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