HomeMy WebLinkAbout1615 Archie
In Re: Robert L. Archie, Jr., : File Docket: 11-024
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1615
: Date Decided: 1/28/13
: Date Mailed: 2/21/13
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 Robert L. Archie, Jr., a public official/public employee in his capacity as a
Member and Chairman of the School Reform Commission (“SRC”) for the School District of
Philadelphia (“SDP”), violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1104(a) of the State Ethics
Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1103(f) and 1104(a), when he used the
authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a
business with which he is associated by recommending and/or influencing decisions of the
SRC to award contracts to companies represented by the law firm with which he is
affiliated; when he participated in actions of the SRC, including voting to award contracts
to businesses represented by the law firm with which he is associated; when he
participated in actions of the SRC to award legal contracts to Duane Morris, LLP, a law firm
where he serves as a partner; when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for
the 2008 calendar year; when he participated in actions of the SRC to approve a resolution
to authorize the SDP to enter into a contract with Teach Productions Inc. which provided in
part for Teach to reimburse the SDP’s outside legal fees at a time when he had a
reasonable expectation that Duane Morris LLP, a business with which he was associated,
would be utilized as the SDP outside counsel; and when Archie directed that Duane Morris
be selected as outside counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
Archie, 11-024
Page 2
II.FINDINGS:
1. Robert L. Archie, Jr. (“Archie”) served as a Member and Chairman of the School
Reform Commission (“SRC”) for the School District of Philadelphia (“SDP”) from
April 8, 2009, until September 19, 2011.
a. On March 30, 2009, City of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter appointed
Archie to the SRC with an effective date of April 8, 2009.
b. Governor Edward Rendell appointed Archie Chairman of the SRC.
2. The SRC was established on December 21, 2001, to govern the SDP following a
ruling by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (“PDE”) which declared the
SDP a distressed school district, resulting in a Commonwealth takeover of the SDP.
a. A Declaration of Distress was signed by the PDE Secretary Charles Zogby
on December 21, 2001.
3. As a result of the Declaration of Distress, a School Reform Commission was
enacted.
a. The SRC governs the SDP pursuant to Distress in School Districts of the
First Class (24 P.S. § 6-696).
4. The SRC is comprised of five Members; three are appointed by the Governor of
Pennsylvania, and two are appointed by the Mayor of Philadelphia.
a. The appointments made by the Governor serve a five (5) year term and
Members appointed by the Mayor are appointed for a term of four (4) years.
b. SRC Members are not compensated but may be reimbursed for expenses
while performing official duties.
c. The Governor is responsible for appointing the Chairman.
5. The SRC sets the policy direction of the SDP and is responsible for all financial
matters relating to the District.
a. The SRC is responsible for the operation, management and educational
programs of the SDP and may enter into agreements necessary to carry out
those duties.
b. The SRC can also authorize the hiring of outside law firms to provide
necessary specialized legal services.
6. The SRC holds regular and special meetings.
a. On average the SRC would hold two public meetings a month.
b. One meeting is generally a planning meeting and the second meeting is a
regular business meeting.
7. The order of business at the regular and special meetings of the SRC includes the
approval of minutes of the previous SRC meetings and the approval of resolutions
that are identified in agendas made available to the public and Members of the
SRC.
Archie, 11-024
Page 3
a. The resolutions are normally reviewed at one SRC meeting and then voted
on at the next meeting.
b. Votes were recorded as “Ayes” and “Nays.”
1.) All abstentions during a vote were recorded and specifically noted in
the minutes.
c. Decisions of the SRC require a majority vote of all Members.
1.) Three “Aye” votes were required to approve all resolutions.
8. Agendas are provided to the Members of the SRC a few days prior to each SRC
meeting.
a. The agendas identify resolutions that the SRC Board would be considering
and subsequently voting on at the meetings.
b. Agendas and all resolutions are prepared by Department Heads, the SDP
Superintendent and the SRC’s Chief of Staff.
9. In or around September 2009, the General Counsel of the SDP provided materials
to each Member of the SRC including the following:
The Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act;
The School District of Philadelphia Employee Code of Ethics; and
The Pennsylvania Lobbying Disclosure Act.
a. As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie would have been provided
with this information.
10. Archie, while serving as the Chairman of the SRC, would preside over the SRC
meetings.
a. As Chairman, Archie would make appointments to the SRC’s finance and
facilities sub-committees.
b. During his tenure on the SRC, Archie signed all contracts prepared and
provided to him by the Office of General Counsel, between the SRC and any
other entity.
11. Archie has served as a law partner with the law firm of Duane Morris, LLP (“Duane
Morris”) since 1991.
a. The law firm of Duane Morris has more than 700 lawyers in 24 offices
including the United States, United Kingdom and Asia.
b. Archie is affiliated with the Philadelphia office of Duane Morris.
1.) Offices in the United States include Philadelphia and New York.
c. All net profits earned by Duane Morris from any legal work performed at any
of the offices is shared by the firm’s equity partners, in accordance with their
fractional interests in Duane Morris.
12. The SDP has an Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) that in part provides the
following functions:
Archie, 11-024
Page 4
a. Provides advice and representation on litigation and transactional matters
affecting the SDP, SRC and District employees.
b. Provides legal advice and counsel to SRC Members, officers and employees
on a wide range of education, labor and employment, litigation and business
issues.
c. Prevents legal claims by identifying potential risks and making appropriate
recommendations.
d. Engages and manages the services of outside legal counsel.
e. The General Counsel serves as the Assistant Secretary to the SRC.
f. Review and preparation of all SDP contracts.
13. The SDP has utilized outside legal counsel to assist the OGC.
a. The OGC will work with outside legal counsel to develop guidelines and
strategies for defense, negotiation, settlement and appeals.
b. OGC manages the work production of outside counsel and assists counsel
in acquiring the information they need in order to function at the highest level
and to resolve legal matters of the District and to review and approve bills.
c. OGC presents resolutions to the SDP for approval when considering outside
legal counsel.
14. The OGC and the Office of Procurement for the SDP prepare and publish a
Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) to proposed outside counsel.
15. The SRC is responsible for authorizing the law firms to be used by the OGC for
outside legal counsel.
a. The SRC is provided with this duty pursuant to the provisions of the Distress
in School Districts of the First Class Law.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Archie utilized the authority of his
public position to influence the decisions of the SRC to award contracts to the law
firm with which he is affiliated.
16. In or around May 2009, the OGC for the SDP was considering retaining outside
legal counsel to provide services for training on employment law.
a. In May 2009 Sherry Swirsky was serving as General Counsel for the SDP.
b. OGC was identifying firms to be included on the resolution list.
17. Attorney Jonathan Segal, a partner with the Duane Morris law firm and the
Managing Principal with the Duane Morris Institute, contacted Swirsky in or about
May 2009.
a. Segal’s specialty is employment law, which includes providing presentations
and hourly training on employment issues.
Archie, 11-024
Page 5
b. Segal was previously employed by the law firm of Wolf Block from in or
around 1987 until March 20, 2009.
c. Segal provided employment training on behalf of Wolf Block until the law firm
dissolved in March 2009.
d. Segal provided employment law training to the SDP while a partner with Wolf
Block.
18. After Jonathan Segal became affiliated with Duane Morris on April 13, 2009, he
began contacting clients to advise of the employment law training he could provide.
a. This included contacting the General Counsel of the SDP.
19. On May 1, 2009, Segal forwarded an e-mail to Swirsky requesting to use Swirsky as
a reference and advising her that he would meet with Archie regarding potential
work with the SDP. The e-mail noted as follows:
May 1, 2009 9:06 a.m. Segal to Swirsky:
We are submitting a proposal to do work for Camden School District. They
have asked if we have done work for other school districts. May we list you
as a reference?
As for our work for the School District of Philadelphia, I have a meeting next
week with Bob Archie and a member of the firm’s GC office. I hope we can
make this work!
Have a good weekend
20. Swirsky responded to Segal’s e-mail as follows:
May 4, 2009 5:34 p.m. Swirsky to Segal:
Jonathan, If I didn’t respond earlier, I apologize and of course you may use
me as a reference. I spoke with Bob Archie on Friday about including Duane
in my annual outside counsel resolution and explained that it was to continue
the engagement of the Wolf Block labor and employment group. He thought
that would be OK as long as the resolution (which is made public before and
after the SRC votes) indicates that Duane is included because of the former
Wolf Block attorneys. He told me he would be meeting with you and the
firm’s GC, and I said I wouldn’t submit the resolution until he gets back to
me.
21. In or around May 2009, Segal met and discussed with Archie the possibility of
Segal providing employment training to the SDP.
a. Segal met with Archie since Archie was serving as Chairman of the SRC for
the SDP.
1. Archie was a partner with Duane Morris at this time.
2. Segal was a partner of Duane Morris.
b. Archie advised Segal that Archie would have to recuse himself when the
vote would be taken by the SRC to appoint outside legal counsel for the
SDP.
Archie, 11-024
Page 6
1. The recusal would be based upon Duane Morris being considered by
the SDP for legal services.
22. Between May and June 2009, Archie sought and Swirsky provided a verbal opinion
that a conflict did not exist if Segal continued to provide employment law training to
the SDP as a representative of Duane Morris.
a. Segal’s training was a continuation of services initiated when he was
affiliated with Wolf Block.
23. At the SRC meeting of June 24, 2009, Resolution No. A-44 was presented for
consideration and approved, which authorized expenditures from the operating
budget to retain and compensate outside legal counsel.
24. The resolution approved by the SRC for outside legal counsel specifically noted
that the work approved for Duane Morris was a continuation of work performed by
lawyers who previously were employed by Wolf Block.
25. Following passage of Resolution No. A-44, on July 16, 2009, a contract was
entered into between the SDP and Duane Morris for Sexual Harassment & Code of
Ethics Training for Managers and “Train the Trainer.”
a. The terms of the contract were from July 27, 2009, to September 30, 2009,
at an amount not to exceed $13,800.00.
b. The contract was signed by Kimberly Williams, Executive Director of Human
Resources for the SDP and Jonathan Segal, partner at Duane Morris.
c. An amendment was made to the contract on December 8, 2009, to extend
the contract until December 31, 2009, due to the last two sessions of the
Sexual Harassment Training for Managers being delayed to ensure
adequate enrollment and participation. There was no additional charge for
the contracted services.
26. Archie’s participation in the approval of Resolution A-44 was premised upon the fact
that the services provided were a continuation of training previously provided by
individuals who were employed by Wolf Block and the opinion of the SDP’s General
Counsel.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Archie utilized the authority of his
public position to vote for the ratification of an SDP contract with Teach
Productions, Inc., at a time when he had knowledge that Duane Morris would be
compensated for legal services provided concerning the Teach Productions, Inc.
contract.
27. In or around June 2009, Actor Tony Danza met with SDP Superintendent Arlene
Ackerman and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter regarding filming a reality
television series in which Danza would teach at a public high school in
Philadelphia.
a. A&E Television Network was to develop the series.
b. In or around June of 2009, Danza also met with Members of the SRC about
filming the series at the SDP.
28. Director, producer and writer Lesle Greif formed the company “Teach Productions,
Inc.” (“TEACH”) to produce the series.
Archie, 11-024
Page 7
a. Greif has been a Hollywood producer for over 25 years.
b. Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of
State Corporation Bureau for Teach Productions, Inc. on July 28, 2009.
1. Leslie Greif was identified as the corporation President.
2. The registered office provider was c/o Penncorp Servicegroup in
Dauphin County.
3. The principal office address was: 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Building 4,
Suite 375, Encino, CA 91316.
29. In or around June 2009, Miles Shore became Interim General Counsel of the SDP.
a. Sherry Swirsky left her position as SDP General Counsel at or about that
time.
30. In or about June or July 2009, a conversation was held between Archie and Shore
regarding the possibility of SDP obtaining legal advice from counsel with expertise
in entertainment law, in light of the TEACH proposal.
a. Shore inquired of Archie whether Duane Morris had an attorney with this
expertise.
b. Archie advised Shore that Gregory Gulia of Duane Morris’s New York office
had such expertise and provided Shore with Gulia’s contact information.
31. Following Archie’s discussion with Shore, Gregory Gulia was contacted by Shore in
or about July 7, 2009.
a. In 2009 Gulia was a partner at Duane Morris.
32. Archie had subsequent discussions with Gulia in or around July 7, 2009, regarding
legal services related to TEACH.
a. Archie discussed with Gulia that any legal services provided to SDP related
to TEACH would be provided pro bono.
b. Gulia agreed, provided Duane Morris’s pro bono committee approved.
c. The pro bono committee of Duane Morris approved the services being
provided on a pro bono basis.
33. Later, during Gulia’s review of the proposed terms of the contract between SDP and
TEACH, Gulia, with SDP attorneys Shore and Susan Costello, determined that in
addition to reimbursement for production costs and other expenses, SDP could also
be reimbursed by TEACH for outside legal fees.
a. Discussions also occurred with TEACH representatives regarding contract
language to permit the reimbursement.
1.) It was agreed by SDP attorneys and TEACH that legal fees up to
$10,000 would be reimbursed.
b. Archie was not part of these negotiations.
Archie, 11-024
Page 8
c. Susan Costello (Fetterman), Assistant General Counsel for the SDP,
prepared the Agreement between TEACH and SDP with the assistance of
Duane Morris Attorneys Gulia and an associate of Duane Morris.
34. Gulia subsequently informed Archie of the proposed contract terms that provided for
the SDP to be reimbursed by TEACH for legal fees up to $10,000.
35. The SRC was scheduled to vote on the proposed agreement between the SDP and
TEACH at the SRC meeting of August 19, 2009.
36. Prior to the SRC Meeting on August 19, 2009, SDP Assistant General Counsel
Fetterman prepared an Agreement dated August 19, 2009, titled “OGC Contract
No.: 168/F10 between Teach Productions, Inc. (Producer) and the SDP” that, in
part, provided as follows:
a. Producer is producing a presently untitled non-scripted documentary series,
the first series thereof featuring Tony Danza participating in the instruction of
a class at Northeast High School in Philadelphia for intended initial
exhibition by A & E Television Networks.
37. The terms or consideration of the Agreement between Teach Productions, Inc. and
the SDP were as follows:
a. Fee. In consideration for providing the resources (as defined below) during
the Initial Cycle (as defined below) to Producer and the rights granted
hereunder, Producer will pay the District the flat, all inclusive sum of Three
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500) for each episode of the Series
produced (the “Fee”). Producer will pay the Fee for the Initial Episodes (as
defined below) in three (3) equal installments as follows: (i) the first
installment shall be paid on October 15, 2009; and (iii) [sic] the final
installment shall be paid on December 15, 2009. In the event that Additional
Episodes (as defined below) are ordered, the same Fee per episode shall be
paid in three equal installments in the same manner, (i.e., the first
installment upon commencement of production of the first Additional
Episode, the second halfway through production of the Additional Episodes
and the third upon conclusion of the Production Period of the Initial Cycle).
b. Fundraising. In addition to the Fee, producer agrees to use good faith efforts
to assist in the School’s capital improvement fundraising campaign for the
2009-10 academic year, with the goal of Twenty Five Thousand dollars
($25,000) in aggregate cash and in-kind contributions, event underwriting,
materials, equipment and supplies provided by or on behalf of Producer
during the Initial Cycle.
c. Additional Commitment. Producer also agrees to use good faith efforts to
initiate certain programs and activities to enhance the educational
opportunities for the students and faculty at the School, such as giving
students opportunities to intern with producer and/or shadow Producer’s
crew during the production of the Series. Producer will also work with the
School on the development of public services announcements to assist with
teacher recruitment efforts.
d. Reimbursement of Legal Fees. On a one-time basis, Producer agrees to
reimburse the District or pay directly (at the District’s option) for the District’s
actual outside attorneys fees incurred in connection with this Agreement and
other documents related to the Series, such reimbursement not to exceed
Archie, 11-024
Page 9
Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) (the “Reimbursement”). The
Reimbursement shall be paid upon the latter of (i) Producer’s receipt of
supporting documentation for such fees; and (ii) the ratification of this
Agreement by the Commission.
38. At the SRC meeting of August 19, 2009, the SRC voted on Resolution SRC-85,
prepared by the Office of General Counsel, which was listed as Contract
Ratification with TEACH. The Resolution noted as follows:
WHEREAS, the School Reform Commission has been asked by the Office of the
Mayor of the City of Philadelphia to execute, deliver and perform a contract with
Teach Productions, Inc. in order to allow Teach Productions, Inc. to produce a non-
scripted documentary TV series at Northeast High School, and the School Reform
Commission has agreed, now be it
RESOLVED, that the School Reform Commission authorizes the School District of
Philadelphia, through the Chairman of the School Reform Commission, to execute,
deliver and perform a contract with Teach Productions, Inc. to produce a non-
scripted documentary TV series at Northeast High School, for an initial cycle of 13
episodes ordered by A & E Network, for the first semester of the 2009-2010
academic year with the option to produce additional cycles, to accept a per episode
fee of $3,500.00, reimbursement of the School district’s additional facilities and
personnel expenses and payment of the School District’s outside legal fees (not to
exceed $10,000) and with the School District to have the right to object to footage in
the rough cut of each episode.
a. Resolution SRC-85 was approved by the SRC by 3 “Aye” Votes to 1 “Nay”
Vote with Chairman Archie voting “Aye.”
39. At the time that Archie voted in favor of Resolution SRC-85, he was aware that the
Agreement included reimbursement of legal fees to be paid by TEACH, ultimately
payable to Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated.
40. The legal services provided by Duane Morris for the contract between TEACH and
the SDP was already completed prior to the SRC voting to approve the Resolution.
a. At the time the legal work was initiated, it was Archie’s understanding and
expectation that Duane Morris would not be paid for the legal services
provided.
41. An invoice dated October 7, 2009, in the amount due of $8,561.00, was sent by
Duane Morris to the attention of Miles Shore, regarding legal services provided
concerning the SDP and TEACH, with a total balance due of $8,561.00.
42. The legal services provided by Duane Morris, and referenced in the invoice of
October 7, 2009, were completed prior to the August 19, 2009, vote of the SRC
authorizing the contract.
43. Following receipt of Duane Morris’s October 7, 2009, invoice, Susan J. Costello
(Fetterman), Assistant General Counsel of the SDP, sent correspondence dated
October 13, 2009, to Teach Productions, Inc. officials Leslie Greif and Joanne
Rubino, requesting payment for the Duane Morris invoice.
a. The letter specifically referenced language in the Agreement between
TEACH and the SDP for a payment to be issued for the outside attorney fees
for the firm of Duane Morris.
Archie, 11-024
Page 10
b. Fetterman had been directed to send the letter by SDP Interim General
Counsel Miles Shore.
44. On October 29, 2009, Check # 1204 was forwarded to the order of Duane Morris
LLP, in the amount of $8,561.00, from a Teach Productions, Inc. account at City
National Bank in Beverly Hills, California.
a. The payment was in reference to Invoice Date 10/7/09, Invoice No. 1513940
and 7/7-7/24/09, Legal Services/File #F2990-0001.
45. On February 24, 2010, the SRC approved SRC-35 which amended the August 19,
2009, Agreement between TEACH and the SDP to include the following:
a. Granting permission for Teach Productions, Inc. to continue to produce the
original 13 episodes of the series at Northeast High School through June 30,
2010 without the payment of additional per episode fees provided that (i) if
additional episodes are ordered and produced, additional fees (which shall
in no case be less than the previous per episode fee) will be promptly
negotiated and paid and (ii) Teach Productions, Inc. will provide no less than
thirty (30) days prior written notice of any termination of production of the
series before June 30, 2010; and
b. Guaranteeing that Tony Danza will continue to co-teach the 10th Grade
English class at Northeast High School through the end of the spring
semester, regardless of whether or not Teach Productions, Inc. continues to
produce the series, and
c. Agreeing that Teach Productions, Inc. will reimburse the School District for
(i) the pro-rata salary of the New Teacher Coach and (ii) the cost of the
Liaison up to a maximum of $35,000.00.
46. Amendments to the original contract did not include any additional fees being
authorized by the SRC for Teach Productions, Inc. to pay for outside legal counsel
for the SDP.
47. By voting to approve Resolution SRC-85, Archie utilized the authority of his public
position which resulted in the payment by TEACH to Duane Morris for legal services
provided to SDP.
The following findings relate to the allegation that Archie participated in actions of
the SRC to award contracts to firms represented by Duane Morris, including UCH
and Foundations, Inc.
48. Universal Community Homes (“UCH”) is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation
that was established in 1993 to provide assistance in affordable housing, social
services, economic development and education.
a. Articles of Incorporation were established on October 7, 1993.
49. UCH is the parent corporation of two other non-profits formed to serve the needs of
the community.
a. Universal Education Companies (“UEC”) with its core competency in
education is a non-profit organization incorporated in the State of Delaware
to manage public and charter schools.
Archie, 11-024
Page 11
b. Universal Companies (“UC”) was established in 2002 as a non-profit
corporation, but not an operating corporation.
50. In addition to the founders of UCH, who also serve as officers, UCH also appointed
individuals to serve as directors.
a. Directors were appointed by the officers of the UCH.
b. Archie served as a director for UCH from or about 1994 through September
16, 2008.
c. As a UCH director, Archie would attend meetings on a quarterly basis.
d. As a UCH director, Archie would review and approve any actions taken by
UCH that included approving the Treasurer’s report.
e. Archie was not compensated for his service on the board.
51. Archie resigned as a UCH director on September 16, 2008, before he was
appointed to the SRC.
52. The law firm of Duane Morris, through Archie, had provided legal services to the
UCH for a number of years beginning in or around 1994.
53. After Archie began serving on the SRC in April 2009, UCH stopped using Duane
Morris for legal services.
54. As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie and the other Members of the SRC
were responsible for participating in and approving all charter school applications
and renewals for the SDP.
55. UCH, through its non-profit corporation UEC, operates and manages a total of six
(6) charter schools for the SDP.
a. Each charter school managed by the UEC has a separate board of directors.
b. Universal Institute Charter School, which was the first charter school
established by UCH, was started in 1999.
56. Between April 2009 and September 2011, while serving on the SRC, Archie
abstained on resolutions brought before the SRC related to awarding contracts to
UEC to manage charter schools.
57. In or around 2008, at the time Arlene Ackerman became Superintendent of the
SDP, she along with the SRC established an educational plan known as “Imagine
2014.”
a. The plan provided for the establishment of “Renaissance Charter Schools” in
which the SDP would take steps to improve the lowest performing schools of
the School District whereby the schools would be matched with outside
providers and would be referred to as “turnaround schools.”
b. As part of the Renaissance matching process, outside providers would
respond to a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) by the SDP.
c. School Advisory Councils (“SACs”) were established for each school that
was identified as a turnaround school.
Archie, 11-024
Page 12
1.) The SAC was comprised of parents and community leaders for each
turnaround school and would make recommendations as to the
outside provider selected.
d. The SRC would be responsible for selecting the outside provider after the
responses to the RFP were reviewed and evaluated by the Charter School
Office and Superintendent of the SDP and recommendations would be made
by the SAC.
e. An outsider provider selected to run a Renaissance School by the SRC
could operate the school either as a charter school with an independent
governing board or as a contract school reporting to the SDP.
58. In April 2011 the SRC was reviewing and considering awarding Renaissance
Charter School contract(s) to UEC for Audenried High School and Vare Middle
School.
a. UEC participated in the Renaissance Matching Process by submitting a
response to the RFP and was deemed to be a qualified “turnaround”
provider and was recommended by the SACs for each school.
59. At the SRC meeting of April 27, 2011, a vote was taken by the SRC to award
Audenried High School and Vare Middle School as “turnaround schools” to UCH to
be operated as charter schools by UEC.
a. Prior to a vote by the SRC for both schools, Archie disclosed UCH was a
client of Duane Morris and that he had [served] on the board at UCH.
b. While officials of UCH were discussing what UCH would do if selected,
Archie cited the accomplishments of UCH.
c. The vote to award the charter schools to UCH was approved by a 3-0 vote
with Archie abstaining from the vote.
60. UCH also received contracts for Early Childhood Services and Educational
Management Organizations (“EMOs”) from the SDP.
61. EMOs were first established in 2002 when the SDP, through a Request for
Qualifications (“RFQ”) process, would seek quotes from education providers to
select providers to manage low performing schools.
a. The RFQ process would be used by the SDP staff to evaluate the
responding firms.
1.) The SRC voted to approve the EMO to each provider.
b. EMOs began to be phased out by SDP Superintendent Ackerman in 2008
but were continued through 2010.
62. As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie participated in approving contracts
for UCH and other non-profit corporations affiliated with UCH.
63. At the times when Archie voted to award the contracts to UCH, the Duane Morris
law firm was not providing any legal services to UCH in regards to those contracts.
Archie, 11-024
Page 13
64. Foundations, Inc. (“Foundations”), a non-profit corporation that was established in
1992 and is headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, provides education
assistance to schools, school districts, community organizations and afterschool
networks.
a. Foundations provides assistance to school districts across the country,
including the SDP.
b. Rhonda Lauer has been serving as the President and Chief Executive
Officer for Foundations since 1997.
65. Foundations utilized the services of the law firm Duane Morris in or around 2002.
a. Foundations was not using the services of Duane Morris in or around the
time period when Archie served on the SRC.
b. Foundations made no payments for services to Duane Morris during Archie’s
term of service on the SRC.
66. Foundations had been receiving EMO and other contracts from the SDP through an
RFQ process since on or around 2002.
67. From in or around 2002 through 2010, Foundations had been awarded EMO
contracts by the SDP to assist Martin Luther King High School (“MLK”).
68. In January 2011 the SDP had designated MLK as one of the Renaissance Charter
Schools to be matched with an outside provider.
69. Foundations was one of the providers considered, since it had an EMO for MLK and
was providing assistance to the school.
a. Foundations and other firms, John Hopkins and Mosaica, submitted
responses to RFPs to the SDP.
b. The responses to the RFPs were reviewed by the School Advisory
Committee (“SAC”) for MLK.
70. The SAC established for MLK as part of the Renaissance matching process
recommended that Mosaica be selected as the provider at the SAC meeting of
March 10, 2011.
a. Foundations had been rated as the second choice by the MLK SAC.
b. The SRC of the SDP was responsible for selecting the provider at MLK.
1.) The SAC recommendation was considered by the Charter School
Office, the Superintendent, and the SRC when making the decision.
71. Mosaica Education, Inc. was established in 1997 and has its education corporate
headquarters located in New York and its education corporate offices in Atlanta,
Georgia.
a. Mosaica is recognized as a leader in educational reform and provides
educational services to support school management in professional
development, curriculum, recruitment services and support services.
Archie, 11-024
Page 14
b. John Porter serves as the Executive Vice President of Mosaica Education,
Inc. and as the Chief Executive Officer for Mosaica Turnaround Partners.
72. After the vote of March 10, 2011, by the SAC to recommend Mosaica rather than
rd
Foundations, State Representative Dwight Evans of the 203 District telephonically
contacted SRC Chairman Archie regarding the process resulting in recommending
the contract be awarded to Mosaica for the Renaissance School.
a Representative Evans advised Archie that he wanted to make a presentation
to the SRC at its March 16, 2011, meeting of his plan to create a “Northwest
Education Corridor” that included the MLK.
1.) The SRC meeting for March 16, 2011, was the meeting when the
SRC was scheduled to vote on the Renaissance School for MLK.
73. During an executive session of the SRC prior to the meeting of March 16, 2011,
Evans presented his plan to create the “Northwest Education Corridor” that included
Foundations operating MLK.
a. At the SRC public meeting, Evans again presented his plan and
recommended that Foundations be awarded the contract for the
Renaissance School at MLK.
74. During the SRC meeting for March 16, 2011, the SRC approved Resolution No.
SRC-26 titled “The Renaissance Charter Schools Initiative to Match Turnaround
Teams with Renaissance Charter Schools.”
a. A total of six Renaissance Charter Schools including MLK were part of
Resolution SRC-26.
b. The turnaround team selected for the MLK was Mosaica Turnaround
Partners.
c. The vote was approved by a 3 to 0 vote. Chairman Archie abstained from the
vote and noted for the record that Duane Morris represents the Gratz Alumni
Association, as Mastery Charter Schools had been selected as the
Renaissance Match for Simon Gratz High School, and Foundations, Inc.
75. On March 17, 2011, at 9:52:56 a.m., John Porter sent an e-mail to Arlene
Ackerman, Superintendent of the SDP, informing her that Mosaica was withdrawing
from operating MLK.
76. Members of the SAC for MLK did not support Foundations as the provider for MLK
and questioned Foundations receiving the contract.
77. On April 8, 2011, Archie contacted Ackerman to schedule a meeting with her and
Representative Evans at Archie’s Duane Morris law offices.
78. On April 9, 2011, Archie met with Evans and Ackerman at a conference room at
Duane Morris.
a. Evans wanted Ackerman’s support as the SDP Superintendent to help with
the process of having the SAC for MLK support Foundations as the choice to
be the outside provider.
b. Ackerman was not in favor of approving Foundations as the Renaissance
match for MLK.
Archie, 11-024
Page 15
79. On April 20, 2011, Rhonda Lauer sent a letter to both Archie and Ackerman
informing them that Foundations was withdrawing as a charter operator for MLK.
a. Foundations had never been formally awarded a contract to serve as the
provider by the SRC.
80. During the time Archie served on the SRC, neither UHC nor Foundations was a
current client of Duane Morris.
The following findings are in regard to the allegation that Archie failed to file a
Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2008.
81. As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie was a public official and required to
file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) on an annual basis.
a. Annual filings require disclosure of financial information for the prior
calendar year.
b. Filings are to be made by May 1 of each year.
82. Archie began serving on the SRC effective April 8, 2009.
83. At the time of his appointment to the SRC, Archie met with SDP General Counsel
Sherry Swirsky for an orientation.
a. The orientation included a brief discussion of the Ethics Act and the filing of
Statements of Financial Interests.
b. Swirsky erroneously advised Archie that he would not be required to file an
SFI in 2009 for the prior calendar year of 2008 because he was only recently
appointed.
84. An SFI compliance review conducted by the Investigative Division in or around
November 2011 confirmed that no SFI filings for Archie were on file for the 2008
calendar year.
85. Archie filed SFIs with the State Ethics Commission on or about April 30, 2012, after
receiving official notice from the Investigative Division that he was required to file a
2008 calendar year SFI in connection with his service on the SRC.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Member and Chairman of the School Reform Commission (“SRC”) for the
School District of Philadelphia (“SDP”) from April 8, 2009, until September 19, 2011,
Respondent Robert L. Archie, Jr., hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,”
“Respondent Archie,” and “Archie,” has been a public official subject to the provisions of
the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
The allegations are that Archie violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), and 1104(a) of
the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his public position for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a business with which he is associated by
recommending and/or influencing decisions of the SRC to award contracts to companies
represented by the law firm with which he is affiliated; (2) when he participated in actions
of the SRC, including voting to award contracts to businesses represented by the law firm
with which he is associated; (3) when he participated in actions of the SRC to award legal
contracts to Duane Morris, LLP, a law firm where he serves as a partner; (4) when he
Archie, 11-024
Page 16
failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the 2008 calendar year; (5) when
he participated in actions of the SRC to approve a resolution to authorize the SDP to enter
into a contract with Teach Productions, Inc., which provided in part for Teach to reimburse
the SDP’s outside legal fees at a time when he had a reasonable expectation that Duane
Morris LLP, a business with which he was associated, would be utilized as the SDP
outside counsel; and (6) when he directed that Duane Morris be selected as outside
counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
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
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from
using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f)Contract.—
No public official or public employee or
his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which
the public official or public employee is associated or any
subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official or public employee is associated,
Archie, 11-024
Page 17
unless the contract has been awarded through an open and
public process, including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee
shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the
implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract
or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official/public
employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official/public employee
or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official/public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee
must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and
the year after he leaves it.
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 Archie served as a Member and Chairman of the SRC from April 8,
2009, until September 19, 2011. The SRC governs the SDP. The SRC is comprised of
five Members. Decisions of the SRC require a majority vote of all Members.
The SDP has an Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) that provides legal advice and
counsel to SRC Members and also engages and manages the services of outside legal
counsel. The SRC is responsible for authorizing the law firms to be used by the OGC for
outside legal counsel.
In a private capacity, Archie has been a law partner with the law firm of Duane
Morris, LLP (“Duane Morris”) since 1991.
Re: Respondent’s Actions as to Former Clients of Duane Morris
While serving on the SRC, Archie had some involvement in his official capacity as
to former corporate clients of Duane Morris, namely, “Universal Community Homes”
(“UCH”) and “Foundations, Inc.” (“Foundations”).
Duane Morris, through Archie, provided legal services to the UCH for a number of
years beginning in or around 1994. After Archie began serving on the SRC in April 2009,
UCH stopped using Duane Morris for legal services.
Foundations utilized the services of Duane Morris in or around 2002. Foundations
was not using the services of Duane Morris in or around the time period when Archie
served on the SRC. Foundations made no payments for services to Duane Morris during
Archie’s term of service on the SRC.
Archie, 11-024
Page 18
As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie participated in approving contracts
for UCH and other non-profit corporations affiliated with UCH.
As a Member and Chairman of the SRC, Archie also had some involvement in his
official capacity regarding a potential SDP contract with Foundations to run the SDP’s
Martin Luther King High School. Archie’s involvement included participating in
rd
communications with State Representative Dwight Evans of the 203 District and meeting
with Representative Evans and SDP Superintendent Arlene Ackerman regarding the
matter. Ultimately, Foundations withdrew from consideration for the contract.
The parties have stipulated that during the time Archie served on the SRC, neither
UHC nor Foundations was a current client of Duane Morris.
Re: Legal Services Provided to the SDP by Duane Morris Relating to a Television Series
In or around June 2009, Actor Tony Danza met with SDP Superintendent Arlene
Ackerman, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, and Members of the SRC regarding filming
a reality television series (“the Series”) in which Danza would teach at a public high school
in Philadelphia. A&E Television Network was to develop the Series. Director, producer
and writer Lesle Greif (“Grief”) formed the company “Teach Productions, Inc.” (“TEACH”) to
produce the Series.
In or about June or July 2009, a conversation was held between Archie and SDP’s
then Interim General Counsel, Miles Shore (“Shore”), regarding the possibility of SDP
obtaining legal advice from counsel with expertise in entertainment law, in light of the
TEACH proposal. Shore inquired of Archie whether Duane Morris had an attorney with
this expertise. Archie advised Shore that Gregory Gulia (“Gulia”) of Duane Morris’s New
York office had such expertise and provided Shore with Gulia’s contact information. Gulia
was contacted by Shore on or about July 7, 2009.
On or about July 7, 2009, Archie discussed with Gulia that any legal services
provided to SDP related to TEACH would be provided pro bono. Gulia agreed, provided
Duane Morris’s pro bono committee approved. The pro bono committee of Duane Morris
approved the services being provided on a pro bono basis.
Later, while reviewing the proposed terms of the contract between SDP and
TEACH, Gulia and SDP attorneys determined that SDP could be reimbursed by TEACH for
outside legal fees. It was agreed by SDP attorneys and TEACH that legal fees up to
$10,000 would be reimbursed. Archie was not part of these negotiations. Gulia
subsequently informed Archie of the proposed contract terms that provided for the SDP to
be reimbursed by TEACH for legal fees up to $10,000.
The SRC was scheduled to vote on the proposed agreement (“Agreement”)
between the SDP and TEACH at the SRC meeting of August 19, 2009. The Agreement
provided for TEACH to reimburse the SDP or pay directly for up to $10,000 of outside
attorneys fees incurred by SDP in connection with the Agreement and other documents
related to the Series.
At the SRC meeting of August 19, 2009, the SRC voted to approve Resolution SRC-
85, which authorized a contract between SDP and TEACH whereby TEACH would pay the
SDP’s outside legal fees not to exceed $10,000. Resolution SRC-85 was approved by the
SRC by a vote of 3-1 with Archie voting to approve the Resolution. At the time that Archie
voted in favor of Resolution SRC-85, he was aware that the Agreement provided for
TEACH to pay/reimburse the SDP’s aforesaid legal fees for legal services provided by
Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated.
Archie, 11-024
Page 19
In October 2009, TEACH paid $8,561.00 for the aforesaid legal services provided
by Duane Morris to SDP.
The parties have stipulated that by voting to approve Resolution SRC-85, Archie
utilized the authority of his public position which resulted in the payment by TEACH to
Duane Morris for legal services provided to SDP.
Re: Training Provided to SDP by Duane Morris
Attorney Jonathan Segal (“Segal”) is a partner with Duane Morris. Segal was
previously employed by the law firm of Wolf Block from in or around 1987 until March 20,
2009. While a partner with Wolf Block, Segal provided employment law training to the
SDP. In March 2009 Wolf Block dissolved. Segal then became affiliated with Duane
Morris on April 13, 2009.
After Segal became affiliated with Duane Morris, he began contacting clients to
advise of the employment law training he could provide. This included contacting the
General Counsel of the SDP, who at that time was Sherry Swirsky (“Swirsky”).
On May 1, 2009, Segal forwarded an e-mail to Swirsky advising her that he would
be meeting with Archie regarding potential work with the SDP.
On May 4, 2009, Swirsky responded to Segal’s aforesaid e-mail, noting the
following:
… I spoke with Bob Archie on Friday about including Duane in
my annual outside counsel resolution and explained that it was
to continue the engagement of the Wolf Block labor and
employment group. He thought that would be OK as long as
the resolution (which is made public before and after the SRC
votes) indicates that Duane is included because of the former
Wolf Block attorneys. He told me he would be meeting with
you and the firm’s GC, and I said I wouldn’t submit the
resolution until he gets back to me.
Fact Finding 20.
In or around May 2009, Segal met and discussed with Archie the possibility of Segal
providing employment training to the SDP. Archie advised Segal that Archie would have to
recuse himself when the vote would be taken by the SRC to appoint outside legal counsel
for the SDP. The recusal would be based upon Duane Morris being considered by the
SDP for legal services.
However, between May and June 2009, Archie sought and Swirsky provided a
verbal opinion that a conflict did not exist if Segal continued to provide employment law
training to the SDP as a representative of Duane Morris. Segal’s training was a
continuation of services initiated when he was affiliated with Wolf Block.
On June 24, 2009, the SRC approved Resolution No. A-44 authorizing expenditures
for work by Duane Morris as a continuation of work performed by lawyers who previously
were employed by Wolf Block. Archie’s participation in the approval of Resolution A-44
was premised upon the fact that the services provided were a continuation of training
previously provided by individuals who were employed by Wolf Block and the opinion of
the SDP’s General Counsel.
On July 16, 2009, SDP and Duane Morris entered into a contract for training at an
amount not to exceed $13,800.00.
Archie, 11-024
Page 20
Re: Respondent’s SFIs
Archie began serving on the SRC effective April 8, 2009. At the time of Archie’s
appointment to the SRC, Swirsky erroneously advised Archie that as a recent appointee,
he would not be required to file an SFI in 2009 for the prior calendar year of 2008.
An SFI compliance review conducted by the Investigative Division in or around
November 2011 confirmed that no SFI was on file for Archie for the 2008 calendar year.
Archie filed SFIs with this Commission on or about April 30, 2012, after receiving official
notice from the Investigative Division that he was required to file a 2008 calendar year SFI
in connection with his service on the SRC.
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 no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a) occurred in relation to Archie’s use of
office as a member of the School Reform
Commission (SRC) to award contracts to
companies represented by the law firm with
which he is affiliated, Duane Morris, in that at the
time Archie was a member of the SRC, those
entities were no longer clients of Duane Morris;
b. That a transgression of Section 1103(a) of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to a vote
by Archie to ratify a contract between the School
District of Philadelphia (SDP) and Teach
Productions Inc. (TEACH), whereby TEACH
would make payment of legal fees, ultimately to
Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is
associated;
c. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a) occurred in relation to Archie
participating in actions of the SRC to award legal
contracts to an attorney associated with Duane
Morris, LLP, a business with which Archie is
associated, in that those contracts were a
continuation of services previously awarded to a
then defunct law firm;
d. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1104(a) occurred in relation to Archie failing to
file a Statement of Financial Interests for the
2008 calendar year, in that he was specifically
Archie, 11-024
Page 21
advised by the then General Counsel of the
School District not to file and once given notice
to file, Archie filed his delinquent form;
e. As part of a negotiated settlement agreement, no
violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f)
occurred in relation to the selection of outside
counsel to represent the SDP without an open
and public process.
4. Archie agrees to make payment in the amount of $6,600.00 in
settlement of this matter as follows:
a. $5,600.00 payable to The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 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. Archie agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation
or other payment from the School District of Philadelphia
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 2-3.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that no violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to the allegations that Archie used
his office as a Member of the SRC to award contracts to companies represented by the law
firm with which he is affiliated, Duane Morris, in that at the time Archie was a Member of
the SRC, those entities were no longer clients of Duane Morris.
In Kannebecker, Opinion 92-010, this Commission determined that a township
supervisor, who in his private capacity was an attorney, would have a conflict of interest as
to matters before the township involving ongoing client(s) or client(s) for whom he was on
retainer, even if he would not represent such client(s) as to the matter pending before the
township. This Commission further determined that as a general rule, a conflict would not
exist as to former client(s), but that under certain circumstances, a conflict could exist as to
Archie, 11-024
Page 22
former client(s) depending upon factors such as the number of prior representations of the
given client and the period of time over which such occurred.
In the instant matter, although Archie participated as a Member and Chairman of the
SRC in approving contracts for UCH and other non-profit corporations affiliated with UCH,
and also had some involvement in his official capacity regarding a potential SDP contract
with Foundations, the parties have stipulated that during the time Archie served on the
SRC, neither UHC nor Foundations was a current client of Duane Morris.
There are no facts of record that would preclude application of the general rule that
a conflict would not exist as to former clients. See, Kannebecker, supra.
Accordingly, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to the allegations that Archie used his office as a
Member of the SRC to award contracts to companies represented by the law firm with
which he is affiliated, Duane Morris, in that at the time Archie was a Member of the SRC,
those entities were no longer clients of Duane Morris.
We agree with the parties that a transgression of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
occurred in relation to a vote by Archie to ratify a contract between the SDP and TEACH,
whereby TEACH would make payment of legal fees, ultimately to Duane Morris.
Although Duane Morris’s legal services to the SDP relating to the Series were
originally going to be provided on a pro bono basis, it was later agreed by SDP attorneys
and TEACH that legal fees up to $10,000 would be reimbursed. Archie was informed of
the proposed contract terms that provided for the SDP to be reimbursed by TEACH for
legal fees up to $10,000.
At the SRC meeting of August 19, 2009, the SRC voted to approve Resolution SRC-
85, which authorized a contract between SDP and TEACH whereby TEACH would pay the
SDP’s outside legal fees not to exceed $10,000. Archie used the authority of his public
position as a Member and Chairman of the SRC when he voted to approve Resolution
SRC-85. At the time that Archie voted in favor of Resolution SRC-85, he was aware that
the Agreement provided for TEACH to pay/reimburse the SDP’s aforesaid legal fees for
legal services provided by Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated.
In October 2009, TEACH paid $8,561.00 for the aforesaid legal services provided
by Duane Morris to SDP.
The parties have stipulated that by voting to approve Resolution SRC-85, Archie
utilized the authority of his public position which resulted in the payment by TEACH to
Duane Morris for legal services provided to SDP.
With each element of a transgression of Section 1103(a) established, we hold that a
transgression of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to a vote by Archie to ratify a contract between the SDP and TEACH, whereby
TEACH would make payment of legal fees, ultimately to Duane Morris, a business with
which Archie is associated.
We accept the parties’ recommendation for a finding that no violation of Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Archie participating in actions of the SRC
to award legal contracts to an attorney associated with Duane Morris, a business with
which Archie is associated, where such contracts were a continuation of services
previously awarded to a then defunct law firm.
Although Archie used the authority of his public position when he voted to approve
Resolution No. A-44--thereby authorizing expenditures for work by Duane Morris as a
Archie, 11-024
Page 23
continuation of work performed by lawyers who previously were employed by Wolf Block--
it appears that the Investigative Division, through the exercise of prosecutorial discretion,
has opted to not pursue a violation of Section 1103(a) in this regard due to the pre-existing
arrangement between SDP and Wolf Block.
We hold that based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Archie participating in actions of the SRC to award legal contracts to an attorney
associated with Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated, where such
contracts were a continuation of services previously awarded to a then defunct law firm.
The parties have recommended a finding that no violation of Section 1104(a) of the
Ethics Act occurred in relation to Archie failing to file an SFI for the 2008 calendar year.
The parties’ reasoning is that Archie was specifically advised by the then General Counsel
of the PSD not to file, and that once given notice to file, Archie filed his delinquent form.
The parties have further agreed as part of their negotiated settlement agreement
that no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to the selection of
outside counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
We recognize the prosecutorial discretion of the Investigative Division to opt to not
further pursue such alleged violations as part of a negotiated settlement agreement.
Without adopting any particular reasoning of the parties, we accept the parties’ aforesaid
recommendations.
We hold that based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in
relation to Archie failing to file an SFI for the 2008 calendar year.
We hold that as part of a negotiated settlement agreement in this case, no violation
of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred in relation to the
selection of outside counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Archie has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $6,600.00 as follows: (a) $5,600.00 payable to The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 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.
Archie has agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the SDP 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, Archie is directed to make
payment in the amount of $6,600.00 as follows: (a) $5,600.00 payable to The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the
th
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 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.
Archie, 11-024
Page 24
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Archie is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the SDP 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 and Chairman of the School Reform Commission (“SRC”) for the
School District of Philadelphia (“SDP”) from April 8, 2009, until September 19, 2011,
Respondent Robert L. Archie, Jr. (“Archie”) 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. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to the allegations that Archie used his office as a Member of the SRC to
award contracts to companies represented by the law firm with which he is affiliated,
Duane Morris, LLP (“Duane Morris”), in that at the time Archie was a Member of the
SRC, those entities were no longer clients of Duane Morris.
3. A transgression of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a),
occurred in relation to a vote by Archie to ratify a contract between the SDP and
Teach Productions, Inc. (“TEACH”), whereby TEACH would make payment of legal
fees, ultimately to Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated.
3. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Archie participating in actions of the SRC to award legal contracts to an
attorney associated with Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated,
where such contracts were a continuation of services previously awarded to a then
defunct law firm.
4. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in
relation to Archie failing to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2008
calendar year.
5. As part of a negotiated settlement agreement in this case, no violation of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred in relation to the selection
of outside counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
In Re: Robert L. Archie, Jr., : File Docket: 11-024
Respondent : Date Decided: 1/28/13
: Date Mailed: 2/21/13
ORDER NO. 1615
1. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act
(“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to the allegations that
Robert L. Archie, Jr. (“Archie”) used his office as a Member of the School Reform
Commission (“SRC”) for the School District of Philadelphia (“SDP”) to award
contracts to companies represented by the law firm with which he is affiliated,
Duane Morris, LLP (“Duane Morris”), in that at the time Archie was a Member of the
SRC, those entities were no longer clients of Duane Morris.
2. A transgression of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a),
occurred in relation to a vote by Archie to ratify a contract between the SDP and
Teach Productions, Inc. (“TEACH”), whereby TEACH would make payment of legal
fees, ultimately to Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated.
3. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Archie participating in actions of the SRC to award legal contracts to an
attorney associated with Duane Morris, a business with which Archie is associated,
where such contracts were a continuation of services previously awarded to a then
defunct law firm.
4. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred in
relation to Archie failing to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2008
calendar year.
5. As part of a negotiated settlement agreement in this case, no violation of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred in relation to the selection
of outside counsel to represent the SDP without an open and public process.
6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Archie is directed to make payment in
the amount of $6,600.00 as follows: (a) $5,600.00 payable to The Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no
th
later 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 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.
7. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Archie is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the SDP representing a full or
partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
8. Compliance with Paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Order will result in the closing of this
case with no further action by this Commission.
Archie, 11-024
Page 26
a. Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
___________________________
John J. Bolger, Chair