Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1620 Jones-Butler In Re: Dolores Jones-Butler, : File Docket: 12-013 Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1620 : Date Decided: 10/8/13 : Date Mailed: 10/11/13 Before: John J. Bolger, Chair Nicholas A. Colafella, Vice Chair Raquel K. Bergen Mark R. Corrigan Roger Nick Kathryn Streeter Lewis 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 Dolores Jones-Butler, a public official/public employee in her capacity as Mayor [of Yeadon Borough or a Member] of Yeadon Borough Council, Delaware County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a) and 1105(b), when she used the authority of her public position to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for herself and/or members of her immediate family by using her position to receive payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance; when she subsequently participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs; and when she utilized the Borough police department to provide transportation related to personal matters; and when she failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 calendar years. II.FINDINGS: 1. Dolores Jones-Butler has served as a Council Member or Mayor for Yeadon Borough, Delaware County since January 2006. a. Jones-Butler served as a Council Member from January 2006 through December 2009. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 2 b. Jones-Butler has been serving as the Mayor of Yeadon Borough from January 2010, through the present time. 2. Yeadon was incorporated as a Borough in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, on March 9, 1893. a. According to the United States Census Bureau, the population of Yeadon Borough was 11,443 at the 2010 census. 3. Yeadon Borough is governed by a seven-Member Council and Mayor. a. Historically, Council will hold two (2) meetings each month. 1. Council holds workshop meetings on the first Monday of each month. 2. Council holds legislative meetings on the third Thursday of each month. 3. Council holds special meetings as necessary. 4. Compensation to be received by Members of Borough Council is capped by the Borough Code, 53 P.S. § 45101 et seq. a. Borough Council Member compensation is determined by the Borough’s population. b. Specifically, the Borough Code reads: Members of council may receive compensation to be fixed by ordinance as follows: (1) In boroughs with a population of less than five thousand, a maximum of eighteen hundred seventy-five dollars ($ 1875) a year. (2) In boroughs with a population of five thousand or more but less than ten thousand, a maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2500) a year. (3) In boroughs with a population of ten thousand or more but less than fifteen thousand, a maximum of three thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($ 3250) a year. (4) In boroughs with a population of fifteen thousand or more but less than twenty-five thousand, a maximum of four thousand one hundred twenty-five dollars ($ 4125) a year. (5) In boroughs with a population of twenty-five thousand or more but less than thirty-five thousand, a maximum of four thousand three hundred seventy-five dollars ($ 4375) a year. (6) In boroughs with a population of thirty-five thousand or more, a maximum of five thousand dollars ($ 5000) a year. The salaries shall be payable monthly or quarterly for the duties imposed by the provisions of this act. Benefits provided to members of council under section 1202(26) shall not be considered pay, salary or compensation, but payment for all or a part of the Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 3 premiums or charges for the benefits shall be in accordance with section 1202(26). Any change in salary, compensation or emoluments of the elected office shall become effective at the beginning of the next term of the member of council. 53 P.S. § 46001. 5. Council Members are compensated at a scale of $150.00 monthly ($1,800.00 annually) for their service. a. The population of Yeadon Borough is 11,443, which would make Council Members eligible to receive compensation of $3,250 per year. b. Attendance at the monthly Council meeting is not required in order for Council Members to receive compensation. c. Per the Borough Code (53 P.S. § 46001), Council Members of Yeadon Borough could be compensated a maximum of $3,250.00. 6. In addition to compensation allowed for by law, Members of Borough Council are eligible to participate in Borough-funded insurance programs. a. The pertinent portion of the Borough Code regarding Council Members’ participation in Borough-funded insurance plans is found at 53 P.S. § 46202(26), which reads: (26) OTHER INSURANCE. (i) Workers’ compensation insurance. To appropriate an amount as may be necessary to secure insurance or compensation in accordance with Article VI of the act of June 2, 1915 (P.L. 736, No. 338), known as the “Workers’ Compensation Act,” for: (A) volunteer fire fighters of companies duly recognized by the borough, by motion or resolution, killed or injured while going to, returning from, or attending fires, or while performing their duties as special fire police; and (B) other borough employes as “employe” is defined in section 601 of the “Workers’ Compensation Act.” (ii) Life and health insurance. To make contracts of insurance with any insurance company, association or exchange, authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, insuring borough employes, or any class or classes of employes, or mayor and council, or their dependents, under a policy or policies of insurance covering life, health, hospitalization, medical and surgical service or accident insurance. (iii) Pension contracts. To contract with an insurance company, granting annuities or pensions, for the pensioning of borough employes, or any class, or classes of employes, and to agree to pay part or all of the premiums or charges for carrying the contracts, and to appropriate moneys from the borough treasury for such purposes. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 4 (iv) Liability insurance. To make contracts with any insurance company, association or exchange, authorized to transact business in this Commonwealth, insuring any public liability of the borough, and to appropriate moneys from the borough treasury for such purpose. (v) Nothing in this clause shall affect any contract, right or coverage of insurance vested or existing on the effective date of this clause. Contract, as used in this clause, includes an annuity contract, provided that the option to renew continues to provide the same rights to the annuitant that existed on the effective date of this clause. 53 P.S. § 46202(26) (emphasis added). 7. Yeadon Borough provides health insurance coverage for its employees through a policy managed by Independence Blue Cross. Participants in the Borough’s insurance plan pay no insurance premium. 8. The Borough policy consists of two (2) groups: the police policy group, and all other Borough employees. The Borough’s employee (non-police) group consists of no less than fourteen (14) members. 9. Upon amendment of the Borough Code in 2001, which amongst other provisions, allowed the participation of Council Members in a Borough-funded health insurance program, Yeadon Borough permitted elected officials to receive/participate in the same insurance benefit program that was otherwise provided to Borough employees. 10. As an elected official of Yeadon Borough, Jones-Butler had the option of receiving insurance benefits that were provided to employees and elected officials of Yeadon Borough. 11. Jones-Butler contends that, in or about 2006, the Borough Finance Director offered to reimburse Jones-Butler for her non-Borough-provided medical insurance costs, because that would be less expensive for the Borough than adding her to the Borough’s insurance plan. 12. Jones-Butler opted not to receive any insurance benefits that would have been provided to her from Yeadon Borough. 13. Jones-Butler contends that it was her understanding that the practice of reimbursing elected officials in Yeadon Borough for non-Borough-provided health insurance to save the expense of enrolling them in the Borough insurance plan pre-dated her election to Yeadon Borough Council. 14. The Investigative Division contends that the practice of elected officials in Yeadon Borough being reimbursed for private/employer provided insurance was established informally in or around January 2007. a. Jones-Butler, as a Borough Council Member, began being reimbursed for non-Borough-provided health insurance in 2007. b. Jones-Butler contends that she was unaware that the practice of elected officials in Yeadon Borough being reimbursed for private/employer provided insurance was not permissible. Jones-Butler was not so informed by the Borough Solicitor until August 2011. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 5 15. Jones-Butler collects Social Security and receives Medicare through the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) as well as Survivor Benefits through the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Retirement Services Program, from which the cost of her non-Borough-provided health insurance premiums is deducted. 16. In or around January 2007, at the suggestion of the Finance Director, Jones-Butler began submitting copies of her Annuity Statement from the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Retirement Services Program, and her Social Security Administration Benefit Statement, Form SSA-1099, to the Borough Finance Clerk. 17. The statements showed the health insurance premiums that were deducted from her OPM Annuity and the Medicare Part B premiums that were deducted from her Social Security benefits. 18. Jones-Butler’s health insurance premiums totaled $240.92 per month. 19. Jones-Butler contends that she submitted copies of her statements to the Borough with the intent of receiving reimbursement from the Borough for the insurance premium deductions shown on her statements, and simultaneously with the intent of saving the Borough the cost of enrolling her in the Borough insurance plan. a. Jones-Butler was reimbursed by Yeadon Borough for the premiums paid for her insurance benefits. 20. No formal action was ever taken by Yeadon Borough Council authorizing Jones- Butler or any other elected official to be reimbursed for their private insurance benefits. 21. On December 18, 2008, to save costs, Yeadon Borough Council approved a resolution to limit Council health insurance costs to less than $5,000.00 per official per year. 22. The language of the approved Resolution No. 2008-12 reads, in pertinent part: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Yeadon Borough Council, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, hereby restricts the costs which Councilors and the Mayor may incur utilizing benefits as an elected official to $5,000 per TH RESOLVED AND ENACTED THIS 18 DAY OF official per year, and DECEMBER 2008. 23. The Investigative Division contends that Resolution No. 2008-12 did not authorize elected officials of Yeadon Borough to be reimbursed for their private insurance or insurance provided through an employer or other entity. 24. Yeadon Borough never enacted or established any type of policy that authorized elected officials to be reimbursed for their private insurance or insurance provided through an employer or other entity in lieu of enrolling/participating in a Borough- funded health insurance program. 25. Jones-Butler continued to be reimbursed by Yeadon Borough for her non-Borough- provided health insurance benefits after she started serving as Mayor on January 4, 2010. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 6 26. Jones-Butler received the reimbursement payments on a monthly basis as a result of Borough Council actions approving the accounts payable at the monthly meetings. 27. All Members of Council present at a meeting are to participate in voting on motions presented. The Mayor votes only in the case of a tie. 28. Council’s voting procedures on matters involving financial expenditures or accounts payable occur in roll call fashion. All objections and/or abstentions are noted within the minutes. The votes are taken in regular meetings that are open to the public and are attended by the Borough Finance Director and the Borough Solicitor. 29. Between 2007 and June 2009, Jones-Butler regularly voted with other Council Members to approve the payment of accounts payable. The accounts payable included reimbursements to her and others for the cost of non-Borough-provided health insurance. Such Borough Council votes were generally unanimous. 30. After becoming Mayor, Jones-Butler did not vote to approve the payment of any accounts payable. 31. From January 17, 2007, to May 20, 2011, Jones-Butler received 54 checks representing payment from Yeadon Borough for reimbursement of her insurance benefits provided to her by the SSA and OPM. 32. Jones-Butler contends that her receipt of reimbursement for non-Borough-provided health benefits resulted from the misinterpretation of the Borough Code by Borough officials and employees, including the Borough Finance Director and the Borough Solicitor. Furthermore, Jones-Butler states that at no time before August 2011 did the Borough Finance Director or the Borough Solicitor advise Borough Council or the Mayor that the Borough could not reimburse elected officials for their non- Borough-provided health insurance premiums. a. The Investigative Division does not possess evidence to support or refute Jones-Butler’s contention; however, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(g), “a public official of a political subdivision who acts in good faith reliance on a written, nonconfidential opinion of the solicitor of the political subdivision or upon an opinion of the solicitor of the political subdivision, publicly stated at an open meeting of the political subdivision and recorded in the official minutes of the meeting, shall not be subject to the penalties provided for in subsections (a) [relating to criminal penalties] and (b) [relating to financial interests statement violations] nor for the treble damages provided for in subsection (c).” b. The courts have ruled that acting in good faith on the advice of the solicitor and other sources is not sufficient cause to absolve one from penalties of the law. See, Hoak/McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 466 A.2d 283 (Pa. Commw. 1983), Cotlar v. Warminster Township, 302 A.2d 859 (Pa. Commw. 1973). 33. [Redacted due to confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Act.] 34. [Redacted due to confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Act.] 35. On or about July 21, 2011, Jones-Butler opted not to be included as part of the Yeadon Borough insurance plan available to officials and employees of the Borough. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 7 36. [Redacted due to confidentiality requirements of the Ethics Act.] 37. Jones-Butler realized a private pecuniary benefit in her capacity as a Yeadon Borough public official as a result of being reimbursed by Yeadon Borough for insurance benefits that were provided to Jones-Butler through the SSA and OPM. There is no evidence to indicate that Jones-Butler used the authority of her public position to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for any member of her immediate family. The following findings relate to the allegation that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough Police Department to provide transportation related to personal matters. 38. As the Mayor of Yeadon Borough, Dolores Jones-Butler oversees the Borough’s Police Department. a. Jones-Butler has overseen the Police Department since January 2010. 39. During the period of time that Jones-Butler has been serving as Mayor, police personnel have transported Jones-Butler in police vehicles to functions related to either the Police Department or Borough business, including the following: a. Memorial services for police officers in Delaware County. b. Meetings with government officials related to grant money for the Borough’s Police Department. c. Meetings with officials from other local police departments. d. Information provided by Yeadon Borough police officers reflects that neither Borough police personnel nor police vehicles were used by Jones-Butler for personal or political use. 40. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that Jones-Butler utilized the Police Department to provide her with transportation for personal matters. The following findings relate to Jones-Butler failing to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filedfor the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 calendar years. 41. Pursuant to the Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public employees of Section 1104 of the Ethics Act, Jones-Butler was st required to file accurate and complete Statements of Financial Interests by May 1 annually, in her capacity as a Yeadon Borough Council Member and Mayor. 42. Within Jones-Butler’s Statements of Financial Interests for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011, filed with Yeadon Borough, Jones-Butler negligently failed to list income in excess of $1,300.00 from Yeadon Borough. 43. Dolores Jones-Butler stipulated to the findings set forth above solely for the purpose of [the parties’] Consent Agreement and not for any other purpose or proceeding whatsoever. III.DISCUSSION: As a Council Member for Yeadon Borough (“Borough”), Delaware County, from January 2006 through December 2009, and as the Borough Mayor from January 2010 Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 8 through the present time, Respondent Dolores Jones-Butler, also referred to hereinafter as “Respondent,” “Respondent Jones-Butler,” and “Jones-Butler,” 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 Jones-Butler violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act: (1) when she used the authority of her public position to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for herself and/or members of her immediate family by using her position to receive payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance; (2) when she subsequently participated in actions of Borough Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs; (3) when she utilized the Borough police department to provide transportation related to personal matters; and (4) when she failed to disclose all direct/indirect sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 calendar years. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a)Conflict of interest.— No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict 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 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the SFI form must provide. Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 9 Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties’ Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Jones-Butler served as a Borough Council Member from January 2006 through December 2009. Jones-Butler has served as the Borough Mayor from January 2010 through the present time. The Borough is governed by a seven-Member Council and Mayor. Borough Council Members are compensated $1,800.00 annually for their service and are not required to be in attendance at monthly meetings in order to receive such compensation. All Borough Council Members present at a meeting are to participate in voting on motions presented. The Borough Mayor votes only in the case of a tie. With respect to insurance coverage for members of a borough council and a borough mayor, the Borough Code authorizes a borough to “make contracts of insurance with any insurance company, association or exchange, authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth, insuring borough employes, or any class or classes of employes, or mayor and council, or their dependents, under a policy or policies of insurance covering life, health, hospitalization, medical and surgical service or accident insurance.” 53 P.S. § 46202(26)(ii). After the Borough Code was amended in 2001 to allow the participation of borough council members in a borough-funded health insurance program, the Borough permitted elected officials to receive/participate in the same insurance benefit program provided to Borough employees. The Borough provides health insurance coverage for its employees through a policy managed by Independence Blue Cross. Participants in the Borough’s insurance plan pay no insurance premium. As an elected Borough official, Jones-Butler had the option of receiving insurance benefits that were provided to employees and elected officials of the Borough. Jones- Butler opted not to receive any insurance benefits that would have been provided to her from the Borough. Jones-Butler collects Social Security and receives Medicare through the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) as well as Survivor Benefits through the United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) Retirement Services Program, from which the cost of her non-Borough-provided health insurance premiums is deducted. Jones-Butler’s health insurance premiums totaled $240.92 per month. In or around January 2007, at the suggestion of the Borough Finance Director, Jones-Butler began submitting copies of her Annuity Statement from the OPM Retirement Services Program and her SSA Benefit Statement, Form SSA-1099, to the Borough Finance Clerk. The statements showed the health insurance premiums that were deducted from her OPM Annuity and the Medicare Part B Premiums that were deducted from her Social Security Benefits. Jones-Butler contends that she submitted copies of her statements to the Borough with the intent of receiving reimbursement from the Borough for the insurance premium deductions shown on her statements, and simultaneously with the intent of saving the Borough the cost of enrolling her in the Borough insurance plan. In 2007, the Borough began reimbursing Jones-Butler for the premiums paid for her insurance benefits. Jones-Butler received the reimbursement payments on a monthly basis as a result of Borough Council actions approving the accounts payable at the Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 10 monthly meetings. Between 2007 and June 2009, Jones-Butler regularly voted with other Borough Council Members to approve the payment of accounts payable which included reimbursements to her and others for the cost of non-Borough-provided health insurance. Such Borough Council votes were generally unanimous. On December 18, 2008, to save costs, Borough Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-12, which restricted the cost of Borough-paid health benefits for Borough Council Members and the Mayor to $5,000 per elected official per year. Resolution No. 2008-12 does not authorize elected officials of the Borough to be reimbursed for their private insurance or insurance provided through an employer or other entity. The Borough never enacted or established any type of policy that authorized elected officials to be reimbursed for their private insurance or insurance provided through an employer or other entity in lieu of enrolling/participating in a Borough-funded health insurance program. No formal action was ever taken by Borough Council authorizing Jones-Butler or any other elected official to be reimbursed for their private insurance benefits. Jones-Butler continued to be reimbursed by the Borough for her non-Borough- provided health insurance benefits after she started serving as the Borough Mayor on January 4, 2010. After becoming Mayor, Jones-Butler did not vote to approve the payment of any accounts payable. From January 17, 2007, to May 20, 2011, Jones-Butler received 54 checks representing payment from the Borough for reimbursement of her insurance benefits provided to her by the SSA and OPM. On or about July 21, 2011, Jones-Butler opted not to be included as part of the Borough insurance plan available to officials and employees of the Borough. The parties have stipulated that Jones-Butler realized a private pecuniary benefit in her capacity as a Borough public official as a result of being reimbursed by the Borough for insurance benefits that were provided to her through the SSA and OPM. The parties have further stipulated that there is no evidence to indicate that Jones-Butler used the authority of her public position to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for any member of her immediate family. As the Borough Mayor, Jones-Butler oversees the Borough Police Department. During the period of time that Jones-Butler has served as Mayor, police personnel have transported Jones-Butler in police vehicles to functions related to either the Police Department or Borough business, including memorial services for police officers in Delaware County, meetings with government officials related to grant money for the Borough Police Department, and meetings with officials from other local police departments. The parties have stipulated that there is insufficient evidence to indicate that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough Police Department to provide her with transportation for personal matters. With regard to the allegations involving Jones-Butler’s SFIs, the parties have stipulated that Jones-Butler negligently failed to list income in excess of $1,300.00 from the Borough on her SFIs filed with the Borough for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011. 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: Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 11 a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a) occurred in relation to Jones-Butler’s receipt of payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance when she participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs. b. That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a) occurred regarding the allegation that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough police department to provide transportation related to personal matters, as there is insufficient information to indicate that the Borough Police personnel or Police vehicles were used by Jones-Butler for personal or political use. c. That a violation of Section 1105(b) [of the Ethics Act] occurred when Jones-Butler failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years all direct/indirect sources of income. 4. Jones-Butler agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,250.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Yeadon Borough and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 5. Jones-Butler agrees to file complete and accurate Statements of Financial Interests with Yeadon Borough through the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for [the] 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 calendar years within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 6. Jones-Butler agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Yeadon Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 7. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1-2. In considering the Consent Agreement of the parties, we accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 12 Act occurred in relation to Jones-Butler’s receipt of payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance when she participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs. But for being a Borough Council Member, Jones-Butler would not have been in a position to submit copies of statements showing the health insurance premiums deducted from her OPM Annuity and the Medicare Part B Premiums deducted from her Social Security Benefits to the Borough Finance Clerk in order to receive reimbursement from the Borough for those insurance premium deductions. Jones-Butler used the authority of her public position as a Borough Council Member when she voted with other Borough Council Members to approve the payment of accounts payable which included reimbursements to her and others for the cost of non-Borough-provided health insurance. The parties have stipulated that Jones-Butler realized a private pecuniary benefit in her capacity as a Borough public official as a result of being reimbursed by the Borough for insurance benefits that were provided to her through the SSA and OPM. Per the Stipulated Findings, Jones-Butler’s health insurance premiums totaled $240.92 per month, and from January 17, 2007, to May 20, 2011, she received 54 checks from the Borough reimbursing her for such premiums. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and the Consent Agreement, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to Jones-Butler’s receipt of payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance when she participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs. We further hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred regarding the allegation that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough Police Department to provide transportation related to personal matters, as there is insufficient information to indicate that the Borough police personnel or police vehicles were used by Jones-Butler for personal or political use. As for the allegations regarding Jones-Butler’s SFIs, per the Consent Agreement, Jones-Butler negligently failed to list income in excess of $1,300.00 from the Borough on her SFIs filed with the Borough for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011. We hold that Jones-Butler violated Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), when she failed to disclose on SFIs filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years all direct/indirect sources of income. As part of the Consent Agreement, Jones-Butler has agreed to make payment in the amount of $1,250.00 payable to Yeadon Borough and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Jones-Butler has agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. Jones-Butler has further agreed to file complete and accurate SFIs for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years with the Borough, through this Commission, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in 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, Jones-Butler is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,250.00 payable to Yeadon Borough and forwarded to Jones-Butler, 12-013 Page 13 th this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Jones-Butler 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. Jones-Butler is directed to file complete and accurate SFIs for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years with the Borough, through this Commission, by no later th than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. 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 Council Member for Yeadon Borough (“Borough”), Delaware County, from January 2006 through December 2009, and as the Borough Mayor from January 2010 through the present time, Respondent Dolores Jones-Butler (“Jones-Butler”) has been a public officialsubject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Jones-Butler violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to her receipt of payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance when she participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs. 3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred regarding the allegation that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough Police Department to provide transportation related to personal matters, as there is insufficient information to indicate that the Borough police personnel or police vehicles were used by Jones-Butler for personal or political use. 4. Jones-Butler violated Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years all direct/indirect sources of income. In Re: Dolores Jones-Butler, : File Docket: 12-013 Respondent : Date Decided: 10/8/13 : Date Mailed: 10/11/13 ORDER NO. 1620 1. As a Council Member for and/or Mayor of Yeadon Borough (“Borough”), Delaware County, Dolores Jones-Butler (“Jones Butler”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to her receipt of payment from the Borough for the costs of private health insurance when she participated in actions of Council to approve payments issued to her for private health care insurance costs. 2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred regarding the allegation that Jones-Butler utilized the Borough Police Department to provide transportation related to personal matters, as there is insufficient information to indicate that the Borough police personnel or police vehicles were used by Jones-Butler for personal or political use. 3. Jones-Butler violated Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), when she failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years all direct/indirect sources of income. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Jones-Butler is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,250.00 payable to Yeadon Borough and forwarded to th the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Jones-Butler 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. 6. Jones-Butler is directed to file complete and accurate SFIs for the 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 calendar years with the Borough, through the Pennsylvania State th Ethics Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. 7. Compliance with paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 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