Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1614 Nanni In Re: Roger A. Nanni, : File Docket: 11-014 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1614 : Date Decided: 1/28/13 : Date Mailed: 2/14/13 Before: John J. Bolger, Chair Nicholas A. Colafella, Vice Chair Raquel K. Bergen Mark Volk Mark R. Corrigan Roger Nick 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 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 Roger Nanni, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Member and President of Leetsdale Borough Council, Allegheny County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1103(f), when he participated in discussions, actions and/or other proceedings of Council resulting in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services [for] the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services and when the services in excess of $500 were authorized without an open and public process; and when he used Borough issued credit cards to make purchases of a personal nature and then participated in actions of Council to approve payments of credit card bills. II.FINDINGS: 1. Roger Nanni has served as a Council Member for Leetsdale Borough, Allegheny County, consecutively from January 5, 1998, through the present. a. Nanni held the office of [Council] President and Vice-President at separate times during the time period of January 2002 through January 2012. 1. Nanni served as the President of Council from January 7, 2002, until January 5, 2004, and from January 3, 2006, until January 3, 2012. Nanni, 11-014 Page 2 2. Nanni served as the Vice-President of Council from January 4, 2004*, until January 3, 2006. *[Cf., Fact Finding 1 a 1]. b. Nanni had previously served as a Member of Leetsdale Borough Council from May 18, 1988, through December 31, 1993. 1. Nanni was appointed at the May 18, 1988, Council meeting to fill the vacant seat previously held by Charles Wasco. 2. Nanni served in the office of President of Council from January 6, 1992, until January 3, 1994. 2. Leetsdale Borough (hereafter, “Borough”) is governed by a seven Member Council and a Mayor. a. Borough Council holds one legislative meeting per month on the second Thursday of each month. b. Borough Council currently holds one workshop meeting per month on the Tuesday prior to the second Thursday of each month. 1. Borough Council did not consistently hold workshop meetings from at least January 2009 through November 2010. 2. Borough Council resumed holding scheduled monthly workshop meetings in December 2010. c. Borough Council holds special meetings on an as needed basis. 3. All seven Members of Council, including Council President, enjoy voting privileges regarding motions presented for approval. a. Council President may not make or second motions on the floor. b. The Borough Mayor has voting privileges only if a tie occurs among voting Council Members. 4. Voting at Borough Council meetings primarily occurs via group “aye/nay” fashion. a. Individual roll call votes may occur depending upon the issue presented for consideration. 1. Roll call votes may be conducted for personnel issues, financial issues, controversial issues, etc. b. Any objections or abstentions cast by Council Members are specifically documented in the written meeting minutes. 1. Minutes of all meetings held are approved for accuracy by Council at subsequent [Council] meetings. 2. Council meetings are digitally recorded and retained to assist in generation of the minutes. Nanni, 11-014 Page 3 5. Council Members do not receive a formalized meeting packet prior to the workshop or legislative meetings. a. Council Members are provided various pieces of information received at the Borough building throughout the month via e-mail transmission. 1. Hard copies of the items forwarded are also available to the Council Members in each Council Member’s mailbox located at the Borough building. b. Council Members routinely receive the meeting agenda and prior month’s minutes via e-mail for review anywhere from two days prior to the meeting to the day of the meeting. 1. Hard copies of the agenda, prior month’s minutes, list of bills, and any items remaining in each Council Member’s mailbox are placed at each Council Member’s seat the night of the workshop meeting. aa. The register of bills provided documents all those bills which have been received at the Borough for payment since the prior monthly legislative meeting. 6. Meeting agendas for upcoming meetings are currently generated by the Borough Secretary/Treasurer. a. The Secretary/Treasurer automatically places any items of which she is aware that require discussion and/or action on the agenda for consideration. b. The Secretary/Treasurer routinely contacts each individual Council Member who chairs a Borough committee (e.g., public works, public safety, etc.) as well as Council President regarding any additional items which require placement on the agenda. c. The agenda is normally presented to Council President for input and approval prior to distribution. d. The Borough Manager was responsible for generation of the agenda from approximately September 2010 through December 2011. 1. The Borough Manager followed the same general procedure regarding generation of the agenda. 2. The Borough Manager position was eliminated by Borough Council at the January 3, 2012, Borough re-organization meeting. 7. Signature authority over Borough accounts is maintained by the Borough Secretary/Treasurer, Council President, the Council Member serving as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and a third Council Member who is routinely available to sign checks. a. Two signatures are required on all Borough checks. 1. Signatures obtained can be any combination of those individuals holding signature authority. b. The Borough currently requires live signatures on Borough checks. Nanni, 11-014 Page 4 8. The Borough utilizes various committees (i.e., Public Works, Public Safety-Police, Public Safety-Fire, etc.) to oversee specific Borough departments and report information to Council as a whole regarding the respective departments. a. Committees are routinely composed of three Council Members, with one Member appointed as the Chairman of the Committee. 1. The Chairman of the Committee serves as the primary liaison between Council and the applicable department. 9. A specifically titled administrative/office committee does not exist in relation to the Borough administrative department. a. The Finance, Pension, and Benefits Committee has historically served as the committee responsible for oversight of the administrative department/office. 1. The Chairman of the Finance, Pension, and Benefits Committee serves as the primary liaison between Council and the administrative department. 10. Various pieces of equipment (i.e., telephones, computers, copiers, fax machines, etc.) are utilized in the normal day-to-day operation of the Borough administrative department. a. Repair or replacement of equipment utilized in the Borough administrative department typically occurs on an as needed basis. 11. Equipment requiring repair or replacement in the Borough administrative office is typically identified by Borough Secretary/Treasurer Elizabeth Petalino. a. Petalino typically informs the President of Council when equipment repair or replacement is necessary. b. Petalino at times may also inform additional Members of Council. 12. The guidelines by which the repair or replacement of Borough equipment is completed are dependent upon the item under consideration. a. Repair or replacement of equipment of reasonable cost (i.e., fax machine) that has been accounted for in the existing budget may be purchased after approval of Council President or the Chairman of the Finance, Pension, and Benefits Committee. b. Repair or replacement of equipment of significant cost (i.e., copier) is presented to Council Members on the applicable committee for consideration at a minimum if not Council as a whole. 13. The Borough municipal building is currently located at the street address of 373 Beaver Street, Leetsdale, PA 15056. a. The municipal building houses the Borough administrative offices, Borough police department, and the Borough volunteer fire department. 1. The specific address for the Borough administrative offices is 373 Beaver Street, Suite A, Leetsdale, PA 15056. Nanni, 11-014 Page 5 b. The Borough municipal building was located at 85 Broad Street, Leetsdale, PA 15056 prior to construction of the new building. 14. Construction on the current Borough municipal building began in or about March 2007 and was completed in or about May 2008. a. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new building occurred on March 15, 2007. b. The Borough moved its administrative operations into the new municipal building on May 7, 2008. 15. Although the Borough did not move its administrative operations into the new municipal building until May 2008, preparations for the move and corresponding updates/modernization began as early as mid-2007. a. The Borough completely updated the offices in the new municipal building via the purchase of new office equipment, furniture, etc., prior to actually moving its operations. 1. The only equipment salvaged from the prior municipal building was an existing photocopy machine for use by the police department. 16. Computerization/technology regarding the Borough administrative office was limited prior to the planned equipment updates/modernizations for the new Borough office. a. Only two computers were utilized in the Borough administrative office at that time. 1. The computers were utilized by Petalino and then Administrative Assistant Sandra (a/k/a Lynn) Kohlmeyer. 2. The computers were not networked or linked in any fashion at that time. 17. The Borough planned to upgrade its computers and computer capabilities as part of the modernization of the new Borough municipal building. a. A minimum of five new computers was purchased for use within the Borough municipal building. b. Various computer equipment was also purchased in order to network or link together the computers utilized within the administrative department. 18. The computers and various equipment needed to accomplish the upgrade were researched and ultimately purchased by Nanni through the Borough. a. Nanni routinely purchased and/or approved the purchase of computers and/or computer related items/technology through the Borough for use. b. Nanni has no formal education (e.g., degree) regarding computer technology. 1. Nanni was trained in electronics during his service in the United States Army. Nanni, 11-014 Page 6 19. As of July 2007, the Borough had no dedicated Information Technology (“IT”) provider to address computer concerns, malfunctions, repairs, etc. a. A dedicated IT provider was not necessary prior to that time due to the lack of computerization at the Borough. 20. Computer issues encountered at the Borough administrative office were often discovered and reported by Petalino as the Borough Secretary/Treasurer to Nanni. a. Petalino routinely reported computer issues encountered to Nanni as Council President. 1. Nanni often attempted to repair/address the issues himself and at times was successful. b. Nanni authorized the use of an outside IT technician for any situations which Nanni could not or did not address. 1. Petalino was the Borough representative who routinely contacted individuals to be utilized once authorization was received. 21. Prior to July 2007, the Borough utilized the services of at least four separate vendors/individuals at various times to perform computer related services in the Borough administrative office as shown below: Company/Individual Date Range Utilized* Payment from Borough Steven Fleming None Identified None Identified Merge Point March 9, 2006---November 15, $3,892.97 2006 Midnight Blue Technology Services November 15, 2006 $150.00 LP *Based on invoice/bill entries into Borough system a. At least one additional individual performed computer related services for the Borough prior to July 2007. 1. The individual’s identity could not be determined. 22. Scott Nanni is Nanni’s son. a. Scott Nanni is a self-taught computer enthusiast. b. Scott Nanni has no formal computer education. c. Nanni asserts that Scott Nanni had computer training in high school, Vo- Tech, Job Corps and OJT, and holds multiple industry standard certifications. 23. In or about July 2007, Scott Nanni began performing computer related services for the Borough at his father’s (Roger Nanni’s) direction. a. Services performed by Scott Nanni initially included work on the Borough computer server; work regarding the networking of Borough computers for Nanni, 11-014 Page 7 the new building; work on the Borough web server; and creation and maintenance of the Borough web site. b. Services performed by Scott Nanni were ultimately to be limited to working on the Borough web server and web site. c. These services were not approved by a vote of Council prior to authorization by Roger Nanni. d. Scott Nanni resided with Nanni at 347 Beaver Street, Leetsdale, PA 15056 at that time. 1. Scott Nanni was not employed in any formal/traditional capacity at that time. 24. Agendas developed for work sessions and regular Borough Council meetings during the time frame of January 2007 through July 2007 as well as actual minutes taken at said meetings document no discussion, consideration, voting, etc., in relation to the necessity of hiring any individuals or companies to provide computer related services for the Borough. a. The subject was not discussed by Council in any formal public setting from January 2007 through July 2007. 25. The concept/idea for the creation and maintenance of a Borough web site originated with Nanni. a. Nanni never presented the creation and existence of a Borough web site to Council as a whole for discussion, consideration, or vote at any scheduled meeting of Council. 1. Nanni informally referenced his desire to create and maintain a Borough web site during general discussion with select Council Members outside of official Borough meetings. 26. The Borough was not actively pursuing the retention of a specific computer provider at the time in 2007 that Scott Nanni began performing computer related services for the Borough. a. Borough Council had not discussed the possibility or intent of retaining any individual in any capacity (i.e., employee, independent contractor, consultant, etc.) to perform computer related services for the Borough. b. The Borough had not advertised in any format (e.g., newspapers, electronically, postings, etc.) the possibility or intent of retaining any individual in any capacity (i.e., employee, independent contractor, consultant, etc.) to perform computer related services for the Borough. c. Borough Council had not interviewed any individual in any capacity (i.e., employee, independent contractor, consultant, etc.) to perform computer related services for the Borough. 27. Nanni authorized the hiring of Scott Nanni to perform computer related services for the Borough and approved Scott Nanni’s wage with no prior presentation of such to Borough Council for formal approval. Nanni, 11-014 Page 8 a. No discussion was held by Council as a whole to approve the hiring of Scott Nanni to perform computer related services for the Borough in any capacity (i.e., employee, independent contractor, consultant, etc.). b. No vote was taken by Borough Council to approve the hiring of Scott Nanni to perform computer related services for the Borough in any capacity (i.e., employee, independent contractor, consultant, etc.). c. No discussion or formal vote occurred with Council as a whole to set or approve a wage for Scott Nanni. d. Council Members Linda Sovich, Joe McGurk, Michael Montinale, and Thomas Brown were unaware that Scott Nanni was performing computer services and receiving payment from the Borough for providing such services when Scott Nanni initially began doing such work in 2007. 28. No individuals other than Scott Nanni were considered at that time to provide computer related services for the Borough. a. No additional individuals were aware of the Borough’s interest in/need for computer services. 1. Scott Nanni was chosen solely by Roger Nanni to complete the work. 2. Scott Nanni had no independent means by which to gain knowledge that the Borough had need for computer services absent his father’s position on Council. b. No additional individuals were considered for the services. 29. Scott Nanni had no set or specifically scheduled days to work on computer related issues at the Borough. a. Petalino identified any computer issues or concerns requiring attention to Nanni as they occurred. b. Roger Nanni initially directed Scott Nanni to address any concerns identified by Petalino. 1. Roger Nanni then provided Petalino with Scott Nanni’s cellular telephone number so that she could directly contact Scott Nanni. c. Scott Nanni routinely performed maintenance on the Borough web site at varying times throughout the work week. 30. Concerns ultimately arose among various Council Members [regarding] Scott Nanni’s completion/performance of computer related services for the Borough. a. Multiple Council Members ultimately discovered through performance of their official duties and/or through conversation with Petalino that Scott Nanni was performing computer related services for the Borough. 31. Concerns raised by Council Members in relation to Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services were initially presented and discussed at the August 7, 2007, Council workshop meeting. Nanni, 11-014 Page 9 a. Council Members present at the workshop meeting included Nanni, Benjamin Frederick, Joe McGurk, Michael Montinale, and Linda Sovich. 1. Individuals absent included Council Members Thomas Brown and Paul Scimio and Mayor Peter Poninsky. b. Nanni participated in the discussion at the August 7, 2007, workshop meeting which referenced Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services for the Borough. 32. Minutes of the August 7, 2007, workshop meeting document under the “Council Discussion” portion of the meeting various subjects including, “Hiring a computer company to work on Borough system.” a. No additional explanation and/or detail regarding the discussion is documented in the minutes. 33. Although not documented in detail in the August 7, 2007, workshop meeting minutes, discussion regarding the possibility of retaining an outside company to perform computer related services for the Borough was presented as an option to having Scott Nanni perform such. a. Montinale recommended that it was time to research the retention of an outside professional company. 1. Concerns existed among various Council Members regarding computer security, file back-up, etc. b. Nanni responded that the Borough was utilizing two separate companies at that time. 1. Nanni did not identify the names of the two companies. c. Nanni presented that he and Scott Nanni were building only a web server and installing the required hardware. 1. Nanni denied Scott Nanni’s performance of any computer related services in association with the Borough network server occurring at the then current time. d. No discussion occurred regarding how Scott Nanni came to perform the services or Scott Nanni’s receipt of payment for services provided. 34. Discussion regarding the contracting with an outside computer company was again addressed at the September 13, 2007, regular meeting of Borough Council. a. All seven Members of Borough Council were present at the meeting. b. Nanni participated in discussion and multiple votes at the September 13, 2007, regular meeting which addressed contracting with an outside company for oversight of the Borough computer systems. 35. Minutes of the September 13, 2007, regular meeting document discussion of computer service under the “Unfinished Business” portion of the meeting. Nanni, 11-014 Page 10 a. An initial motion was made by McGurk, seconded by Council Member Linda Vaccaro (formerly Sovich), to hire an outside computer service company to oversee Borough computer operations. 1. The motion [was defeated] via vote of three in favor and four opposed. aa. Nanni voted in opposition to the motion. bb. Nanni cast the deciding vote in the defeat of the motion. 36. Following the vote on McGurk’s motion to hire an outside computer vendor, Vaccaro questioned if Nanni should be required to abstain from the vote due to the fact that Scott Nanni was working on the Borough computers at that time. a. Attorney Scott Hollowood from the firm of Damian, Amato, and Start was present at the meeting as the Borough Solicitor. b. Hollowood requested additional information on the situation. 37. The hiring of a professional outside computer company to address Borough computer issues as an alternative to Roger Nanni and Scott Nanni continuing to provide computer related services was further discussed at the September 13, 2007, meeting as a result of Hollowood’s request for additional information. a. Nanni participated in the discussion and supported the continued use of Scott Nanni’s services as related to the Borough web site and web server. 38. During the ongoing discussion which occurred at the September 13, 2007, regular meeting, Vaccaro specifically expressed her concerns and discomfort with Scott Nanni having access to the Borough computer systems. a. During her address at the September 13, 2007, meeting, Vaccaro stated that she had no recollection of Council ever voting to hire Scott Nanni. b. Vaccaro questioned Council if she was incorrect/wrong in her recollection. c. No Council Members responded to, questioned, or corrected Vaccaro’s question/recollection. 1. Scott Nanni first received payment from the Borough dated July 27, 2007, for services rendered during the week of July 9, 2007, through July 13, 2007. 2. Minutes of Borough workshop and regular meetings from at least January 2007 through July 2007 reflect no vote to retain the services of Scott Nanni for computer related issues/services. 39. During the continuing discussion, McGurk reworded his original motion to propose the hiring of a professional computer company to take over taking care of computer operations for the Borough. a. After the motion was made, Hollowood requested clarification as to what “oversee” meant. Nanni, 11-014 Page 11 1. McGurk clarified his use of the term “oversee” to mean that Nanni and Scott Nanni were no longer to be involved in any aspect of the Borough computer systems. b. The motion failed via 3-4 roll call vote. 1. Nanni voted in opposition to the motion. 2. Nanni cast the deciding vote in the defeat of the motion. 40. As a result of additional discussion held, a motion was ultimately made by Montinale, seconded by Frederick, to retain the services of David Boston of Boston Computer Services to provide services needed on the Borough computers and computer systems. a. Boston was recommended by Roger Nanni. 1. Boston served as the computer service provider for Roger Nanni’s employer. b. Prior to the vote on Montinale’s motion, Roger Nanni stated that services performed by Scott Nanni at that time were to be limited to the web site server. c. The motion to retain Boston was approved unanimously. d. The motion and vote to retain Boston did not include any type of approval or formal hiring of Scott Nanni to perform services on the Borough web site server. 41. Scott Nanni initially invoiced the Borough beginning in July 2007 on a bi-weekly basis for maintenance and work on the network for the new Borough building and the Borough web server as well as additional services performed during the applicable bi-weekly period. a. Scott Nanni charged the Borough approximately twenty-five dollars per hour for services rendered. b. The week ending dates documented on Scott Nanni’s invoices consistently noted the week ending date occurring every Friday. c. Scott Nanni’s invoices for computer services were provided directly to Petalino for processing. 1. Petalino received various invoices directly from Scott Nanni. 2. Petalino also discovered invoices from Scott Nanni Computer Services at her work station upon reporting to the Borough building for work. 42. Scott Nanni’s initial invoices submitted were typically received at the Borough office the last day of or after the last day of the second week ending referenced on the invoice. a. Exceptions included Invoice Number 1414 and Invoice Number 1426 received by the Borough on August 9, 2007, and September 11, 2007, Nanni, 11-014 Page 12 respectively, which documented submission of invoices for payment prior to the week ending date. 1. Invoice Number 1414 in the amount of $150.00 was received on August 9, 2007, [and was] representative of payment due for weeks ending August 10, 2007, and August 17, 2007. 2. Invoice Number 1426 in the amount of $150.00 was received on September 11, 2007, [and was] representative of payment due for weeks ending September 7, 2007, and September 14, 2007. 43. Scott Nanni later submitted invoices to the Borough for payment in advance of services allegedly performed during the months of October and November 2007. a. The Borough received Scott Nanni Computer Service Invoice No. 1443, dated October 2, 2007, on October 10, 2007. 1. Invoice No. 1443 documented payment due for services rendered which had not yet occurred. aa. Invoice No. 1443 was issued for services performed for weeks ending October 5, 2007; October 12, 2007; October 19, 2007; and October 26, 2007. bb. There is no independent means by which to verify that Scott Nanni performed any services for the Borough after submission of the invoice. b. The Borough received Scott Nanni Computer Service Invoice No. 1451 dated November 6, 2007, on November 8, 2007. 1. Invoice No. 1451 documented payment due for services rendered which had not yet occurred. aa. Invoice No. 1451 was issued for services performed for weeks ending November 2, 2007; November 8, 2007; November 16, 2007; November 23, 2007; and November 30, 2007. bb. There is no independent means by which to verify that Scott Nanni performed any services for the Borough after submission of the invoice. 44. Scott Nanni performed computer related services for the Borough from approximately July 9, 2007, through January 15, 2008, and submitted a total of nine invoices to the Borough for payment totaling $2,050.00 as detailed below: Invoice Invoice Description of Invoice Date Date Check Check Check Date Number Services Provided Amount Received* Reviewed** Date Number Amount 07/26/07 1407 Linux Server Re-Furb $200.00 07/27/07 09/13/07 07/27/07 7801 $350.00 Working on Network for $150.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 7/13 & 7/20 08/02/07 1411 Working on Network for $150.00 08/03/07 09/13/07 08/06/07 7810 150.00 new building and Web Server: Nanni, 11-014 Page 13 Invoice Invoice Description of Invoice Date Date Check Check Check Date Number Services Provided Amount Received* Reviewed** Date Number Amount Week ending 7/27 & 8/3 08/13/07 1414 Service call-Set up new $100.00 08/09/07 09/13/07 08/16/07 7859 $250.00 computer, rebuild & reprogram server Working on Network for $150.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 8/10 & 8/17 08/28/07 1421 Working on Network for $150.00 Undated Undated 09/05/07 7887 $150.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 8/24 & 8/31 09/11/07 1426 Working on Network for $150.00 09/11/07 09/13/07 09/14/07 7923 $150.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 9/7 & 9/14 09/25/07 1437 Working on Network for $150.00 10/10/07 10/11/07 10/11/07 7979 $150.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 9/21 & 9/28 10/02/07 1443 Working on Network for $300.00 10/10/07 10/11/07 10/11/07 7979 $300.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 10/5,12,19,26 11/06/07 1451 Working on Network for $375.00 11/08/07 11/08/07 11/9/07 8072 $375.00 new building and Web Server: Week ending 11/2,8,16,23,30 02/12/08 1503 Network Diagnostics $175.00 02/13/08 02/14/08 09/02/08 8859 $175.00 1/4 (1 hr), 1/10 (4 hrs) 1/11 (1 hr), 1/15 (1 hr) Total $2,050.00 * Date received represents the date received by the Borough Secretary/Treasurer. ** Date reviewed represents the date reviewed by the Finance Committee Chairman (not Council approval at Council meetings). a. Of the eight checks issued to Scott Nanni Computer Service, check numbers 7859, 7979, and 8072 were issued to Scott Nanni prior to the last week ending date documented on the invoices. 1. Scott Nanni received check number 7859 one day prior to the last week ending date documented on Invoice No. 1414. 2. Scott Nanni received check number 7979 fifteen days prior to the last week ending date documented on Invoice No. 1443. Nanni, 11-014 Page 14 3. Scott Nanni received check number 8072 twenty-one days prior to the last week ending date documented on Invoice No. 1451. 45. Of the eight checks issued to Scott Nanni, Computer Service representative, as payment received from the Borough for completion of computer related services, seven checks totaling $1,900.00 were cashed by Scott Nanni at the Giant Eagle located in Quaker Village Shopping Center, and one check totaling $150.00 was deposited at a New Alliance Federal Credit Union ATM. a. Roger Nanni did not sign any of the checks issued to Scott Nanni Computer Service as an authorized Borough signatory. b. Roger Nanni signed his name and Scott Nanni’s name as endorsing signatures on the reverse of Borough General Fund check number 7923. 1. Identification of the financial institution, the account number, and the account holder could not be determined. c. Check number 8316, originally dated February 15, 2008, and issued by the Borough as payment for Invoice No. 1503 in the amount of $175.00, was not negotiated. 1. Check number 8316 was lost before negotiation. d. Check number 8859 was issued to Scott Nanni Computer Service on or about September 2, 2008, as payment for Invoice No. 1503. 46. Roger Nanni, as a Member of Borough Council, participated in actions of Council at regular monthly meetings to approve bills for payment that included invoices submitted by Scott Nanni for payment of computer services rendered in the total amount of $2,050.00. a. Roger Nanni participated in four of five votes to approve payment to Scott Nanni Computer Service representative of six of nine total invoices submitted by Scott Nanni in the amount of $1,500.00. b. Roger Nanni abstained from voting to approve the list of bills presented at the September 13, 2007, regular Council meeting which documented payment to Scott Nanni Computer Service for three separate invoices via three separate Borough checks totaling $550.00. 1. Roger Nanni’s abstention was driven by the discussion which occurred at the September 13, 2007, Borough meeting that included Nanni’s potential conflict of interest in relation to Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services for the Borough. aa. Roger Nanni did not abstain from voting to approve bill lists on which payment to Scott Nanni was documented at the meeting prior to or any meetings after the September 13, 2007, meeting. 47. Scott Nanni realized a one hundred percent profit percentage in relation to payment received from the Borough for computer related services performed during the time frame of approximately July 2007 through January 2008. a. Scott Nanni operated Scott Nanni Computer Service from Roger Nanni’s home residence. Nanni, 11-014 Page 15 1. Scott Nanni had no overhead expenses such as office rent, utilities, etc. aa. Scott Nanni Computer Service invoices on file with the Borough document the company address as 347 Beaver Street, Leetsdale, PA 15056. b. Scott Nanni Computer Service utilized/maintained no employees or sub- contractors to perform computer services for clients. 1. Scott Nanni had no payroll expenses. c. Scott Nanni’s invoices document no equipment purchases made by Scott Nanni for installation at the Borough. 1. Payment received by Scott Nanni represented payment only for time allegedly utilized by Scott Nanni in performance of computer related services. 48. The computer services to be performed at/for the Borough as ultimately performed by Scott Nanni were not publically bid or advertised. a. Scott Nanni submitted no resume, application, or proposal of any sort to the Borough for services to be performed. b. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act mandates, in part, that no public official or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. c. The payments for services provided by Scott Nanni exceeded $500 in 2007. 49. Scott Nanni received payment from the Borough totaling $1,875.00 during calendar year 2007. a. Payment received by Scott Nanni from the Borough in 2007 exceeded the $500.00 threshold [of] Section 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act. 50. Roger Nanni’s use of the authority of his public position resulted in a private pecuniary gain for his son, Scott Nanni, as follows: Calendar Year Amount 2007 $1,875.00 2008 $ 175.00 Total $2,050.00 THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT NANNI UTILIZED HIS BOROUGH ISSUED CREDIT CARD FOR PERSONAL USE. 51. At varying times during the time frame of approximately January 2006 through July 2010, the Borough utilized multiple credit accounts through various providers. Nanni, 11-014 Page 16 a. The Borough utilized the credit accounts for convenience purposes in relation to the purchase of needed items, travel expenses, etc. 52. The Borough maintained a credit account with National City Bank from at least January 2000 until July 6, 2009. 53. In or about March 2006, Nanni directed Petalino to have additional credit cards issued from the Borough’s account at National City Bank. 54. The Borough received and distributed the additional credit cards from its National City Bank account as of at least April 2006 to various Borough representatives including Council Members and employees. a. The first documented use of individual Borough issued National City Bank credit cards by Borough personnel other than Petalino occurred in April 2006. 55. Nanni, as a Member of Council, received a Borough issued National City Bank credit card in his name as of at least May 27, 2006. 56. In or about June 2008, the Borough obtained an additional credit account through Citizens Bank. a. The Borough obtained multiple credit cards from Citizens Bank assigned to specific, individual Borough representatives. 1. The Borough was assigned a main account number with specific sub- account numbers for each individual credit card issued. 57. Nanni, as a Member of Council, received a Borough issued credit card in his name from Citizens Bank as of at least June 10, 2008. 58. From at least January 2000 through July 2010, the Borough maintained no specific policies or procedures regarding use of Borough issued credit cards. 59. Nanni, at times, utilized his Borough issued credit cards from National City Bank and/or Citizens Bank for purchases at various restaurants, bars, and other eateries/food service entities between the dates of May 31, 2006, and August 9, 2010. a. Nanni utilized his Borough issued credit cards beyond normal operating/business hours for the Borough. b. Nanni would meet with other Council Members and/or Borough representatives at various restaurants, bars, and other eateries/food service entities which resulted in fees incurred to the Borough via Nanni’s use of his Borough issued credit card. 1. No documentation or explanation was ever provided by Nanni that the purpose of the meals and drinks was in any way related to Borough business. 60. Nanni incurred expenses on his Borough issued credit cards totaling approximately $2,182.43 from approximately May 31, 2006, through August 9, 2010, representative of charges incurred at various restaurants, bars, and other eateries/food service entities. Nanni, 11-014 Page 17 61. Nanni, in his capacity as a Member and President of Council, participated in votes at Council meetings to approve payment of monthly bills which included Borough payments to credit card companies for charges incurred which included charges incurred by Nanni. 62. In addition to utilizing Borough credit cards to purchase meals and drinks, Nanni also made purchases of computers and computer related equipment. 63. In or about March 2008, Nanni purchased computers which were identified to be installed in the lobby of the Borough building. a. No records exist that the Borough ever received these computers. III.DISCUSSION: As a Council Member for Leetsdale Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County, from January 5, 1998, to the present, Respondent Roger A. Nanni, also referred to hereinafter as “Respondent,” “Respondent Nanni,” and “Nanni,” 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 Nanni violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he participated in discussions, actions and/or other proceedings of Borough Council resulting in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services for the Borough; (2) when he participated in actions of Borough Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services; (3) when the services in excess of $500 were authorized without an open and public process; and (4) when he used Borough issued credit cards to make purchases of a personal nature and then participated in actions of Borough Council to approve payments of credit card bills. Per the Consent Agreement, the Investigative Division has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to nol pros the allegation under Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act. Based upon the nol pros, we need not address the Section 1103(f) allegation that is no longer before us. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a)Conflict of interest.— No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through 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 Nanni, 11-014 Page 18 having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. The Borough is governed by a seven Member Council and a Mayor. Nanni has served as a Member of Borough Council from January 5, 1998, through the present. Nanni served, in pertinent part, as Borough Council President from January 7, 2002, until January 5, 2004, and from January 3, 2006, until January 3, 2012. Nanni previously served as a Borough Council Member from May 18, 1988, through December 31, 1993. In or about March 2007, the Borough began construction on the current Borough municipal building (“Municipal Building”), which is located at 373 Beaver Street, Leetsdale, PA 15056. The Municipal Building houses the Borough administrative offices, Borough police department, and Borough volunteer fire department. The Borough moved its administrative operations into the Municipal Building on May 7, 2008. Although the Borough did not move its administrative operations into the Municipal Building until May 2008, preparations for the move and corresponding updates/modernization began as early as mid-2007. The Borough planned to upgrade its computers and computer capabilities as part of equipment updates/modernizations for the Municipal Building. A minimum of five new computers was purchased for use within the Municipal Building, and various computer equipment was also purchased in order to network or link together the computers utilized within the administrative department. The computers and various equipment needed to accomplish the upgrade were researched and ultimately purchased by Nanni through the Borough. Nanni routinely purchased and/or approved the purchase of computers and/or computer related items/technology through the Borough for use. As of July 2007, the Borough had no dedicated Information Technology (“IT”) provider to address computer concerns, malfunctions, repairs, and the like. A dedicated IT provider was not necessary prior to that time due to the lack of computerization at the Borough administrative office. Computer issues encountered at the Borough administrative office were often discovered and reported by Borough Secretary/Treasurer Elizabeth Petalino (“Petalino”) to Nanni as Council President. Nanni, who has no formal education regarding computer technology, often attempted to repair/address the issues himself and at times was successful. Nanni authorized the use of an outside IT technician for any situations which he could not or did not address. Prior to July 2007, the Borough utilized the services of at least four separate vendors/individuals at various times to perform computer related services in the Borough administrative office. Petalino was the Borough representative who routinely contacted individuals to be utilized once authorization was received. Nanni, 11-014 Page 19 Scott Nanni, who is Nanni’s son, is a self-taught computer enthusiast with no formal computer education. In or about July 2007, Scott Nanni began performing computer related services for the Borough at Nanni’s direction. Services performed by Scott Nanni initially included work on the Borough computer server, work regarding the networking of Borough computers for the new building, work on the Borough web server, and creation and maintenance of the Borough web site. Scott Nanni’s services were ultimately limited to working on the Borough web server and web site. The concept/idea for the creation and maintenance of a Borough web site originated with Nanni. Nanni informally referenced his desire to create and maintain a Borough web site during general discussion with select Council Members outside of official Borough meetings, but he never presented the creation and existence of a Borough web site to Council as a whole for discussion, consideration, or vote at any scheduled meeting of Council. At the time in 2007 that Scott Nanni began performing computer related services for the Borough, the Borough was not actively pursuing the retention of a specific computer provider. Borough Council had not discussed or advertised in any format the possibility or intent of retaining any individual in any capacity to perform computer related services for the Borough and had not interviewed any individual to perform such services. Nanni authorized the hiring of Scott Nanni to perform computer related services for the Borough and approved Scott Nanni’s wage with no prior presentation of such to Council for formal approval. Council did not vote to approve the hiring of Scott Nanni to perform computer related services for the Borough or vote to set or approve a wage for Scott Nanni. Scott Nanni had no set or specifically scheduled days to work on computer related issues at the Borough. Petalino identified any computer issues or concerns requiring attention to Nanni as they occurred. Nanni initially directed Scott Nanni to address any concerns identified by Petalino and later provided Petalino with Scott Nanni’s cellular telephone number so that she could directly contact Scott Nanni. Multiple Council Members ultimately discovered through performance of their official duties and/or through conversation with Petalino that Scott Nanni was performing computer related services for the Borough. Concerns raised by Council Members in relation to Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services were initially presented and discussed at the August 7, 2007, Council workshop meeting. Nanni was present at the workshop meeting and participated in the discussion which referenced Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services for the Borough. Concerns existed among various Council Members regarding computer security, file back-up and the like, and Council Member Michael Montinale (“Montinale”) recommended that it was time to research the retention of an outside professional company. Nanni responded that the Borough was utilizing two separate companies at that time, but he did not identify the names of the two companies. Nanni denied Scott Nanni’s performance of any computer related services in association with the Borough network server occurring at the then current time, and he presented that he and Scott Nanni were building only a web server and installing the required hardware. At the September 13, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Nanni participated in discussion and multiple votes which addressed contracting with an outside company for oversight of the Borough computer systems. After Nanni cast the deciding vote which defeated a motion to hire an outside computer service company to oversee Borough computer operations, Council Member Linda Vaccaro (“Vaccaro”) questioned if Nanni should be required to abstain from the vote due to the fact that Scott Nanni was working on the Borough computers at that time. Vaccaro stated that she had no recollection of Council ever voting to hire Scott Nanni, and she specifically expressed her concerns and discomfort with Scott Nanni having access to the Borough computer systems. Nanni participated in the discussion regarding the hiring of a professional outside computer company to address Borough computer issues as an alternative to Nanni and Scott Nanni continuing to provide computer related services, and Nanni supported the continued use of Nanni, 11-014 Page 20 Scott Nanni’s services as related to the Borough web site and web server. Nanni cast the deciding vote which defeated a second motion regarding the hiring of a professional computer company to take over taking care of computer operations for the Borough. As a result of additional discussion held at the September 13, 2007, Borough Council meeting, Montinale made a motion to retain the services of David Boston (“Boston”) of Boston Computer Services to provide services needed on the Borough computers and computer systems. Boston served as the computer service provider for Nanni’s employer and was recommended by Nanni. The motion was seconded by Council Member Benjamin Frederick. Prior to the vote on the motion, Nanni stated that services performed by Scott Nanni at that time were to be limited to the web site server. The motion to retain Boston was approved unanimously. The motion and vote to retain Boston did not include any type of approval or formal hiring of Scott Nanni to perform services on the Borough web site server. Scott Nanni initially invoiced the Borough beginning in July 2007 on a bi-weekly basis for maintenance and work on the network for the new Borough building and the Borough web server as well as additional services performed during the applicable bi- weekly period. The invoices for computer services were provided directly to Petalino for processing. Scott Nanni charged the Borough approximately twenty-five dollars per hour for services rendered. Scott Nanni performed computer related services for the Borough from approximately July 9, 2007, through January 15, 2008, and he submitted nine invoices to the Borough for payment totaling $2,050.00 as detailed in Fact Finding 44. Nanni participated in actions of Borough Council to approve bills for payment which included invoices submitted by Scott Nanni for payment of computer services rendered. Nanni participated in four of five votes to approve payment to Scott Nanni Computer Service representative of six of nine total invoices submitted by Scott Nanni in the amount of $1,500.00. At the September 13, 2007, Council meeting, Nanni abstained from voting to approve the list of bills which documented payment to Scott Nanni Computer Service for three separate invoices via three separate Borough checks totaling $550.00. Scott Nanni operated Scott Nanni Computer Service from Nanni’s home residence, and he had no overhead or payroll expenses. Payment received by Scott Nanni represented payment only for time allegedly utilized by Scott Nanni in performance of computer related services, and Scott Nanni realized a one hundred percent profit percentage in relation to payment received from the Borough for computer related services performed during the time frame of approximately July 2007 through January 2008. The parties have stipulated that Nanni’s use of the authority of his public position resulted in a private pecuniary gain for his son, Scott Nanni, in the total amount of $2,050.00. Nanni’s Use of Borough Issued Credit Cards: At varying times from approximately January 2006 through July 2010, the Borough utilized multiple credit accounts through various providers for convenience purposes in relation to the purchase of needed items, travel expenses, and the like. From at least January 2000 through July 2010, the Borough maintained no specific policies or procedures regarding the use of Borough issued credit cards. From at least January 2000 until July 6, 2009, the Borough maintained a credit account with National City Bank. In or about March 2006, Nanni directed Petalino to have additional credit cards issued from the Borough’s account at National City Bank. The Borough received and distributed the additional credit cards from its National City Bank Nanni, 11-014 Page 21 account to various Borough representatives. Nanni, as a Member of Council, received a Borough issued National City Bank credit card in his name as of at least May 27, 2006. In or about June 2008, the Borough obtained an additional credit account through Citizens Bank. The Borough was assigned a main account number with specific sub- account numbers for individual credit cards that were assigned to specific Borough representatives. Nanni, as a Member of Council, received a Borough issued credit card in his name from Citizens Bank as of at least June 10, 2008. Between May 31, 2006, and August 9, 2010, Nanni utilized his Borough issued credit cards from National City Bank and/or Citizens Bank for purchases totaling approximately $2,182.43 at various restaurants, bars, and other eateries/food service entities. Nanni would meet with other Council Members and/or Borough representatives at various restaurants, bars, and other eateries/food service entities, which resulted in fees incurred to the Borough via Nanni’s use of his Borough issued credit cards. Nanni utilized his Borough issued credit cards beyond normal operating/business hours for the Borough. No documentation or explanation was ever provided by Nanni that the purpose of the meals and drinks was in any way related to Borough business. In addition to utilizing Borough credit cards to purchase meals and drinks, Nanni also made purchases of computers and computer related equipment. In or about March 2008, Nanni purchased computers which were identified to be installed in the lobby of the Borough building. No records exist that the Borough ever received these computers. Nanni, in his capacity as a Member and President of Borough Council, participated in Council votes to approve payment of monthly bills that included credit card charges incurred by Nanni and others. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when Nanni, as a Member and President of Leetsdale Borough Council, participated in actions and/or other proceedings of Council which resulted in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services [for] the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services. b. As part of a negotiated settlement agreement, the allegations arising under § 1103(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), namely that a violation occurred in relation to Nanni’s actions as a Member and President of Leetsdale Borough Council in excess [sic] of $500 without an open and public process, are hereby nol prossed. Nanni, 11-014 Page 22 c. No violation of 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Nanni’s use of a Borough issued credit card, in that insufficient evidence exists to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. 4. Nanni agrees to make payment in the amount of $3,050.00 in settlement of this matter as follows: a. $2,050.00 payable to Leetsdale Borough, and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. b. $1,000.00 in reimbursement, representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by the State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. 5. Nanni agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Leetsdale Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 6. 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 of the parties, we agree with the parties that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Nanni, as a Member and President of Borough Council, participated in actions and/or other proceedings of Council which resulted in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services for the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services. Nanni repeatedly used the authority of his public position as a Member and President of Council to steer the performance of computer-related services for the Borough to his son. Nanni used the authority of his office when he: (1) authorized the hiring of Scott Nanni in or about July 2007 to perform computer related services for the Borough and approved Scott Nanni’s wage with no prior presentation of such to Council for formal approval; (2) participated in discussions which referenced Scott Nanni’s performance of computer related services for the Borough; (3) supported the continued use of Scott Nanni’s services as related to the Borough web site and web server; (4) cast the deciding votes that defeated two motions which proposed hiring an outside computer service Nanni, 11-014 Page 23 company to oversee or take over Borough computer operations; and (5) participated in four of five Council votes to approve payment of invoices submitted by Scott Nanni. The parties have stipulated that Nanni’s use of the authority of his public position resulted in a private pecuniary gain for his son, Scott Nanni, in the total amount of $2,050.00. With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) established, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when Nanni, as a Member and President of Borough Council, participated in actions and/or other proceedings of Council which resulted in the selection of his son to perform computer- related services for the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services. We accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Nanni’s use of a Borough issued credit card based upon an insufficiency of evidence to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. Although Nanni used the authority of office: (1) when he utilized his Borough issued credit cards to purchase meals, drinks, computers, and computer-related equipment; and (2) when he participated in Council votes to approve payment of monthly bills that included credit card charges incurred by him, the parties have stipulated that insufficient evidence exists to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. Accordingly, based upon the parties’ stipulations and Consent Agreement, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Nanni’s use of a Borough issued credit card, in that insufficient evidence exists to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. As part of the Consent Agreement, Nanni has agreed to make payment in the amount of $3,050.00 in settlement of this matter payable as follows: (a) $2,050.00 payable to Leetsdale Borough and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter; and (b) $1,000.00 in reimbursement representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by this Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Nanni has also agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Leetsdale Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 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, Nanni is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,050.00 payable as follows: (a) $2,050.00 payable to th Leetsdale Borough and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order; and (b) $1,000.00 in reimbursement representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. Nanni, 11-014 Page 24 Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Nanni 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. 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 Council for Leetsdale Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County, from January 5, 1998, to the present, Respondent Roger A. Nanni (“Nanni”) has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when Nanni, as a Member and President of Borough Council, participated in actions and/or other proceedings of Council which resulted in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services for the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services. 3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Nanni’s use of a Borough issued credit card, in that insufficient evidence exists to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. In Re: Roger A. Nanni, : File Docket: 11-014 Respondent : Date Decided: 1/28/13 : Date Mailed: 2/14/13 ORDER NO. 1614 1. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when Roger A. Nanni (“Nanni”), as a Member and President of Council for Leetsdale Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County, participated in actions and/or other proceedings of Council which resulted in the selection of his son to perform computer-related services for the Borough and when he participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to his son for said services. 2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Nanni’s use of a Borough issued credit card, in that insufficient evidence exists to establish by clear and convincing evidence that said purchases were not related to Borough expenditures. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Nanni is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,050.00 payable as follows: (a) $2,050.00 payable to Leetsdale Borough and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later th than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order; and (b) $1,000.00 in reimbursement representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Nanni is 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. Compliance with Paragraphs 3 and 4 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, ___________________________ John J. Bolger, Chair