 to 1.
c. Councilmember Lou Gurske, who cast the dissenting vote, stated that a
conflict of interest existed.
37. The Borough advertised for the bridge upgrade design in the Wayne Independent
under legal notices.
a. The advertisement contained the following:
Starrucca Borough is requesting bids for a bridge upgrade design on
borough road 671, Buck Road, for specifications and information contact
570-727-2807. Sealed bids will be opened at the regular borough meeting
February 6, 2006 at 7 pm. Location: 1 Little Ireland Road. Please mail bids
to: Starrucca Borough, PO Box 83, Starrucca, PA 18462. Starrucca Borough
reserves the right to accept or reject all bids.
b. The telephone number listed, 570-727-2807, is the telephone number listed
for both Kirk Rhone and Robert Buck.
c. Interested bidders were provided information for the design quote by letter
dated January 21, 2006, signed by Kirk Rhone.
1. Both Buck’s and Rhone’s telephone number (570-727-2807) is listed
as a point of contact.
2. Rhone’s letter states that expected upgrade costs will be
approximately $60,000.
38. At the February 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council reviewed the only bid it
had received for the design of the Buck Road Bridge.
a. The sole bid was from Delta Engineers, in the amount of $16,500.00.
b. Kirk Rhone read Delta’s proposal into the record.
c. Kirk Rhone called for an executive session to review the bid.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 13
d. After objection from the audience, Council decided to hold a special public
meeting on February 10, 2006, to hear all concerns related to the project.
e. Robert Buck seconded the motion to hold the special meeting on February
10, 2006.
39. In or about January 2006 Borough Council formed a Bridge Committee for the
purpose of reviewing options related to Buck Bridge and Stefano Bridge.
a. Appointed to the Committee were Council President Kirk Rhone, Mayor Andy
Bennett and Darl Haynes.
1. Haynes is a Borough resident who has close personal ties to Robert
Buck and Kirk Rhone.
b. The action appointing Kirk Rhone, Andy Bennett and Darl Haynes to the
Bridge Committee occurred during Council’s reorganization meeting of
January 3, 2006.
1. Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone voted in favor of the motion, which
passed by a 6 to 1 vote.
40. No records exist of any meetings of the Bridge Committee.
a. Mayor Andy Bennett did not participate in any discussions and/or
recommendations made by the Bridge Committee.
b. Kirk Rhone and his appointee, Darl Haynes, made all decisions regarding
the Bridge Committee.
41. On February 8, 2006, two days prior to Council’s special meeting, Kirk Rhone
telephonically contacted David Kennicutt of Delta Engineers.
a. Kirk Rhone advised Kennicutt of the special meeting and inquired if Delta’s
price was firm.
b. Rhone asked about repair costs and if the prices would be less if
contingencies were not a factor.
c. Rhone would contact Kennicutt if Delta could proceed.
42. At the Borough Council special meeting on February 10, 2006, to discuss the Buck
Road Bridge rehabilitation, Bridge Committee member, Darl Haynes, made a
presentation regarding the status, costs and funding for the Buck Road Bridge.
a. Darl Haynes stated the following:
1. The original preliminary plan, at the cost of $3,000, was completed in
2004 and was paid for by landowners (Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone).
2. The Borough obtained a CDBG grant in January 2005 in the amount
of $25,000, which was sent back by the previous Borough Council.
3. A new CDBG grant was requested in the amount of $30,000.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 14
4. The cost to rehabilitate the Buck Road Bridge was to be
approximately $60,000.
5. If the Borough were to borrow $30,000 for ten years with a rate of
4.65%, the monthly payment would be $300.
6. The rehabilitation was to include a traveling width of fifteen feet,
guardrails, and a twenty-five ton limit.
aa. The rehabilitation plan cited by Haynes was the one sought by
Buck and Rhone.
b. Citizens in attendance questioned the Borough’s ability to pay for the Buck
Road Bridge project if grant funds were not received.
c. Questions were raised by meeting attendees whether the bridge belonged to
the County or the Borough.
d. Attendees requested Council to not commit $16,500 to Delta Engineers
without knowing if the Borough was going to receive a grant.
43. Darl Haynes telephoned Kennicutt of Delta on February 15, 2006, inquiring if the
costs of the bridge rehabilitation would increase if the weight unit was raised from
25 to 40 tons.
a. Buck and Rhone were interested in the weight limit increase so the bridge
could be utilized for heavy equipment.
b. Kennicutt told Haynes that it likely would cost an additional $4,000 to $5,000
due to additional concrete needed for the deck, rebar, etc.
c. Haynes was further told by Kennicutt that given the age of the abutments
and undermining, they would not recommend that loads exceeding 25 tons
be allowed on the bridge after it is repaired.
44. The Borough held a special meeting on February 16, 2006, for the purpose of
reviewing the bid from Delta Engineers for the design of the Buck Road Bridge
rehabilitation.
a. As President of Council, Kirk Rhone presided over the meeting.
b. Bridge Committee member Darl Haynes presented a financial analysis:
1. Haynes indicated that a $30,000 grant had been recommended for
award on the date of the meeting by the Wayne County
Commissioners.
aa. A letter from the Grant Manager with DCED to the Wayne
County Redevelopment Director dated June 1, 2006, in regard
to CDBG funding for the Buck Bridge stated as follows:
“The proposed activity, reconstruction of the Buck Bridge,
does not meet a National Objective as required for CDBG
funding…[I]n this case the bridge is in an inappropriate service
area. Buck Bridge and Erk Road presently have no outlet and
no dwelling units, LM/I or other.”
Rhone, 10-014
Page 15
2. Haynes also stated that there was $10,000 in the General Fund.
c. Considerable discussions occurred during the meeting regarding the
Borough’s ability to repay a loan for the bridge project.
d. Following the discussion regarding citizen requests to delay awarding the
contract to Delta until funds were approved, a motion was made by
Councilman Donald Haynes and seconded by Councilman Fred Rhone to
award the bid to Delta Engineers for the design of the bridge at the bid rate
of $16,500.00.
1. Fred Rhone is the brother of Kirk Rhone.
2. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
3. Both Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
45. On February 24, 2006, the Borough Council sent a letter to Congressman Donald
Sherwood seeking a $10,000 grant for the Buck Bridge Rehabilitation.
a. The letter is signed by Kirk Rhone.
46. On or about March 2, 2006, Borough Councilman Lou Gurske met with Delta
Engineer Kennicutt to protest the project.
a. Gurske was trying to stop progress on the design and construction of the
project.
b. Gurske told Kennicutt the following:
1. The Borough will go bankrupt if they try to fund this.
2. The bridge is not owned by the Borough, but by Wayne County.
3. The Feds will not approve this project and no grant will be issued.
4. Kirk Rhone has a conflict of interest in this bridge because he will
personally benefit.
5. An injunction is being sought to prevent the Borough from
constructing the bridge.
c. Gurske urged that Delta Engineers suspend work on the project to give him
and others time to legally stop the project.
47. On March 2, 2006, Kennicutt called Kirk Rhone to discuss Gurske’s visit to the
Delta Engineers office.
a. Rhone directed Kennicutt to stick to the original schedule and stated that the
bridge project will go on regardless of whether the grant is approved or not.
48. At the March 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, discussion relative to the Buck
Bridge and the Buck Road occurred.
a. The minutes contained the following: “Mr. Haynes made a motion to send a
grant proposal ($10,000) for additional funds towards the Buck’s Bridge,
Rhone, 10-014
Page 16
second Mr. F. Rhone, motion carried, except Mr. Gurske, who stated the
Board is ‘rushing in’.”
1. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
2. The grant application was ultimately denied by the State.
b. In response to questions regarding ownership of the Buck Road Bridge, Kirk
Rhone stated it is the Board’s opinion that the bridge is a Borough bridge.
c. Kirk Rhone also responded to questions regarding estimates for the repairs
to the Buck Bridge by advising residents that the Borough would pay the
$16,500 design fee as an in-kind contribution.
49. Capital improvements, including $1,300.00 of work on the Buck Road, were also
discussed at the March 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting.
a. The work that was performed on the Buck Road was changing of the
entrance of the road to make it easier for large trucks to access the road.
1. Rhone asserts that the work was done as required by PennDOT
specifications.
b. The meeting minutes contained the following: “Mr. Haynes made the motion
to hire Miller Brothers to perform the work with a cap of $9,800, second Mr.
Buck, motion carried, except Mr. Gurske, who was opposed, stating he
‘takes issue’ with work performed on Buck’s Road.”
1. Buck and Rhone voted to approve the motion.
50. At the Starrucca Borough Council meeting of April 5, 2006, motions were made to
send easements to the landowners involved in the Buck Bridge project and to apply
for all necessary permits concerning the project.
a. The meeting minutes contained the following: “The Buck Road/Bridge
Project was then discussed. Mr. F. Rhone made a motion to send
easements to the landowners involved, (Mr. and Mrs. K. Rhone, and Mr. and
Mrs. R. Buck). Second Mr. Haynes, motion carried. Mr. Gurske voting no.
Mr. F. Rhone made a motion to apply for all necessary permits concerning
the project, second Mr. Haynes, motion carried.”
b. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motions.
51. At the Borough Council special meeting of May 25, 2006, Kirk Rhone, as Council
President, stated to those in attendance that the Buck Bridge was a Borough
bridge. Minutes note the following:
a. When the issue of whether the Bridge was a County or Borough Bridge was
raised, President Rhone interjected stating the Board has addressed this
issue many times, and as far as they are concerned ‘it is a Borough bridge.’”
52. On June 5, 2006, a letter was sent by Kennicutt of Delta Engineers to the Borough
of Starrucca to the attention of Kirk Rhone, advising of increased construction costs
for the bridge repairs.
a. The letter states that the probable construction costs for the bridge repairs
were $60,000.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 17
b. The reasons for the increase in construction costs were explained as follows:
-- Additional environmental and erosion control measures required
under the pending permit to be issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection.
-- Severe undermining of the west abutment, which requires
construction of independent stub abutments for the bridge slab.
-- A longer and thicker bridge slab, required to span the new abutments.
-- Inflation.
53. Kirk Rhone served as the contact with the DEP for issues regarding the Buck
Bridge.
a. Kirk Rhone received a letter from the DEP Permitting and Technical Services
Section dated June 23, 2006, regarding the Borough’s submission of a
General Permit.
54. At the July 5, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council approved a motion to
advertise for bids from lending institutions to borrow up to $70,000 for the
reconstruction of Buck Road Bridge.
a. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
b. Buck voted in favor of the motion.
c. Although Kirk Rhone was present at the meeting, there is no record of him
abstaining from the vote.
d. Both Buck and Rhone participated in discussions leading up to the vote and
were in favor of borrowing the money.
55. On July 19, 2006, Dave Kennicutt of Delta informed Kirk Rhone of DEP’s review of
the bridge project and the condition of the bridge following local flooding.
a. Kennicutt advised Rhone that he had been trying to contact Peter Kawash of
DEP to discuss DEP comments.
b. Rhone informed Kennicutt that he has a contact who knows Kawash and will
see what he can do to expedite the resolution of DEP’s review.
56. At the August 2, 2006, Borough Council meeting, bids from lending institutions to
provide loans for reconstruction of Buck Road Bridge were opened and reviewed.
a. Bids were received from PennStar Bank, Penn Security, Peoples National
Bank, Honesdale National, Dime Bank, and Wayne Bank.
b. After discussion regarding the bids, a motion was made by Councilman
Donald Haynes to award the bid to PennStar Bank for a $15,000.00 loan and
a $70,000.00 loan at the fixed rate of 4.64%. The $70,000.00 loan was to be
used for the Buck Road Bridge. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Fred Rhone and carried with all Councilmembers voting in favor except for
Gurske.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 18
1. It was later decided by Council to not proceed with the $15,000.00
loan.
c. Both Kirk Rhone and Robert Buck participated in discussions and voted in
favor of the motion which passed by a 6 to 1 vote.
d. On September 6, 2006, Kirk Rhone, acting as Borough Council President,
signed PennStar Bank’s offer for the borrowing of the $70,000 for the bridge
project.
57. The terms of the loan provided for annual payment on the $70,000 loan of
$8,907.52 due in June of each year.
a. These payments represented between 19.28% and 25.28% of the total
Borough revenues based on reported revenues.
b. The percentage of the total yearly loan payments as compared to Borough
revenue for 2004, 2005, and 2006, is as follows:
Year Reported revenues Yearly loan payment Percentage of Borough’s total
yearly revenues
2004 $35,240.00 $8,907.52 25.28%
2005 $37,700.00 $8,907.52 23.63%
2006 $46,200.00 $8,907.52 19.28%
58. At the October 4, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council approved a motion to
begin the process to “close” on the $70,000 loan for the Buck Bridge project.
a. Both Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone voted in favor of the motion, which was
approved by a vote of 5 to 1.
59. Council approved advertising for an ordinance to borrow the $70,000.00 to repair
Buck Bridge at its December 6, 2006, meeting.
a. The motion approving the ordinance was seconded by Robert Buck.
b. The motion was approved by a 6 to 1 vote with both Buck and Kirk Rhone
voting with the majority.
60. At the December 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Borough citizens presented a
“Petition to Reject Starrucca Borough Taxpayer Funding of the Repair/Upgrade
Project to the Buck Road (Route No. T-671) Bridge that Crosses over the Starrucca
Creek on the Property of the Buck Brothers Farm.”
a. The petition contained the signatures of 68 Borough residents.
1. The Borough’s total population in 2006 was between 216 and 228
people.
b. The petition was not acknowledged or addressed by the Borough Council at
its December 6, 2006, meeting, or at any subsequent meetings.
61. At the January 3, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Ordinance No. 2007-01 was
approved and authorized the borrowing of $70,000 from PennStar Bank for the
construction, repair or replacement of Buck Bridge.
a. The minutes reflect the following:
Rhone, 10-014
Page 19
“Mr. Buck made a motion to adopt the ordinance to borrow the funds
($70,000 at the rate of 4.64%) for the repair or replacement of the Buck
Bridge. Mr. Gurske took issue with the word “replace” as he explained it left
an “open end” for the Borough to “spend even more money in the future”.
Mr. Haynes seconded the motion, motion carried. Mr. Gurske was opposed.”
b. Robert Buck motioned to adopt the ordinance to borrow the money for the
repair of Buck Bridge.
c. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the approval of the ordinance.
d. Kirk Rhone signed Ordinance No. 2007-01 as Borough Council President.
e. Robert Buck signed Ordinance No. 2007-01 as a Borough Councilmember.
62. The passage of Ordinance No. 2007-01 enabled the Borough to secure the
necessary funds to repair the Buck Road Bridge leading to property owned by
Councilmembers Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone.
a. The Borough did not have sufficient funds in any accounts to repair the
bridge.
1. The Borough did not have any reliable funding sources, other than the
$70,000 loan to fund the bridge repair.
b. The bridge would not have been repaired without the passage of Ordinance
2007-01.
63. On February 21, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development (DCED) approved the Borough to receive the $70,000 note pursuant
to the Local Government Unit Debt Act.
64. Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone participated in actions at the March 7, 2007, Borough
Council meeting to approve changes that were made to the Buck Road to allow for
an easier access for trucks on the road across the Buck Bridge.
a. The minutes contain the following:
“Mr. Buck made a motion to authorize the Borough Solicitor to draw
descriptions for the Borough roads, based on the survey (Butler Land
Surveying, LLC) and record the same in Wayne County. (The Stefano Road
and the Buck’s Road are ready, others to follow). Mr. Haynes seconded the
motion, motion carried. Mr. Gurske was opposed.”
b. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion, which was approved by a
6 to 1 vote.
65. A General Obligation Note was issued to the Borough by PennStar Government
Financial Services in the amount of $70,000 on March 15, 2007, for the Buck Bridge
project.
a. The General Obligation Note set forth the principal amount, the interest rate,
the issue date and the maturity date.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 20
b. The General Obligation Note set forth that commencing June 15, 2007, and
on the same day of each year thereafter, the Borough shall make payment of
$8,907.52, with the final payment due June 15, 2017.
c. The General Obligation Note was signed by Kirk Rhone, as President of
Council, and by Robert Buck as Councilman.
66. On April 10, 2007, Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone applied for subdivision approval to
Thompson Township.
a. Robert and Lillian Buck and Kirk and Alice Rhone applied to Thompson
Township for approval of a subdivision named “Buck-Rhone Subdivision” to
be built in Thompson Township on TR 671 (Buck Road) approximately 3000
feet from the Susquehanna County/Wayne County Line.
b. Access to the proposed subdivision would be by the Buck Road Bridge.
c. On August 23, 2007, the Thompson Township Planning Commission denied
the subdivision request, because a driveway permit could not be issued for
the subdivision.
1. A driveway permit could not be obtained because TR 671 had been
closed by Thompson Township.
2. TR 671 was temporarily closed in September 2004, because the
Township’s equipment could not cross the Buck Bridge because of
the weight restrictions on the Bridge.
d. After the repairs to the Buck Bridge were completed, Buck and Rhone did
not resubmit their subdivision application.
e. The subdivision has not been approved by Thompson Township and no
effort has been made to obtain a driveway permit by Buck and Rhone.
67. Kirk Rhone served as the Borough’s contact with PennDOT representatives
regarding use of Liquid Fuels funds and approval of the bridge design.
a. Kirk Rhone is listed on a project approval form dated July 6, 2006, as the
person interviewed regarding use of Liquid Fuels money.
1. Rhone asserts that Randy Decker, the Municipal Services
Representative for PennDOT, orally informed him that the use of the
Liquid Fuels money for the Buck Road Bridge was appropriate.
b. Kirk Rhone was the recipient of a fax dated July 9, 2007, from PennDOT
listing structural adequacy review comments and a letter from David
Kennicutt dated July 13, 2007, addressing the PennDOT comments.
68. On or about July 11, 2007, Robert Buck solicited potential bridge contractor
information from David Kennicutt of Delta Engineers.
a. Kennicutt sent a letter addressed to Robert Buck dated July 11, 2007,
providing a listing of five contractors: Fahs Construction, ProCon
Contracting, R. Devincentis Construction, Inc., Vector Construction
Corporation and Economy Paving Company, Inc.
b. The letter was addressed to Buck at his residence:
Rhone, 10-014
Page 21
Robert Buck
Buck Bros. Farms
P.O. Box 42
Starrucca, PA 18462
69. On August 1, 2007, Starrucca Borough Council approved a motion to solicit bids for
the Buck Bridge project.
a. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion, which was approved by a
6 to 1 vote.
70. Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone participated in the August 1, 2007, Borough Council
vote approving Resolution No. 2007-02 to officially accept the Bucks Falls Road,
Route 671, into the road system of the Borough.
a. Robert Buck made the motion and voted for the approval of the Resolution.
b. Kirk Rhone voted in favor of the motion to approve the Resolution.
c. Resolution No. 2007-02 was signed by Kirk Rhone, as Borough Council
President.
d. Resolution No. 2007-02 was also signed by Robert Buck as Councilmember.
71. At the September 5, 2007, Borough Council meeting, bids were opened for the
Buck Bridge project.
a. The bids received were as follows:
R. Devincentis Construction - $103,000
ProCon Contracting - $88,000
Leeward Construction - $198,200
Timz Construction - $85,000
b. After reviewing and discussing the bids, Council voted to reject all bids and
contact Delta Engineers to change the specifications and re-bid the project
at a later date.
c. Buck and Rhone participated in the vote to reject the bids.
72. On September 10, 2007, Darl Haynes contacted David Kennicutt of Delta Engineers
to discuss the reduction of the costs of the repairs to Buck Road Bridge.
a. Haynes explained that the low bid received on the Buck Road Bridge project
was $85,000 and that the next was $88,000. The others were in the
$105,000 to $198,000 range.
b. Haynes informed Kennicutt that the Borough was hoping to get the Bridge for
$70,000.
1. Council authorized the borrowing of $70,000 for the project.
c. Haynes wanted Delta to examine documents to see if anything could be
done to reduce the bid price and rebid.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 22
1. Haynes suggested removing gravel approach work, which he said
they could do themselves.
d. Kennicutt told Haynes that it was unlikely that they will get the project to
$70,000 even if the bidding climate improves.
e. Kennicutt further told Haynes that the Borough’s best bet was to narrow the
structure (reduce the width of the bridge).
1. Haynes told Kennicutt that this option isn’t even on the table.
2. Buck and Rhone needed the wider width to accommodate farm
equipment and heavy equipment due to a potential subdivision.
73. On September 13, 2007, a phone call occurred between Kennicutt and Darl Haynes
where they again discussed the Bridge project.
a. Kennicutt recommended the Borough accept the low bid and negotiate a
change order to have the approach and gabion work done by the Borough.
b. Haynes informed Kennicutt that all bids were already rejected and that they
will need to rebid.
c. Kennicutt explained that the reduction in scope may not get them down to
their $70,000 funding limit.
d. Haynes indicated that they may ask for donations from landowners on the
dead end side of the bridge.
74. On or about September 14, 2007, a supplemental agreement to the original
agreement with Delta Engineers for the Buck Bridge project was sent to the
Borough, which included the additional work to change the bid specifications for the
project.
a. The letter modified the original agreement between Delta and the Borough to
allow Delta to complete additional work relating to modifying the dates and
scope of the contract work for a rebid.
1. The approach work and gabion construction was deleted from the
proposal.
b. The total additional cost to the Borough was $400.00.
1. The total lump sum fee for Delta Engineers’ work on the Bridge was
increased from $16,500 to $16,900.
c. The agreement was signed for acceptance by Kirk Rhone as Borough
Council President.
75. On September 18, 2007, the Borough Council held a special meeting for the
purpose of reviewing and discussing the Buck Road Bridge rehabilitation project
and approving changes.
a. The amended contract with Delta Engineers was presented and approved by
Council to amend the bid specifications for the project by removing the
approach work and gabion work.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 23
1. The motion was made by Rhone and passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
2. Both Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
b. Also at the meeting Buck made a motion to re-bid the project with the
changes as outlined by Delta Engineers and set the bid opening for October
9, 2007.
1. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
76. Borough Council held a special meeting on October 9, 2007, to open the bids for
the Buck Road Bridge rehabilitation project.
a. The bids received were as follows:
ProCon Contracting - $72,000
Pioneer Construction - $108,710
R. Devincentis Construction - $87,850
Timz Construction - $81,200
b. Borough Council made the determination to hold a special meeting on
October 12, 2007, to further review and award the bid for the project.
77. At the October 12, 2007, Borough Council meeting, a contract for the construction
of the Buck Bridge project was awarded to ProCon Contracting in the amount of
$72,000.
a. The contract was awarded upon motion by Haynes and seconded by Rhone.
b. Both Buck and Rhone voted for the approval of the motion.
1. The vote to approve the contract was 4 to 1 with two Members absent.
2. Three of the four votes to approve were Buck, Rhone and Fred
Rhone, Kirk Rhone’s brother.
c. Prior to the vote, Kirk Rhone was questioned as to how the Borough plans to
come up with the money; Kirk Rhone responded that he felt the project is
“workable” using both general and state Liquid Fuels funds.
78. On October 25, 2007, an agreement between ProCon Construction and the
Borough to perform the construction for the Buck Bridge project for $72,000 was
signed into effect.
a. The agreement was signed by Kirk Rhone as Borough Council President.
79. At the November 7, 2007, Borough Council meeting, issues related to the Buck
Bridge project were discussed and addressed including the Borough purchasing
gabion materials and selecting a contractor to install the gabion.
a. Buck and Rhone participated in approving four motions to purchase
materials and approve a contractor.
b. Robert Buck made a motion to purchase materials for the Buck Road Bridge
Project starting with the gabion baskets from John Bonham Road Supplies.
1. Rhone seconded the motion.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 24
2. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1 with one Member absent.
3. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
c. A second motion was made by Haynes, which was seconded by Buck, to
purchase the gabion stone needed from Lanesboro Materials.
a. The motion passed by a 5 to 1 vote with one Member absent.
b. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
1. Also voting to approve the motions was Kirk Rhone’s brother,
Fred Rhone.
d. The third motion was made by Rhone and seconded by Haynes to hire Ozzie
Miller to perform the work on the gabion baskets and the approach work and
the remainder of the work for the Buck Road Bridge Project.
1. The motion was approved to a 5 to 1 vote.
2. Both Buck and Rhone voted in favor of the motion.
3. Gabion baskets were never installed on the Bridge.
e. Robert Buck made the motion to hire Blue Ridge Better Builders at the cost
of $3,000 to monitor the construction and oversee the Buck Road Bridge
Project, which was seconded by Rhone.
1. The motion was approved by a 5 to 1 vote.
2. Buck, Rhone along with Fred Rhone were three of the five votes in
favor of the motion.
3. The contract awarded to Blue Ridge Better Builders was not
competitively bid because it was below the required bidding threshold
set forth in the Borough Code.
4. There was no written contract for this service.
80. At the Borough Council’s May 7, 2008, meeting, Kirk Rhone made a motion and
voted to have a letter sent to Thompson Township alerting it that the Buck Road
Bridge would be complete at the end of May and Thompson Township would be
able to work its end of the road.
a. The minutes document that the Borough would inform Thompson Township
when the bridge would be usable.
b. At the time this motion was approved, Thompson Township’s section of Buck
Road was closed due to the poor condition of the Buck Bridge.
c. The closure of the road resulted in Buck’s and Rhone’s subdivision in
Thompson Township not having been approved because they were not able
to obtain a driveway permit.
81. The Buck Bridge construction was completed in the summer of 2008.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 25
a. The Borough held an opening ceremony for the Buck Road Bridge on July
18, 2008.
b. At the opening ceremony, Kirk Rhone was quoted in the Wayne
Independent, a local newspaper, as stating the following, “Since the bridge
was being fixed, Thompson Township has agreed to maintain their section of
the road. There are as many as four houses proposed on the road, which
were pending repair or replacement of the bridge. A subdivision is proposed
with three building lots and another man is waiting to build a house.”
1. The proposed subdivision referred to by Rhone is a subdivision
submitted by Buck and Rhone on their property.
2. Rhone asserts that he was misquoted in the Wayne Independent
article regarding the four houses proposed on the road.
82. Both Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone participated in actions of Council to approve
payments to contractors for services performed in relation to the repairs of the Buck
Road Bridge.
a. Buck and Rhone participated in issuing payments totaling $95,200 for
engineering and construction services related to Buck Bridge.
83. At the Borough Council’s June 4, 2008, meeting, the Borough voted to pay the bills
to ProCon and Blue Ridge Better Builders.
a. A motion was approved to pay $72,000 to ProCon and $3,000 to Blue Ridge
Better Builders.
1. ProCon provided an invoice dated May 13, 2008, to the Borough for
the rehabilitation of Buck Road Bridge over Starrucca Creek in the
amount of $72,000.
aa. $18,000 was to be paid to ProCon from the State Liquid Fuels
fund, and the remaining $57,000 due to ProCon and Blue
Ridge Better Builders would be paid from the Borough’s
General Fund.
2. Blue Ridge Better Builders had completed the inspection on Buck
Road Bridge.
aa. The Borough paid Blue Ridge Better Builders $3,000 for the
inspection.
b. The motion to pay ProCon and Blue Ridge Better Builders was made by
Haynes and seconded by Fred Rhone.
1. The motion passed by a 6 to 1 vote with Buck and Kirk Rhone voting
to approve.
84. Payment was issued as follows by the Borough to Blue Ridge Better Builders:
a. Check no. 895 in the amount of $3,000 was issued to Blue Ridge Better
Builders from the Borough’s General Fund on June 4, 2008.
1. The check was signed by Laura Travis, Treasurer, and Kirk Rhone.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 26
85. Payments were issued by the Borough to ProCon as follows:
a. Check no. 893 in the amount of $54,000 was issued to ProCon Construction
from the Borough’s General Fund on June 4, 2008.
1. The check was signed by Laura Travis, Treasurer, and Kirk Rhone.
b. Check No. 138 in the amount of $18,000 was issued to ProCon Contractors
from the Borough’s State Liquid Fuels account on June 4, 2008.
1. The check was signed by Laura Travis, Treasurer, and Kirk Rhone.
86. Miller Brothers Earthmovers was hired by the Borough to complete approach work
on the Bridge.
a. Ozzie Miller, owner of Miller Brothers Earthmovers, is a business associate
of Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone.
b. Miller Brothers Earthmovers placed rip rap stone and built up a wall on the
approach to the bridge.
c. The Borough paid Ozzie Miller/Miller Bros. Earthmovers $3,300 for work on
the Buck Road Bridge and to prepare for paving.
87. Delta Engineers was paid a total of $16,900.00 for work completed on the Buck
Road Bridge.
a. Rhone voted to approve payments to Delta on at least four occasions
totaling at least $16,500.
b. Rhone signed all Borough checks issued to Delta for work completed on the
Buck Road Bridge.
88. Starrucca Borough has made the following payments to PennStar Bank for the loan
for the repairs to Buck Road Bridge:
Check
Check Date No. Amount Signed
6/6/2007 786 $ 8,907.52 K. Rhone, Travis
7/2/2008 901 $ 8,907.52 K. Rhone, Travis
6/4/2009 989 $ 8,907.52 K. Rhone, Travis
8/2/2010 1176 $ 3,552.80 Martin, Schneyer
a. A payment of only $3,552.80 was made on the loan in 2010 by the Borough.
No additional payment has been made as of the beginning of April 2011 on
the loan.
89. The Borough is required to pay $70,000 principal, and $19,075.15 on the PennStar
loan.
a. As of 2011, the Borough paid $30,275.36 on the PennStar loan.
b. Late fees totaling $890.76 were assessed to the Borough relative to the
PennStar loan.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 27
1. The first late fee was assessed on June 30, 2008, in the amount of
$445.38.
2. The second late fee was assessed to the Borough on June 30, 2010,
in the amount of $445.38.
90. The Borough received the following donations from private individuals to assist
paying for the Buck Road Bridge repairs.
Donations:
Check
Date No. Amount Contributor
5/20/2008 1398 $ 1,000.00 Boy Scouts of America, Vestal, NY
5/31/2008 11613 $ 8,000.00 Buck Brothers Farm, Kirk Rhone and Robert Buck
6/1/2008 8177 $ 3,000.00 J.D. Sanderson, D.M.D.
6/5/2008 2186 $10,000.00 Root's Tax Service, Jacqueline A. Root
91. On February 26, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, Office
of Special Investigations, initiated an investigation of Starrucca Borough’s Buck
Road Bridge Renovation Project.
a. The Special Investigation, which was completed in August 2009, found that
Starrucca Borough Council approved the Buck Road Bridge renovation
project, which resulted in a substantial benefit to two Members of Borough
Council, without regard to other pressing needs of the Borough and the cost
to the citizens of the Borough.
b. The report concluded that the actions of two Members of Borough Council
(Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone) may constitute a conflict of interest under
Pennsylvania law.
c. The attorney for Robert Buck and Kirk Rhone provided a written response to
the Auditor General’s Special Investigation Report.
1. Their attorney wrote, “While in hindsight Rhone and Buck should
probably have abstained on the Buck Bridge resolution, any
perceived conflict must still be approached with a “but for” or
“materiality” analysis.”
92. Kirk Rhone provided information to the Department of Auditor General pursuant to
that agency’s investigation of the Buck Bridge project. Rhone provided:
?
He worked as a dairy farmer for 42 years and he is now retired.
?
He and his brother-in-law, Robert Buck, operated Buck Brothers Farm in
Starrucca since 1973.
?
Buck Brothers Farm is a partnership in which he is a 50% owner and his
brother-in-law Robert Buck owns the other 50%.
?
He was appointed to Starrucca Borough Council in December of 2004 and
he has been President of Starrucca Borough Council since January of 2006.
?
The bridge was built in 1926 and Starrucca Borough has maintained the
bridge since then.
?
Starrucca Borough owns the bridge and last made repairs to the bridge in
1986. The recent repairs in question have been completed. These repairs
include a poured concrete deck.
?
The bridge is now open for travel and is being used.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 28
?
He and Buck and their spouses are co-owners of land in both Starrucca,
Wayne County and Thompson Township that is directly accessible by the
Buck Bridge and Buck Road.
?
With the completion of the Buck Road Bridge, the Buck and Rhone families
are in the process of subdividing two parcels of land for use by their children
and two parcels for family use.
?
The Rhone and Buck families are not currently marketing any of their land in
the near future.
?
The land being subdivided for his daughter and the daughter of Robert and
Lillian Buck is in Thompson Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.
?
He and Robert Buck and their wives are the only affiants that own land in
Starrucca Borough, Wayne County, Pennsylvania. Rhone stated that all of
the other affiants own land that is located in Thompson Township,
Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania only.
?
He and Buck have received approval for subdividing two parcels of their land
located in Thompson Township, Susquehanna County.
?
Rhone stated that the original plan for this subdivision was for each of their
daughters to build houses, but the daughters do not have the money to build
these houses at the present time.
?
Rhone stated that the total acreage in both counties owned by him and Buck
is about 763 acres.
?
His involvement with the application process for the Borough’s loan at the
PennStar Bank for the financing of the Buck Bridge project was limited to
working with the Borough’s Secretary/Treasurer and meeting with bank
representatives, but Rhone could not remember the names of the bank
representatives.
?
He hopes that the Borough can pay the $8,907.52 annual payment on this
loan for the next ten years out of general funds and he hopes that the
Borough will not have to raise taxes in order to pay off this loan.
?
The Borough will raise taxes if increased revenue is required to pay off this
loan.
?
Rhone told OSI that the Borough has not applied for authorization to use
Liquid Fuels funds for paying of this loan.
?
He and Robert Buck, d/b/a Buck Brothers Farm, made a contribution in the
amount of $8,000 in April or May of 2008 to Starrucca Borough for the
funding of the Buck Bridge project and paying off the bank loan for this
project. This payment was made with a check drawn on the Buck Brothers
Farm checking account.
93. On October 20, 2009, the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General
conducted a review of the Borough’s use of the Liquid Fuels Tax money.
a. The report made four findings, three of which were directly related to
$18,000 paid to ProCon Contracting on June 4, 2008, for its work on the
repair of the Buck Road Bridge:
1. Finding No. 2: the Borough expended $18,000 from its Liquid Fuels
Tax Fund without filing a final completion report with PennDOT.
2. Finding No. 3: the Borough failed to receive prior approval of the
Department of Transportation before expending $18,000 for the
renovation of the Buck Road Bridge.
3. Finding No. 4: the Borough’s payment of $18,000 for the renovation of
Buck Road Bridge resulted in a substantial benefit to two Members of
Rhone, 10-014
Page 29
Borough Council, without regard to other pressing needs of the
Borough and the cost to the citizens of the Borough.
b. The report was distributed to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department
of Transportation.
c. On December 14, 2010, Bryan T. Hanisko, Division Chief of the Financial
Consulting Division of PennDOT’s Bureau of Municipal Services, sent a
letter to the Borough regarding the Auditor General’s report.
1. The letter noted that PennDOT determined that the Borough should
reimburse its Liquid Fuels Tax Fund in the amount of $18,000.
2. The letter also noted that future Liquid Fuels allocations would be
contingent upon proper reimbursement.
94. The following chart delineates the uses of the authority of his public position by Kirk
Rhone to facilitate the repairs to Buck Road Bridge, the only access to property he
jointly owns with Robert Buck:
Date Issue Uses of Office
1/3/2005 Discussion regarding funding and Engaged in discussion.
the preliminary plan for Buck
Bridge.
1/12/2005 Discussed the design costs for Engaged in discussion.
Buck Bridge and how they would
be paid.
Moved and voted in favor.
Motion to purse a CDBG grant for
Buck Bridge.
5/2/2005 Motion to temporarily close Buck Voted against closing the Bridge
Bridge to prevent access for safety and was the determinative vote.
reasons.
12/20/2005 Phone call with Kennicutt of Delta Spoke with Kennicutt regarding
Engineers. Borough’s interest in moving
forward with Buck Bridge project.
12/22/2005 Phone call with Kennicutt of Delta Spoke with Kennicutt regarding
Engineers. increased construction costs.
Said he would speak to Council
and get back to Kennicutt in
January.
1/3/2006 Discussion regarding bridge Participated in discussions.
ownership and the grant
application.
Voted in favor.
Vote to appoint Kirk Rhone, Darl
Haynes, and Andy Bennett to the
Bridge Committee.
1/21/2006 Newspaper advertisement and Wrote letter and used his phone
letter soliciting bids for bridge number as a contact.
upgrade design.
2/6/2006 Reviewed the bid received for the Called an executive session.
Engineering work on Buck Bridge. Read the proposal into the
record.
2/8/2006 Phone call with Kennicutt of Delta Spoke with Kennicutt regarding
Engineers. the price of the proposal. Told
Rhone, 10-014
Page 30
Kennicutt he would call Delta if
they can proceed.
2/10/2006 Bridge committee presented Participated as a member of the
information regarding the Delta Bridge Committee in presenting
Engineers’ preliminary plan, the the information regarding the
CDBG grant, a new CDBG grant, Buck Bridge.
the costs to rehabilitate the Buck Commented in favor of the Bridge
Bridge, the monthly payment, and rehabilitation.
the details of the rehabilitation.
2/16/2006 Motion to award bid to Delta Engaged in significant discussion
Engineers at cost of $16,500. regarding financing and repairs
to Buck Bridge. Seconded and
voted in favor.
2/24/2006 Letter from Borough to Signed the letter.
Congressman Donald Sherwood
seeking $10,000 grant.
3/2/2006 Phone call with Kennicutt of Delta Spoke with Kennicutt regarding
Engineers. Lou Gurske’s visit to the Delta
Engineers’ office where Gurske
indicated that Rhone has a
conflict of interest. Told Kennicutt
to stick to the original schedule,
and that the bridge project would
go on regardless of whether a
grant is approved.
3/6/2006 Motion to send grant proposal for Seconded and voted in favor.
additional funds for Buck Bridge.
Motion to hire Miller Brothers to Voted in favor.
perform work on the Buck Road.
4/5/2005 Motion to send easements to Made motion and voted in favor.
landowners involved in the Buck
Road/Bridge Project.
Made motion and voted in favor.
Motion to apply for all necessary
permits concerning the project.
5/25/2006 Discussion related to Buck’s Road Interjected and stated that the
entrance work and whether the Board has addressed this issue,
Buck Bridge is a County or and as far as they are concerned,
Borough Bridge. it is a Borough bridge.
6/7/2006 Motion to pay $4,950 to Delta Voted in favor.
Engineers.
$4,950 check to Delta Engineers. Signed check.
7/5/2006 Motion to advertise for bids from No record of Rhone abstaining
lending institutions to borrow from the vote.
$70,000 for Buck Bridge.
Motion to pay $5,000 and $4,075 Made motion and voted in favor.
to Delta Engineers.
Signed check.
$5,000 check to Delta Engineers.
Signed check.
$4,075 check to Delta Engineers.
7/19/2006 Phone call with Kennicutt of Delta Spoke with Kennicutt regarding
Engineers. the Bridge’s condition after a
Rhone, 10-014
Page 31
recent flood.
8/2/2006 Motion to award bid to PennStar Seconded and voted in favor.
Bank for $70,000 loan at 4.64% for
Buck Bridge.
9/6/2006 PennStar Bank’s offer for the Signed PennStar’s offer.
borrowing of $70,000 for the Buck
Bridge.
10/4/2006 Motion to close on the $70,000 Voted in favor.
loan for the Buck Bridge.
12/6/2006 Motion to advertise an ordinance to Voted in favor.
borrow $70,000 for the Buck
Bridge.
1/3/2007 Motion to approve Ordinance Voted in favor. Signed Ordinance
authorizing the borrowing of as Borough Council President.
$70,000 for construction, repair, or
replacement of Buck Bridge.
3/7/2007 Motion to authorize Solicitor to Voted in favor.
draw description for the Borough
Roads, including Buck Road.
3/15/2007 General Obligation Note issued to Signed General Obligation Note
Borough by PennStar Government as Borough Council President.
Financial Services for $70,000.
6/6/2007 $8,907.52 check to PennStar Bank Signed check.
for loan payment for Buck Bridge.
7/11/2007 Fax to Kennicutt regarding Bridge Faxed information to Kennicutt.
Unit Review Comments.
8/1/2007 Motion to solicit bids for Buck Made motion and voted in favor.
Bridge project.
Voted in favor. Signed Resolution
Motion to approve Resolution as Borough Council President.
officially accepting Bucks Falls
Road into the Borough’s road
system.
9/5/2007 Review of submitted bids and Voted in favor of rejecting bids.
motion to reject all bids and
change specifications.
9/14/2007 Supplemental agreement from Signed for acceptance of
Delta Engineers for Buck Bridge supplemental agreement.
project for additional work to
change the bid specifications.
9/18/2007 Motion to accept amended contract Moved and voted in favor.
with Delta Engineers amending the
bid specifications by removing the
approach work and gabion work.
Motion to re-bid the project with the Voted in favor.
changes and set the bid opening
for October 9, 2007
10/3/2007 Subdivision in the name of Abstained.
Buck/Rhone presented and
approved by Borough Council.
10/12/2007 Motion to award construction for Seconded and voted in favor.
Buck Bridge project to ProCon. Answered question as to how
Borough plans to come up with
the money and says the project is
“workable” using general and
Rhone, 10-014
Page 32
state Liquid Fuels funds.
$400 check to Delta Engineers Signed check.
10/25/2007 Agreement between ProCon Signed as Borough Council
Construction and the Borough to President.
perform construction work on Buck
Bridge for $72,000.
11/7/2007 Motion to purchase materials for Seconded and voted in favor.
Buck Bridge.
Motion to purchase gabion stone Voted in favor.
for the Buck Bridge.
Motion to hire Ozzie Miller to Moved and voted in favor.
perform work on the gabion
baskets, approach work, and the
remainder of the work for the Buck
Bridge.
Seconded and voted in favor.
Motion to hire Blue Ridge Better
Builders to monitor construction
and oversee the Buck Bridge
Project.
12/5/2007 Motion to pay $2,475 to Delta Voted in favor.
Engineers.
$2,475 check to Delta Engineers. Signed check.
5/7/2008 Motion to send letter to Thompson Moved and voted in favor.
Township telling them the Buck
Bridge will be complete at the end
of May and Thompson Township
would be able to work their end of
the road.
6/4/2008 Motion to pay $72,000 to ProCon Voted in favor.
and $3,000 to Blue Ridge Better
Builders for work on the Buck
Bridge.
Signed check.
$3,000 check issued to Blue Ridge
Better Builders for work on the
Buck Bridge.
Signed checks.
$54,000 check and $18,000 check
issued to ProCon Contractors for
work on Buck Bridge.
7/2/2008 $8,907.52 check to PennStar Bank Signed check.
for loan payment for Buck Bridge.
8/6/2008 $2,500 check to Miller Bros Earth Signed check.
Movers.
6/4/2009 $8,907.52 check to PennStar Bank Signed check.
for loan payment for Buck Bridge.
8/5/2009 $800.00 check to Miller Bros. Earth Signed check.
Movers.
a. Rhone’s only abstentions during the entire time period when the Buck Road
Bridge was being acted on by Council occurred in 2006 when he abstained
Rhone, 10-014
Page 33
from votes to apply for grants and to advertise for the selections of
engineers.
b. Neither Buck nor Rhone ever requested a written legal opinion from the
Borough Solicitor or an advisory opinion from the State Ethics Commission
as to whether they had a conflict of interest.
1. The issue of a conflict of interest was raised throughout the time when
the Borough was addressing the Buck Bridge repairs.
c. Rhone asserts that, with the exception of the May 2, 2005, vote to
temporarily close the Buck Bridge, his vote was never the deciding vote as to
issues with the Buck Bridge repair.
1. In determining whether a violation of the conflict of interest provisions
of the Ethics Act has occurred, it is not relevant whether a vote was
the deciding vote.
d. Rhone asserts that the rehabilitation of the Buck Bridge benefitted other
users of the bridge including the general public and landowners in
Thompson Township, and that Thompson Township received state liquid
fuels tax money for maintenance of the portion of the road accessible by the
Buck Bridge located in Thompson Township.
1. Although Rhone asserts that the bridge is open to the general public,
no individuals benefitted to the same degree as Buck and Rhone as a
result of the Buck Bridge rehabilitation.
95. The Investigative Division asserts that Kirk Rhone realized a private pecuniary gain
when he used his position as a Borough Council Member to further the
rehabilitation of Buck Road Bridge.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT KIRK RHONE FAILED
TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR THE 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
AND 2009 CALENDAR YEARS.
96. In his official capacity as a Borough Councilmember, Rhone was required to file a
Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) form by May 1 annually containing
information for the prior calendar year.
97. In or about May 2010, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
conducted a SFI Compliance Review of Starrucca Borough.
98. On May 18, 2010, the Starrucca Borough Secretary/Treasurer provided to the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission the following Statement of
Financial Interests filed by Kirk Rhone with Starrucca Borough:
a. The only SFI on file with the Borough for Kirk Rhone was for the 2004
calendar year and dated February 25, 2005.
b. The SFI disclosed the following:
Occupation: Dairy farmer
Direct/Indirect Sources of Income: Buck Bros. Farm
Office, Directorship, Employment: Farmer, Partnership (50/50)
Rhone, 10-014
Page 34
Financial Interest in any legal entity in business for profit: Buck Bros. Farm
50%
99. No SFIs are on file with Starrucca Borough for Kirk Rhone for calendar years 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
100. Kirk Rhone received $160.00 in compensation in 2009 for his services as a
Starrucca Borough Councilmember, although no SFI was filed for Rhone for 2009.
a. Rhone did not receive compensation in any other year for his services as a
Starrucca Borough Councilmember.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Member of Borough Council for Starrucca Borough (“Borough”) since
approximately December 2004, Respondent Kirk Rhone, hereinafter also referred to as
“Respondent,” “Respondent Rhone,” and “Rhone,” has been a public officialsubject to the
provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101
et seq.
The allegations are that Rhone violated Sections 1103(a) and 1104(a) of the Ethics
Act: (1) when he participated in discussions and actions of the Borough Council to
authorize repairs and/or improvements to a bridge using Borough funds for the benefit of
Rhone and/or members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business with
which he is associated; and (2) when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests
(“SFIs”) for the 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a)Conflict of interest.—
No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict" or "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. The term does not include an action
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 35
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from
using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee
must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that
he holds the position and the year after he leaves it.
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
Respondent Rhone served as a member of Borough Council since approximately
December 2004. Respondent served as President of Borough Council continuously since
January 2006. Borough Council consists of seven Members.
Respondent and his wife, Alice K. Rhone, are 50% owners of the “Buck Brothers
Farm,” which encompasses in excess of 450 acres located in the Borough and Thompson
Township (“Township”). Respondent’s brother-in-law, Robert Buck, and Robert Buck’s
wife, Lillian S. Buck, are the other 50% owners of the farm. Robert and Lillian Buck and
Respondent and Alice Rhone have owned the parcel where the Buck Brothers Farm is
located since 1974.
Starrucca Creek and Route 671 cross in a portion of the Buck Brothers Farm that is
located in the Borough and Wayne County. A bridge referred to as “Buck Road Bridge,”
“Buck Bridge,” “Erk Bridge,” or “Erk Road Bridge” is located on Route 671 where it crosses
the Starrucca Creek. The only access to the Buck Brothers Farm is Buck Road Bridge via
Route 671.
The parties have identified various sections of Route 671 as set forth in Fact
Findings 9 a-d. The section of Route 671 identified as “Section 1” is located in the Borough
and passes through the Buck Brothers Farm. Section 1 contains the Buck Road Bridge.
The section of Route 671 identified as “Section 2” begins at the Borough/Township line
and runs westerly through the Buck Brothers Farm for approximately 1.3 miles. Section 2
is located entirely in the Township and comes to a dead end on the Buck Brothers Farm.
There are no residences located along Section 2.
The only real estate parcels located in the Borough that would be accessed by
Route 671 are those parcels owned by Respondent and Robert Buck. Buck Road Bridge
is used nearly exclusively by Respondent, Robert Buck, and Buck Brothers Farm.
Until 2006, the Buck Road Bridge was inspected approximately every two years by
the Wayne County Engineer. From 1991 on, the Wayne County Engineer consistently
recommended that the bridge should be subject to a three-ton weight limit. The bridge
inspection reports from 2000 through 2005 indicated that the Buck Road Bridge was
located on a dead end road that serviced one farm, the bridge had no railing, the original
steel pipe railing had been torn off (removed by Respondent and Robert Buck to
accommodate farm equipment), and the bridge deck was narrow.
In 2004, the Township Supervisors began discussing vacating/closing Section 2 of
Route 671 due to the poor condition of the Buck Road Bridge. At that time, the Township
road maintenance vehicles and the Buck Brothers Farm equipment needed to maintain the
farm weighed significantly more than the three-ton weight limit that was posted on the Buck
Road Bridge.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 36
The Bucks and Rhones opposed the closing. If Section 2 of Route 671 were
closed, the Bucks and Rhones would have to maintain the road themselves to keep it in a
usable condition. Respondent and Robert Buck sought to have the Township initiate
repairs to the bridge, but the Township refused. On September 7, 2004, the Township
Supervisors voted to temporarily close Section 2 of Route 671 until the Buck Road Bridge
was repaired or replaced so that Township road maintenance equipment could safely
traverse the bridge.
In November 2004 Respondent and Robert Buck, acting as representatives of Buck
Brothers Farm, met with David Kennicutt (“Kennicutt”) of Delta Engineers (“Delta”)
regarding the Buck Road Bridge. Respondent and Robert Buck indicated that they wished
for the load capacity of the bridge to be increased in order to support heavy truck traffic.
They authorized Delta to prepare a preliminary study with options for repairs to the Buck
Road Bridge. Buck Brothers Farm paid for the study, which was completed on December
9, 2004. The preliminary study presented two alternatives for repairing the Buck Road
Bridge. Alternative 1 for “Rehabilitation Utilizing Existing Concrete Slab as a Structural
Member” had a total estimated cost of approximately $36,000. Alternative 2 to “Construct
New Slab over Existing” had a total estimated cost of approximately $60,000.
On December 30, 2004, Darl Haynes, a close friend of Respondent and Robert
Buck, informed Kennicutt that the decision was made by Respondent and Robert Buck to
pursue Alternative 2, the more expensive option with more extensive repairs. Darl Haynes
requested that Kennicutt attend a Borough Council meeting in February 2005 to present
the study to Council.
Since at least January 2005 Respondent participated as a Borough Councilman in
discussions and actions of Borough Council relating to repairs to the Buck Road Bridge.
In 2005, it was the position of the Borough Solicitor that the Buck Road Bridge was
a County bridge, and therefore it was the responsibility of the County to repair the bridge.
However, the Borough had incurred costs to repair the bridge since at least 1986. The
County asserted that the Buck Road Bridge was a Borough bridge and refused to pay for
repairs. Respondent was an advocate of the Borough assuming ownership of the bridge
and the responsibility for maintaining and repairing the bridge.
At a Borough Council meeting on January 3, 2005, the Buck Road Bridge was
discussed. Respondent reported to Borough Council that the Borough was eligible to
apply for a grant and that the bridge would cost approximately $40,000 to $50,000, with
design costs of $10,000 to $11,000 paid privately. Respondent reported that a preliminary
plan would be presented by Delta at the February meeting.
At a Borough Council meeting on January 12, 2005, Respondent advised that
design costs for the Buck Road Bridge would be paid for privately and that the costs for
permits should come off the cost of the bridge. After further discussion, Respondent made
a motion to pursue a Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) for Buck Road
Bridge. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1. The events that occurred at this meeting
were later rescinded by Borough Council as having been in violation of the Sunshine Law.
On January 14, 2005, Respondent advised Kennicutt that he wanted Delta to
present Alternative 2, the more expensive option, to the Borough Council. Respondent
further told Kennicutt that he wanted Alternative 1 to be “set aside.”
On January 25, 2005, Darl Haynes spoke with Kennicutt on behalf of Respondent
and Robert Buck regarding presenting the study to Borough Council. According to
Kennicutt’s notes from the conversation, Darl Haynes wanted Kennicutt to speak with
authority and reassure the Board that the project was a viable solution that met the Board’s
Rhone, 10-014
Page 37
objectives. Darl Haynes also asked Kennicutt questions regarding the suitability of the
bridge rehabilitation for a major development or truck traffic related to gravel mining.
At the February 7, 2005, Borough Council Meeting, Kennicutt presented to Council
the preliminary plan for the Buck Road Bridge. Delta’s preliminary study was presented to
Council so that Council would pay for the costs to improve the bridge.
At the May 2, 2005, Borough Council meeting, Councilman Robert Weldy made a
motion to temporarily close the Buck Road Bridge to prevent public access for safety
reasons. The motion was seconded by Councilman Lou Gurske (“Gurske”) and resulted in
a 3-3 tie vote, with Councilman Paul Everett abstaining. Respondent voted against the
temporary closing of the bridge. The Mayor was asked to vote because of the tie and
voted no. If not for the vote of Respondent, the Buck Road Bridge would have been closed
at the May 2, 2005 meeting.
In December 2005 Respondent informed Kennicutt that the Borough was interested
in moving forward with the Buck Road Bridge project. However, at that time, no formal
action had been taken by the Borough to proceed with the project. Kennicutt provided
Respondent with updated design fee and cost information. Respondent told Kennicutt that
he would discuss the information with Council and get back to Kennicutt in early January.
In January 2006, the makeup of Borough Council changed substantially. New
Members of Council included friends or family members of Respondent who were
supportive of the Borough incurring the costs to upgrade the Buck Road Bridge. Beginning
in January 2006, Borough Council was comprised of the following individuals: Robert
Buck, Respondent, Fred Rhone, Donald Haynes, Helen Haynes, Anthony Palonis, and
Gurske. Fred Rhone is the brother of Respondent. Donald Haynes and Helen Haynes are
son and mother, and are friends of the Buck and Rhone families.
At the January 3, 2006, reorganization meeting of Borough Council, Council
discussed ownership of Buck Road Bridge and approved a motion to apply for a CDBG
grant for repairs to the Buck Road Bridge. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1 with
Respondent and Robert Buck abstaining from the vote. Both Respondent and Robert
Buck participated in discussions regarding bridge ownership and grant application.
Borough Council also formed a Bridge Committee for the purpose of reviewing options
related to Buck Road Bridge and another bridge. Respondent and Robert Buck voted in
favor of the motion to appoint Respondent, the Mayor, and Darl Haynes to the Bridge
Committee, which motion passed by a 6 to 1 vote. No records exist of any meetings of the
Bridge Committee. The Mayor did not participate in any discussions and/or
recommendations made by the Bridge Committee. Respondent and Darl Haynes made all
decisions regarding the Bridge Committee.
At the January 12, 2006, special meeting of Borough Council, a motion was made to
advertise for bids for the bridge upgrade design for the Buck Road Bridge. Respondent
and Robert Buck abstained from voting. The motion passed 4 to 1. Gurske, who cast the
dissenting vote, stated that a conflict of interest existed.
The Borough advertised for the bridge upgrade design, listing Respondent’s and
Robert Buck’s telephone number as a point of contact. Interested bidders were provided
information for the design quote by a letter dated January 21, 2006, signed by
Respondent.
At the February 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council reviewed the only bid it
had received for the design of the Buck Road Bridge, which was from Delta and was in the
amount of $16,500. Respondent read Delta’s proposal into the record. Respondent called
for an executive session to review the bid. After objection from the audience, Council
Rhone, 10-014
Page 38
decided to hold a special public meeting on February 10, 2006, to hear all concerns
related to the project.
On February 8, 2006, Respondent advised Kennicutt of the special meeting and
inquired if Delta’s price was firm.
At Borough Council’s special meeting on February 10, 2006, Bridge Committee
member Darl Haynes reported that a new CDBG grant in the amount of $30,000 had been
requested for the Buck Road Bridge and that the cost to rehabilitate the Buck Road Bridge
would be approximately $60,000, with the rehabilitation to include a traveling width of
fifteen feet, guardrails, and a twenty-five ton limit. Meeting attendees raised questions
regarding the ownership of the Buck Road Bridge and the Borough’s ability to pay for the
Buck Road Bridge project if grant funds were not received. Attendees asked Council to not
commit $16,500 to Delta without knowing if the Borough was going to receive a grant.
On February 15, 2006, Darl Haynes asked Kennicutt whether the costs of the bridge
rehabilitation would increase if the weight limit was raised from 25 to 40 tons. Respondent
and Robert Buck were interested in the weight limit increase so the bridge could be utilized
for heavy equipment. Kennicutt told Haynes that increasing the weight limit to 40 tons
would likely cost an additional $4,000 to $5,000, but would not be recommended.
At a special meeting of Borough Council on February 16, 2006, Bridge Committee
member Darl Haynes reported that per the Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development, the proposed reconstruction of the Buck Bridge did not meet
requirements for CDBG funding. Considerable discussions occurred during the meeting
regarding the Borough’s ability to repay a loan for the bridge project. Following discussion
regarding citizen requests to delay awarding the contract to Delta until funds were
approved, a motion was made by Donald Haynes and seconded by Fred Rhone to award
the bid to Delta for the design of the bridge at the bid rate of $16,500. The motion passed
by a vote of 5 to 1 with Respondent and Robert Buck voting in favor of the motion.
On February 24, 2006, Borough Council sent a letter signed by Respondent to
Congressman Donald Sherwood, seeking a $10,000 grant for the Buck Bridge
rehabilitation.
On or about March 2, 2006, Gurske met with Kennicutt at the Delta office. Gurske
indicated that no grant would be issued and that Respondent had a conflict of interest.
Gurske urged that Delta suspend work on the project to give Gurske and others time to
legally stop the project. That same day, Kennicutt called Respondent to discuss Gurske’s
visit. Respondent directed Kennicutt to stick to the original schedule and stated that the
bridge project would go on regardless of whether the grant was approved.
At a March 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Respondent and Robert Buck voted
in favor of a motion to apply for an additional $10,000 of grant funding for the Buck Road
Bridge. The grant application was ultimately denied by the Commonwealth.
Also at the March 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Respondent answered
questions regarding ownership of the Buck Road Bridge by stating that it was the Board’s
opinion that the bridge is a Borough bridge. Respondent responded to questions
regarding estimates for the repairs to the Buck Bridge by advising residents that the
Borough would pay the $16,500 design fee. Capital improvements, including work on
Buck Road to make it easier for large trucks to access the road, were also discussed at the
March 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting. Respondent asserts that the work was done as
required by specifications of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”).
Per the meeting minutes, Robert Buck seconded a motion to hire Miller Brothers to
perform the work, and both Respondent and Robert Buck voted to approve the motion.
The motion carried with Gurske opposed.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 39
At the Borough Council meeting on April 5, 2006, Respondent and Robert Buck
voted in favor of motions to send easements to the landowners involved in the Buck Road
Bridge project and to apply for all necessary permits concerning the project.
At the Borough Council special meeting on May 25, 2006, the issue of whether the
Buck Road Bridge was a County or Borough Bridge was again raised, and Respondent as
Council President again stated that the Buck Road Bridge was a Borough bridge.
On June 5, 2006, Kennicutt sent a letter to the Borough to the attention of
Respondent regarding increased construction costs for the Buck Road Bridge repairs due
in part to additional environmental and erosion control measures required by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Respondent served as the
contact with DEP for issues regarding the Buck Road Bridge.
Respondent also served as the Borough’s contact with PennDOT representatives
regarding use of Liquid Fuels funds and approval of the Buck Road Bridge design.
Respondent is listed on a project approval form dated July 6, 2006, as the person
interviewed regarding use of Liquid Fuels money. Respondent asserts that the Municipal
Services Representative for PennDOT orally informed him that the use of the Liquid Fuels
money for the Buck Road Bridge was appropriate.
At the July 5, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council approved a motion to
advertise for bids from lending institutions to borrow up to $70,000 for the reconstruction of
Buck Road Bridge. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 1. Both Respondent and Robert
Buck participated in discussions leading up to the vote and were in favor of borrowing the
money. Robert Buck voted in favor of the motion. Respondent was present at the
meeting, and there is no record of him abstaining from the vote.
At the August 2, 2006, Borough Council meeting, bids from lending institutions were
opened and reviewed. After discussion regarding the bids, Council approved a motion to
award the bid to PennStar Bank for two loans, including a $70,000 loan to be used for the
Buck Road Bridge. Respondent and Robert Buck participated in the discussions and
voted in favor of the motion, which passed by a 6 to 1 vote.
On September 6, 2006, Respondent, acting as Borough Council President, signed
PennStar Bank’s offer for the $70,000 loan for the Buck Road Bridge project. The loan
terms provided for annual payments of $8,907.52 due in June of each year. These
payments represented between 19.28% and 25.28% of total Borough revenues.
At the October 4, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Council approved a motion to
begin the process to “close” on the $70,000 loan for the Buck Bridge project. Respondent
and Robert Buck voted in favor of the motion, which was approved by a vote of 5 to 1.
On December 6, 2006, Borough Council approved advertising for an ordinance to
borrow the $70,000 to repair Buck Road Bridge. The motion approving the ordinance was
seconded by Robert Buck and was approved by a 6 to 1 vote with both Respondent and
Robert Buck voting with the majority.
At the December 6, 2006, Borough Council meeting, Borough citizens presented a
petition to reject Borough taxpayer funding of the repair/upgrade to the Buck Road Bridge.
The petition contained the signatures of 68 Borough residents. The Borough’s total
population in 2006 was between 216 and 228 people. The petition was not acknowledged
or addressed by the Borough Council at its December 6, 2006, meeting, or at any
subsequent meetings.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 40
On January 3, 2007, Borough Council approved Ordinance No. 2007-01 authorizing
the borrowing of $70,000 from PennStar Bank for the construction, repair or replacement
of Buck Bridge. Robert Buck made the motion to adopt the ordinance, and Respondent
and Robert Buck voted to approve the ordinance. Respondent signed Ordinance No.
2007-01 as Borough Council President. Robert Buck signed Ordinance No. 2007-01 as a
Borough Councilmember. Because the Borough did not have other funds to repair the
Buck Road Bridge, the bridge would not have been repaired without the passage of
Ordinance No. 2007-01.
At the March 7, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Respondent and Robert Buck
participated in actions to approve changes to Buck Road to allow for an easier access for
trucks.
On March 15, 2007, PennStar Government Financial Services issued to the
Borough a General Obligation Note in the amount of $70,000 for the Buck Road Bridge
project. The General Obligation Note was signed by Respondent as President of Borough
Council and by Robert Buck as Councilman.
In April 2007 Robert and Lillian Buck and Respondent and Alice Rhone applied to
the Township for approval of a subdivision to be accessed by the Buck Road Bridge. The
subdivision request was denied in August 2007 due to a permit issue resulting from the
closure of Section 2 of Route 671. After the Buck Road Bridge repairs were completed,
Respondent and Robert Buck did not resubmit the subdivision application.
On August 1, 2007, Borough Council approved a motion to solicit bids for the Buck
Bridge project. Respondent and Robert Buck voted in favor of the motion, which was
approved by a 6 to 1 vote. Borough Council also voted to approve Resolution No. 2007-02
to officially accept the Bucks Falls Road, Route 671, into the road system of the Borough.
Robert Buck made the motion and both Respondent and Robert Buck voted to approve the
Resolution. Resolution No. 2007-02 was signed by Respondent as Borough Council
President and by Robert Buck as Councilmember.
At the September 5, 2007, Borough Council meeting, bids for the Buck Road Bridge
project were opened. The bids ranged from $85,000 to $198,200. After reviewing and
discussing the bids, Council voted to reject all bids and contact Delta to change the
specifications for re-bidding the project at a later date. Respondent and Robert Buck
participated in the vote to reject the bids.
On September 10, 2007, and September 13, 2007, Darl Haynes and Kennicutt
discussed reducing the costs of the repairs to Buck Road Bridge. Kennicutt told Haynes
that the Borough’s best bet was to narrow the structure. Haynes told Kennicutt that option
was not “on the table.” Buck and Respondent needed the wider width.
On or about September 14, 2007, a supplemental agreement to the original
agreement with Delta for the Buck Bridge project was sent to the Borough, which included
the additional work to change the bid specifications for the project. The total fee for Delta’s
work on the bridge was increased from $16,500 to $16,900. The agreement was signed
for acceptance by Respondent as Borough Council President.
At a September 18, 2007, special meeting of Borough Council, the amended
contract with Delta was presented and approved by Council to amend the bid
specifications for the project by removing the approach work and gabion work. The motion
was made by Respondent and passed by a vote of 5 to 1. Respondent and Robert Buck
voted in favor of the motion. Also at this meeting, Robert Buck made a motion to re-bid the
project with the changes as outlined by Delta and set the bid opening for October 9, 2007.
Respondent and Robert Buck voted in favor of that motion as well.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 41
At a special meeting on October 9, 2007, Borough Council opened the bids for the
Buck Road Bridge rehabilitation project. The bids ranged from $72,000 to $108,710. The
low bid was from ProCon Contracting.
At an October 12, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Council awarded a contract in
the amount of $72,000 to ProCon Contracting for the construction of the Buck Bridge
project. Respondent seconded the motion to award the contract, and Respondent and
Robert Buck voted to approve the motion. Prior to the vote, Respondent was questioned
as to how the Borough planned to come up with the money. Respondent responded that
he felt the project was “workable” using both general and state Liquid Fuels funds.
On October 25, 2007, Respondent as Borough Council President signed the
agreement between ProCon Construction and the Borough for the Buck Bridge project.
At a November 7, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Respondent and Robert Buck
participated in approving motions relating to the installation of gabion baskets at the Buck
Bridge, which work ultimately was not done. Robert Buck made a motion to hire Blue
Ridge Better Builders at the cost of $3,000 to monitor the construction and oversee the
Buck Bridge Project. The motion was seconded by Respondent and approved by a 5 to 1
vote, with Respondent and Robert Buck voting in favor of the motion.
At a May 7, 2008, Borough Council meeting, Respondent made a motion and voted
to have a letter sent to the Township alerting the Township that the Buck Road Bridge
would be complete at the end of May and the Township would be able to work its end of
the road. Per the meeting minutes, the Borough would inform the Township when the
bridge would be usable.
The Buck Bridge project was completed in the summer of 2008. Respondent and
Robert Buck participated in issuing Borough payments totaling $95,200 for engineering
and construction services related to Buck Bridge.
At a June 4, 2008, meeting of Borough Council, Respondent and Robert Buck voted
in favor of a motion to pay $72,000 to ProCon and $3,000 to Blue Ridge Better Builders.
The motion passed by a 6 to 1 vote. $18,000 was to be paid from the State Liquid Fuels
fund, and the remaining $57,000 was to be paid from the Borough’s General Fund. As an
authorized Borough signatory, Respondent signed the three Borough checks issued on
June 4, 2008, to pay the aforesaid amounts from the respective funds. (Ultimately,
PennDOT notified the Borough to reimburse the Borough’s Liquid Fuels Tax Fund for the
$18,000 payment.)
The Borough paid Delta a total of $16,900 for work on the Buck Road Bridge.
Respondent voted to approve at least four Borough payments totaling $16,500 to Delta.
Respondent signed all Borough checks issued to Delta for work on the Buck Road Bridge.
The Borough also paid Miller Brothers Earthmovers $3,300 for work on the Buck Road
Bridge and preparation for paving.
In May and June of 2008, the Borough received private donations totaling $22,000
to assist with paying for the Buck Road Bridge repairs, including an $8,000 donation from
Buck Brothers Farm. The difference between the Borough’s expenditures for the bridge
rehabilitation ($95,200) and the donations received by the Borough ($22,000) is $73,200.
From June 2007 through August 2010, the Borough made four payments totaling
$30,275.36 to PennStar Bank for the loan for the repairs to Buck Road Bridge. As an
authorized Borough signatory, Respondent signed three of the four Borough checks by
which such payments were made. The checks signed by Respondent totaled $26,722.56.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 42
The chart at Fact Finding 94 details Respondent’s uses of the authority of his public
position to facilitate the repairs to Buck Road Bridge. Respondent’s actions included: (1)
voting to authorize repairs, borrow money, and select contractors; (2) approving payments
to contractors; and (3) serving as the Borough’s primary point of contact with contractors
and engineers. Respondent’s only abstentions during the entire time period when the
Buck Road Bridge was being acted on by Council occurred in 2006 when he abstained
from votes to apply for grants and to advertise for the selection of engineers.
Respondent’s property was the only Borough property to benefit from the
renovations to the Buck Road Bridge. Although Respondent asserts that the rehabilitation
of the bridge benefitted other users of the bridge including the general public and
landowners in the Township, the parties have stipulated that no individuals benefitted to
the same degree as Respondent and Robert Buck.
As for Respondent’s SFIs, in or about May 2010, the Investigative Division of this
Commission conducted an SFI Compliance Review of the Borough. The only SFI on file
with the Borough for Respondent was for the 2004 calendar year. No SFIs were on file
with the Borough for Respondent for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and
2010.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a) occurred in relation to Rhone’s
participation in discussions and actions of the
Borough Council to authorize repairs and/or
improvements to a bridge using Borough funds
for the benefit of Rhone and/or members of his
immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a
business with which he is associated.
b. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(a) occurred when Rhone failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years.
4. Rhone agrees to make payment in the amount of $17,500.00
in settlement of this matter as follows:
a. $9,000.00 by certified check or money order
payable to the Starrucca Borough State Liquid
Fuels Tax account and forwarded to the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within
thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
b. $8,500.00 by certified check or money order
payable to the Starrucca Borough and forwarded
Rhone, 10-014
Page 43
to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission
within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
i. Rhone is making a non-binding request
that payment of the $8,500.00 be applied
to the PennStar Bank loan taken out by
the Borough for bridge repairs.
5. Rhone agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation
or other payment from Starrucca Borough representing a full or
partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this
matter.
6. Rhone agrees to file accurate and complete Statements of
Financial Interests for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
and 2009 with Starrucca Borough within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Copies of said
forms shall be forwarded to the State Ethics Commission for
compliance verification purposes.
7. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics
Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no
specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other
authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does
not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate
enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to
comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or
cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to
review this matter further.
Consent Agreement, at 1-2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that a violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent’s participation in
discussions and actions of the Borough Council to authorize repairs and/or improvements
to the Buck Road Bridge using Borough funds, which benefitted Respondent and/or
members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business with which
Respondent is associated.
Each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) has been established. As President
of Borough Council, Respondent was instrumental in getting Borough Council to
rehabilitate the Buck Road Bridge at Borough expense and in accordance with his and
Robert Buck’s desired specifications, despite the concerns of citizens and at least one
other Councilman as to whether the Borough owned the Bridge or could afford to pay for
the repairs. Respondent’s extensive official actions as set forth in the Stipulated Findings
and detailed at Fact Finding 94 included: (1) voting to authorize repairs, borrow money,
and select contractors; (2) approving payments to contractors; and (3) serving as the
Borough’s primary point of contact with contractors and engineers. Respondent’s only
abstentions during the entire time period when the Buck Road Bridge was being acted on
by Council occurred in 2006 when he abstained from votes to apply for grants and to
advertise for the selection of engineers.
The private pecuniary benefit to Respondent/Respondent’s wife and Buck Brothers
Farm--a business with which Respondent and his wife are associated as 50% owners--
consisted of the rehabilitation of the Buck Road Bridge at Borough expense in accordance
with Respondent’s and Robert Buck’s desired specifications, and the resulting
Rhone, 10-014
Page 44
responsibility of the Township--rather than the Rhones and Bucks--to maintain Section 2 of
Route 671.
The rehabilitation to the Buck Road Bridge included a wider traveling width and
increased weight limit that met the needs of Buck Brothers Farm for crossing the bridge
with heavy equipment. Respondent’s property was the only Borough property to benefit
from the renovations to the Buck Road Bridge. Although Respondent asserts that the
rehabilitation of the bridge benefitted other users of the bridge including the general public
and landowners in the Township, no individuals benefitted to the same degree as
Respondent and Robert Buck.
With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) established, we hold that a
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to
Respondent’s participation in discussions and actions of the Borough Council to authorize
repairs and/or improvements to a bridge using Borough funds for the benefit of
Respondent and/or members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business
with which he is associated.
We further hold that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(a), occurred when Respondent failed to file SFIs for the 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and
2009 calendar years.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $17,500.00 as follows: (a) $9,000.00 by certified check or money order payable
to the Starrucca Borough State Liquid Fuels Tax account and forwarded to this
Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter;
and (b) $8,500.00 by certified check or money order payable to Starrucca Borough and
forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter. We note that Respondent has made a non-binding request that
payment of the $8,500.00 be applied by the Borough to the PennStar Bank loan taken out
by the Borough for bridge repairs.
Respondent has agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid
in settlement of this matter.
Respondent has further agreed to file with the Borough accurate and complete SFIs
for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter, and to forward copies of all such filings to
this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a
proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis
and the totality of the facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Respondent Rhone is
directed to make payment in the amount of $17,500.00 as follows: (a) $9,000.00 by
certified check or money order payable to the Starrucca Borough State Liquid Fuels Tax
th
account and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the
mailing date of this adjudication and Order; and (b) $8,500.00 by certified check or money
order payable to Starrucca Borough and forwarded to this Commission by no later than
th
the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Respondent Rhone is further directed to
not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough
representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
Rhone, 10-014
Page 45
To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent Rhone is directed to file with
the Borough accurate and complete SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and
th
2009 by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and
Order, and to forward copies of all such filings to this Commission for compliance
verification purposes.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Member of Borough Council for Starrucca Borough (“Borough”) since
approximately December 2004, Respondent Kirk Rhone (“Rhone”) has been a
public officialsubject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. Rhone violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he
participated in discussions and actions of the Borough Council to authorize repairs
and/or improvements to a bridge using Borough funds for the benefit of Rhone
and/or members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business with
which he is associated.
3. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Rhone failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years.
In Re: Kirk Rhone, : File Docket: 10-014
Respondent : Date Decided: 9/27/11
: Date Mailed: 10/4/11
ORDER NO. 1591
1. As a Member of Borough Council for Starrucca Borough (“Borough”), Wayne
County, Kirk Rhone (“Rhone”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he participated in
discussions and actions of the Borough Council to authorize repairs and/or
improvements to a bridge using Borough funds for the benefit of Rhone and/or
members of his immediate family and Buck Brothers Farm, a business with which
he is associated.
2. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Rhone failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, and 2009 calendar years.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rhone is directed to make payment in
the amount of $17,500.00 as follows: (a) $9,000.00 by certified check or money
order payable to the Starrucca Borough State Liquid Fuels Tax account and
forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the
th
thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order; and (b) $8,500.00 by certified
check or money order payable to Starrucca Borough and forwarded to the
th
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after
the mailing date of this Order.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rhone is further directed to not accept
any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing
a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
5. To the extent he has not already done so, Rhone is directed to file with the Borough
accurate and complete Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2005,
th
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing
date of this Order, and to forward copies of all such filings to the Pennsylvania
State Ethics Commission for compliance verification purposes.
6. Compliance with Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of this Order will result in the closing of this
case with no further action by this Commission.
a. Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
___________________________
Louis W. Fryman, Chair