HomeMy WebLinkAbout1624 Geary
In Re: William H. Geary, : File Docket: 12-017
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1624
: Date Decided: 2/6/14
: Date Mailed: 2/12/14
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.” An Answer was filed and a hearing was requested. 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 William Geary, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor
for Bullskin Township, Fayette County, violated Section 1103(a) of the State Ethics Act
(Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public position
for a private pecuniary benefit when he participated in discussions and actions of the
Board of Supervisors to set a monthly vehicle allowance for him without auditor approval;
when he subsequently participated in actions of the Board to issue vehicle allowance
payments to him; when he submitted and approved per mile reimbursement to himself for
use of his personal vehicle while simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance;
and when he submitted for reimbursement and approved payments to himself for lodging
and subsistence for travel unrelated to Township business.
II.FINDINGS:
1. William Geary has served as a Supervisor for Bullskin Township, Fayette County,
from January 2, 1996, through the present.
a. Geary currently holds the office of Secretary/Treasurer of the [Township].
1. Geary has served as the Secretary/Treasurer of the [Township], as
well as the Vice-Chairman of the [Township Board of Supervisors], at
varying times during his tenure.
Geary, 12-017
Page 2
b. Geary has been employed as a full-time roadmaster for the Township during
his entire tenure as a Supervisor.
2. Bullskin Township (hereafter, “Township”) is a Second Class Township governed by
a three Member Board of Supervisors.
a. The Township holds one regularly scheduled legislative meeting per month
on the last Wednesday of each month.
1. The Township does not hold regularly scheduled agenda/workshop
meetings.
b. The Township holds special meetings as necessary.
3. Bullskin Township Supervisors receive $2,500.00 gross annually, paid in quarterly
installments, for services rendered in their elected Supervisor/public official
capacity.
a. The Supervisors need not be present at every meeting held to receive their
Supervisor salary.
4. Voting at Township meetings occurs in group “aye/nay” fashion after a motion is
made and properly seconded.
a. Any abstentions or objections made during the vote are specifically noted in
the minutes.
b. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at the subsequent
meeting.
5. Signature authority over Township accounts is maintained by all three Supervisors.
a. Township-issued checks require the signatures of any combination of two of
the three Township Supervisors.
b. Signatures on Township checks must be live signatures.
1. Facsimile stamps are not utilized.
6. The Township Supervisors receive a meeting packet for review prior to each
regularly scheduled legislative meeting.
a. The meeting packets are prepared by the Township Clerk and are placed on
the desk for the Supervisors in the Township office.
1. The meeting packets are prepared and available to the Supervisors
no later than the day of the legislative meeting.
7. The meeting packet routinely consists of the upcoming meeting agenda, a written
copy of the prior month’s meeting minutes, and a listing of all bills received by the
Township but which have not yet been paid, since the prior meeting.
a. Normal recurring bills (e.g., utility bills) are paid prior to the monthly
meetings and are not listed on the register of bills presented for approval at
the meetings.
Geary, 12-017
Page 3
1. The vote taken at each legislative meeting to approve bills includes
the approval of any checks issued prior to the date of the meeting.
b. The register of bills maintained by the Township in the official Township
minute books documents all bills approved for payment at each meeting.
8. The Township maintains a road crew to address various road/maintenance related
issues in the Township.
a. All three Township Supervisors are typically appointed as roadmasters at the
annual Township reorganization meeting.
1. Township Supervisors are traditionally employed as full-time
employees/roadmasters.
b. The Township also employs five full-time road crew laborers.
9. The Township is divided into three approximately equal geographical sections for
purposes of road/maintenance issues.
a. Each Supervisor/roadmaster is assigned a specific geographic section of the
Township for which he is responsible.
b. Each Supervisor/roadmaster is assigned at least one full-time road crew
employee to assist with road/maintenance related issues.
1. Multiple members and/or all members of the road crew may be
assigned to work in a specific Supervisor’s geographic section
dependent upon work being conducted.
10. The Township roadmasters are responsible for maintaining the Township roads,
including: inspecting roads; plowing roads; maintaining the Township vehicles; etc.
a. The Township has no written job description for the roadmaster position.
11. The Township Supervisors/roadmasters are to perform actual physical labor with
the road crew.
12. The Township maintains multiple pieces of equipment to facilitate the completion of
road projects/road maintenance, including four large single axle dump trucks and
four small trucks.
a. Operation of the single axle dump trucks requires a Commercial Driver’s
License (“CDL”).
1. Geary currently holds a CDL.
b. Smaller trucks owned by the Township do not require a CDL.
13. The Township vehicles are housed in the Township garage.
a. The Township garage is a separate structure from the Township Municipal
Building.
1. The Township garage and Township building sit contiguous to one
another.
Geary, 12-017
Page 4
14. The Township Supervisors’ reorganization meeting minutes from 2007 through
2012 document Geary’s annual appointment as one of three Township
roadmasters, as shown below:
Reorganization Meeting Date
January 2, 2007
January 7, 2008
January 5, 2009
January 4, 2010
January 3, 2011
January 3, 2012
a. Other than that of a Township roadmaster, Geary was not employed in any
full-time capacity during his service as a Township Supervisor.
15. The local board of auditors for a Second Class Township is responsible for the
setting of wages and benefits for township supervisors who are appointed to
positions of employment (e.g., roadmaster) within their respective municipality.
a. The board of auditors is to meet and reorganize on the first Tuesday after
the reorganization meeting of the township supervisors.
b. Establishment of working supervisor salaries and benefits, among other
issues, is to be addressed at the auditor reorganization meeting.
16. The Township Auditors are responsible for setting the wages and benefits of
Supervisors serving as employees of the Township.
a. The Township Auditors do not set compensation or benefits received by the
Supervisors in their capacity as public officials.
1. Compensation received by the Township Supervisors in their capacity
as public officials is delineated in Article VI, Section 606, of the
Second Class Township Code.
17. Since approved by the Township Auditors at the January 3, 1973, Auditors
reorganization meeting, the Bullskin Township Supervisors/roadmasters have
consistently received as part of their employee compensation: the benefit of a
specific per mile reimbursement at an established rate; a flat daily vehicle
allowance; or a flat monthly vehicle allowance, for use of their personal vehicles for
Township business.
a. Auditors have historically set the vehicle allowance as an employment
benefit for the working Supervisors as employees of the Township.
b. The method of determining payment (e.g., per mile reimbursement or flat
vehicle allowance) has been set by the Township Auditors during their
reorganization meetings since the benefit was first instituted in January
1973.
18. The method by which payment has been issued to the working Supervisors, for use
of their personal vehicles while on Township business, has changed since the
benefit was first instituted in January 1973.
Geary, 12-017
Page 5
a. The working Supervisors received actual per mile reimbursement at a rate
authorized by the Township Auditors during reorganization meetings held
from approximately 1973 through 1988, for those respective years.
1. Reimbursement was only made once an expense voucher was
submitted stating the reason for use of a personal vehicle and the
mileage traveled.
b. The working Supervisors received a set daily vehicle allowance in an
amount authorized by the Township Auditors during reorganization meetings
held from approximately 1989 through 1993, for those respective years.
c. The working Supervisors received a set monthly vehicle allowance in an
amount authorized by the Township Auditors during reorganization meetings
held from approximately 1994 through 2011, for those respective years.
1. From at least January 1995 through December 2011, the Township
Auditors approved a monthly vehicle allowance in the amount of
$250.00 per month, for use of a Supervisor’s personal vehicle for
Township business.
2. As early as the 2000 Auditor reorganization meeting, the automotive
allowance was termed by the Auditors as a “fringe benefit” of
roadmasters.
19. The Township Board of Auditors reorganization [meeting] minutes from 2007
through 2011 document Geary’s hourly rate and fringe benefits, as approved by the
Township Auditors, in his full-time roadmaster employment position as shown
below:
Auditors Hourly Benefits*
Reorganization Meeting Rate
January 3, 2007 $18.00 Fringe benefits remain same
January 8, 2008 $18.50 Fringe benefits remain same
January 6, 2009 $18.80 Fringe benefits remain same
January 5, 2010 $19.00 Fringe benefits remain same
January 4, 2011 $19.00 Fringe benefits remain same
*As applicable to the $250 monthly reimbursement for personal vehicle use benefit
20. Geary has received a flat $250.00 monthly vehicle allowance for use of his personal
vehicle for Township business during his entire tenure as a roadmaster.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT GEARY
PARTICIPATED IN ACTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN
2012 TO REINSTATE A MONTHLY VEHICLE ALLOWANCE FOR A
SUPERVISOR/ROADMASTER’S USE OF HIS PERSONAL VEHICLE FOR TOWNSHIP
BUSINESS.
21. Prior to 2012, the Township Supervisors had no objections or concerns with the
Township Auditors establishing the vehicle allowance or the manner in which the
allowance was issued.
a. From at least 1995 through 2011, the Township Supervisors had received a
set $250.00 monthly allowance for use of their personal vehicles while on
Township business.
Geary, 12-017
Page 6
22. The Bullskin Township Auditors reorganization meeting for 2012 was scheduled to
take place at the Township Municipal Building on January 4, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
a. On January 4, 2012, the Township Auditors were Lee Ann Boring, Jeff Hann,
and John Coughenour.
23. During the Executive Session held prior to the January 4, 2012 meeting, the
Township Auditors discussed possible changes to the wages and benefits for
roadmasters/Township employees for the 2012 calendar year, including the
following:
a. A reduction in the number of paid holidays from fourteen to ten.
b. A requirement for each working Supervisor to pay fifty dollars per pay toward
health insurance premiums.
c. A reduction in the number of weeks of vacation by one week.
d. Abolishment of the monthly vehicle allowance, to be replaced as follows:
1. Mileage to be paid at the standard IRS rate of $0.555 per mile for the
2012 year.
2. Completion by each of the working Supervisors/roadmasters of a
mileage report, to be provided to the Township Auditors, to include
name, date, location, nature of business, and total miles traveled, to
be recorded daily on each form.
3. Mileage reports to be filed with reimbursement requests and [mileage
to be] paid quarterly.
24. The January 4, 2012, Township Auditors reorganization meeting was called to order
as scheduled at 7:00 p.m. at the Township Municipal Building.
a. The door to the Municipal Building was open upon the Auditors’ return to the
Municipal Building.
b. Geary, [Township Supervisor Walter] Wiltrout, and [Township Supervisor
Thomas] Keefer were all present for the reorganization meeting.
25. During the reorganization meeting, the Auditors took comments from the public
(including the Supervisors); elected Auditor officers for the year; and established
the wages and benefits for the working Supervisors in their capacity as
roadmasters/Township employees.
a. A request by the Supervisors for an increase in roadmaster wages was
denied.
1. The wages for the working Supervisors in their capacity as
roadmasters/Township employees remained static from 2011.
b. Changes discussed by the Auditors in the Executive Session held prior to
the reorganization meeting were approved/set by the Auditors via unanimous
3-0 [vote].
26. Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer were opposed to the changes instituted by the
Township Auditors regarding mileage reimbursement, reduction in the amount of
Geary, 12-017
Page 7
paid holidays, reduction of vacation time, and contribution requirements related to
health insurance premiums.
a. Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer subsequently contacted Township Solicitor
Donald McCue and requested McCue to research the legality of the Auditors
instituting the changes.
1. McCue’s research consisted of reviewing case law, as well as
contacting the Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervisors’ Department of Policy and Research Development.
b. The Township Supervisors had previously expressed no opposition to the
Township Auditors establishing the mileage reimbursement/allowance for
working Supervisors in their employee capacity prior to 2012.
27. McCue’s opinion was that the Township Auditors did not have the authority to
institute the changes set forth at the January 4, 2012, Auditors reorganization
meeting in relation to wages and benefits set for the working Supervisors.
a. McCue conveyed his determination to Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer.
b. Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer subsequently directed McCue to generate a
Resolution for adoption which refuted the Auditors’ authority to institute the
changes.
28. McCue generated Bullskin Township Resolution Number 12-1-2 for approval at the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the Township Supervisors.
a. Bullskin Township Resolution Number 12-1-2 addressed the authorization of
Bullskin Township Supervisors/roadmasters to continue to receive a vehicle
allowance when using their personal vehicles for Township business, and
health insurance provisions for Township Supervisors and roadmasters.
29. Included within Resolution 12-1-2, in relation to the monthly vehicle allowance, was
among other information, the following:
a. The Township Supervisors/roadmasters had been using their personal
vehicles for Township business for a number of years.
b. The Township Supervisors had carefully evaluated the situation and
determined that it was in the best interest of the Township to continue the
longstanding practice of paying the Township Supervisors/roadmasters the
sum of $250.00 per month rather than incurring the cost of buying vehicles
for the Township Supervisors/roadmasters.
c. The Township Solicitor had researched the Second Class Township Code
and legally concluded that the Township Auditors did not have the authority
to change the rate established for the use of personal vehicles while on
Township business.
1. The Township Solicitor had also received an opinion from the
Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors that
automobile allowance lies within the exclusive control of the Township
Supervisors/roadmasters and outside the scope of authority assigned
to the Township Auditors.
Geary, 12-017
Page 8
d. The Township Secretary (Geary) was directed to continue issuing payment
to the Township Supervisors/roadmasters for the use of their personal
vehicles while conducting Township business.
30. Resolution 12-1-2 was presented for adoption by the Township Supervisors at the
January 25, 2012, regular meeting via motion by Geary and second by Keefer.
a. All three Supervisors were present at the January 25, 2012, meeting.
b. Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer approved Resolution 12-1-2 by unanimous 3-0
vote.
IN THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, THE PARTIES (RESPONDENT AND THE
INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION) SET FORTH THEIR INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND CLASS TOWNSHIP CODE AND THE UNIFORM
MILEAGE FEE LAW AND STIPULATE THAT THE MONTHLY MILEAGE ALLOWANCE
SET BY RESOLUTION 12-1-2 WAS A FORM OF COMPENSATION, RATHER THAN A
MILEAGE FEE.
31. The Second Class Township Code, specifically 53 P.S. § 65606(a), states in
pertinent part:
mileage allowance
a. “The board of supervisors may establish a , under the
act of July 20, 1979 (P.L. 156, No. 51), referred to as the Uniform Mileage
Fee Law, to be paid to officers and employes for the use of a personal
vehicle when required and actually used for authorized township business.”
53 P.S. § 65606(a) (Emphasis added).
32. In establishing “mileage allowance,” the Second Class Township Code references
the Uniform Mileage Fee Law, which states:
a. “Notwithstanding the provisions of any other act to the contrary the mileage
fee to be charged and received by members of the General Assembly, public
officials, officers or employees may be established by the General Assembly,
Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, intermediate units and authorities.”
65 P.S. § 371.
b. The Uniform Mileage Fee Law essentially codifies the ability of Township
public officials to establish a “mileage fee.”
c. “Mileage” is defined as: “[a]llowance for traveling expenses at certain rate
per mile. Especially to members of legislative bodies, witnesses, sheriffs,
th
and bailiffs.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY at 992 (6 ed. 1990).
33. Resolution Number 12-1-2 established a monthly mileage allowance which provides
for a flat monthly payment for Township Supervisors, as opposed to a mileage
allowance representing reimbursement for actual mileage, as required by provisions
of the Second Class Township Code.
a. Resolution 12-1-2 provides a flat rate of $250.00 per month payable to
Township Supervisors/roadmasters regardless of actual miles traveled.
b. Resolution 12-1-2’s flat rate of $250.00 per month is not based upon a per
mile calculation, and does not require any accountability to verify miles
traveled were required and actually used for authorized Township business.
Geary, 12-017
Page 9
c. The setting of a flat rate of $250.00 per month payment for Township
Supervisors/roadmasters creates a form of compensation, rather than sets a
mileage reimbursement policy.
34. The $250.00 monthly payment only applies to Township Supervisors/roadmasters.
a. All remaining Township employees are reimbursed for any use of their
personal vehicles via specific per mile reimbursement at the rate established
by the Supervisors at the Supervisors’ annual reorganization meeting.
35. Geary and the remaining Supervisors used the authority of their public positions for
a private pecuniary gain when approving Resolution 12-1-2, resulting in a benefit
for themselves in their Township employee capacities.
a. All wages and benefits to be received by the working Supervisors in their
Township employee capacities must be established by the Township
Auditors.
36. Geary and the remaining Supervisors received the $250.00 monthly vehicle
allowance throughout the 2012 calendar year as a result of their voting to approve
Resolution 12-1-2 at the January 25, 2012, Supervisors meeting.
a. Geary voted in favor on all twelve occasions in calendar year 2012 to
approve his receipt of a monthly vehicle allowance which had not been
approved by the Township Auditors.
b. Geary signed all twelve of the monthly vehicle allowance checks made
payable to him in 2012, as an authorized Township signatory.
37. Geary received twelve checks from the Township totaling $4,191.04 spanning the
time frame of January 2012 through December 2012 in allowances/reimbursements,
of which $3,000.00 was representative of the monthly vehicle allowance detailed in
Resolution 12-1-2.
a. The receipt of a monthly vehicle allowance was not approved by the
Township Auditors for 2012.
1. All wages and benefits received by Supervisors in their capacity as
Township employees must be established and approved by the
Township Auditors.
b. The remaining $1,191.04 was issued as reimbursement for PSATS
expenses, postage, and other miscellaneous reimbursements claimed.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT GEARY SUBMITTED
AND APPROVED PER MILE REIMBURSEMENT TO HIMSELF FOR USE OF A
PERSONAL VEHICLE WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RECEIVING A MILEAGE
ALLOWANCE, AND THAT HE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PAYMENTS FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR LODGING AND SUBSISTENCE UNRELATED TO TOWNSHIP
BUSINESS.
38. The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (“PSATS”) has been
serving Second Class Townships since approximately 1921.
a. The Association was created via Act 189 to represent the interests of
townships and authorized townships to join [sic].
Geary, 12-017
Page 10
b. The mission of the Association is to preserve and strengthen township
government through various tactics, including educating and informing its
members through workshops, an annual conference and trade show, and
publications.
39. PSATS sponsors an annual convention held at The Hershey Lodge & Convention
Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, for its member townships for the purpose of
education, training, and networking regarding local government.
a. Bullskin Township is a PSATS member township.
40. The annual, four day PSATS convention routinely begins on Sunday and concludes
on Wednesday.
a. Workshops, seminars, and other sessions, as well as registration, are often
available on Sunday as early as 8:30 a.m. and continue throughout the day.
41. Township reorganization meeting minutes for 2007, and from 2009 through 2012,
document approval for representatives from Bullskin Township to attend PSATS
conventions.
42. Geary participated by voting at the Supervisor reorganization meetings in 2007, and
from 2009 through 2012, to approve Bullskin Township representative and/or
Supervisor attendance at each applicable year’s PSATS convention and general
mileage reimbursement.
43. Township reorganization [meeting] minutes for the years 2007 through 2012
document no separate or specific approval for reimbursement of expenses (lodging,
subsistence, etc.) incurred by attendees at the PSATS conventions.
a. An understanding that reimbursement of valid expenses was permitted was
inherent in the approval for Township representatives to attend the
conventions.
b. Reorganization [meeting] minutes document a general motion to set
reimbursable mileage at the IRS rate for each of the applicable years, with
the exception of 2007, as shown below:
2007 2008* 2009 2010 2011* 2012
None $0.505/$0.585 $0.55 $0.50 $0.51/$0.555 $0.555
*Amounts applicable from January-June/July-December
1. Reorganization [meeting] minutes for 2007 document no Supervisor
action taken to establish a specific per mile reimbursement amount
for the 2007 calendar year.
44. Section 1402 of the Second Class Township Code sets limitations regarding
allowed expenses for delegates attending the annual PSATS convention to: the
registration fee; mileage for use of a personal vehicle or reimbursement of actual
transportation expense going to and returning from the meeting; plus all other
actual expenses that the board of supervisors agrees to pay.
a. Additionally noted is that supervisors employed by the township may be
compensated at their regular employee rate during their attendance at the
convention.
Geary, 12-017
Page 11
45. Delegates attending PSATS conventions must submit to the board of supervisors
an itemized account of all expenses incurred in relation to the convention.
46. Supervisor attendance at the annual PSATS convention is documented by way of
an Official Delegate’s Attendance Certification.
a. PSATS representatives issue the Attendance Certifications to township
delegates contemporaneous to the completion of the general session on the
last day of the convention.
47. Geary’s Attendance Certifications for annual conventions held document his
attendance on all four days of each respective conference held in 2007, 2009,
2011, and 2012.
48. PSATS also provides township delegates with blank expense reports to be utilized
in documenting itemized expenses regarding attendance at PSATS conventions.
a. The expense report provided by PSATS contains categories for the date,
area (from and to), miles traveled, meals, lodging, registration fee, and
miscellaneous.
49. Geary utilized one of his personal vehicles to travel to the PSATS conventions in
2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012.
a. Geary claimed reimbursement for mileage in association with his travel to
the PSATS conventions even though Geary received a monthly vehicle
reimbursement for use of his personal vehicle for Township business.
b. Geary voted to approve the payment of per mile reimbursement at a time
when he was simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle reimbursement for
use of his personal vehicle for Township business.
50. Geary’s expense reports submitted to the Township for travel and attendance at the
2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012 PSATS conventions documented mileage
reimbursement claims totaling $847.62 as shown below:
Year Miles Claimed Per Mile Rate Total
2007 396 $0.485 $192.06
2009 402 $0.55 $221.10
2011 398.1 $0.51 $203.02
2012 417 $0.555 $231.44
Total $847.62
51. Geary’s Convention Registration and Hotel Reservation forms for the 2007, 2009,
2011, and 2012 PSATS conventions consistently document Geary’s travel to the
PSATS convention one day in advance of the start of the actual convention.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Bullskin Township (“Township”), Fayette County, from January
2, 1996, through the present, Respondent William H. Geary, also referred to hereinafter as
“Respondent,” “Respondent Geary,” and “Geary,” 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 Gearyviolated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he
used the authority of his public position for a private pecuniary benefit: (1) when he
Geary, 12-017
Page 12
participated in discussions and actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to set a
monthly vehicle allowance for him without auditor approval; (2) when he subsequently
participated in actions of the Township Board of Supervisors to issue vehicle allowance
payments to him; (3) when he submitted and approved per mile reimbursement to himself
for use of his personal vehicle while simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance;
and (4) when he submitted for reimbursement and approved payments to himself for
lodging and subsistence for travel unrelated to Township business.
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.
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
The Township is governed by a three-Member Board of Supervisors. Geary has
served as a Township Supervisor from January 2, 1996, through the present. Geary
currently holds the office of Township Secretary/Treasurer.
All three Supervisors maintain signature authority over Township accounts.
Township-issued checks require the signatures of any two of the Supervisors.
Geary, 12-017
Page 13
The Township maintains a road crew to address various road/maintenance related
issues in the Township. All three Supervisors are typically appointed as full-time Township
employees/roadmasters at the annual Supervisors reorganization meeting. Geary has
been employed as a full-time Township roadmaster during his entire tenure as a
Supervisor. Each Supervisor/roadmaster is assigned a specific geographic section of the
Township for which he is responsible. The Township roadmasters’ responsibilities include
inspecting and plowing Township roads and maintaining Township vehicles. The
Township also employs five full-time road crew laborers.
The Township Board of Auditors is responsible for setting the wages and benefits of
Township Supervisors who are appointed to positions of employment with the Township.
The establishment of working Supervisor salaries and benefits is to be addressed at the
Auditors reorganization meeting on the first Tuesday after the Supervisors reorganization
meeting. The Auditors do not set compensation or benefits received by the Supervisors as
public officials. The Supervisors receive $2,500.00 gross annually, paid in quarterly
installments, for services rendered as Supervisors.
Since 1973, Supervisors employed as Township roadmasters have consistently
received—in the form of an employment benefit/compensation—payment for the use of
their personal vehicles for Township business. During reorganization meetings, the
Auditors have historically set the method by which payment is issued to working
Supervisors for use of their personal vehicles for Township business as: (1) a specific per
mile reimbursement at an established rate; (2) a flat daily vehicle allowance; or (3) a flat
monthly vehicle allowance.
From at least January 1995 through December 2011, the Auditors approved a
vehicle allowance in the amount of $250.00 per month for use of a working Supervisor’s
personal vehicle for Township business. As early as the Auditors reorganization meeting
in 2000, the vehicle allowance was termed by the Auditors as a “fringe benefit” of
roadmasters. Prior to 2012, the Supervisors had no objections or concerns with the
Auditors establishing the vehicle allowance for working Supervisors or with the manner in
which the vehicle allowance was issued.
The Auditors reorganization meeting for 2012 was held at the Township Municipal
Building on January 4, 2012. During the Executive Session held prior to the reorganization
meeting, the Auditors discussed possible changes to the wages and benefits for
roadmasters/Township employees for the 2012 calendar year. The possible changes
included, in pertinent part, abolishing the monthly vehicle allowance and replacing it as
follows: (1) mileage to be paid at the standard IRS rate of $0.555 per mile for the year
2012; (2) completion by each of the working Supervisors/roadmasters of a mileage report
to be provided to the Auditors, with name, date, location, nature of business, and total
miles traveled to be recorded daily; and (3) mileage reports to be filed with reimbursement
requests and mileage to be paid quarterly.
During the January 4, 2012, reorganization meeting, the Auditors established the
wages and benefits for the working Supervisors as roadmasters/Township employees and
included the possible changes discussed in the Executive Session. Geary and the other
two Township Supervisors, Walter Wiltrout (“Wiltrout”) and Thomas Keefer (“Keefer”),
were present for the reorganization meeting and were opposed to the changes to wages
and benefits instituted by the Auditors, including the changes regarding mileage
reimbursement.
Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer subsequently contacted Township Solicitor Donald
McCue (“McCue”) and requested that he research the legality of the Auditors instituting the
changes. McCue conveyed to Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer his opinion that the Auditors did
not have the authority to institute the changes set forth at the January 4, 2012, Auditors
reorganization meeting in relation to wages and benefits set for the working Supervisors.
Geary, 12-017
Page 14
Geary, Wiltrout, and Keefer directed McCue to generate a Resolution for adoption which
refuted the Auditors’ authority to institute the changes.
McCue generated Township Resolution Number 12-1-2, also referred to hereinafter
as “the Resolution,” which addressed, in pertinent part, the authorization of
Supervisors/roadmasters to continue to receive a vehicle allowance when using their
personal vehicles for Township business. The Resolution provided that the Supervisors
had carefully evaluated the situation and determined that it was in the best interest of the
Township to continue the longstanding practice of paying the Supervisors/roadmasters the
sum of $250.00 per month rather than incurring the cost of buying vehicles for the
Supervisors/roadmasters. The Resolution further provided that the Township Solicitor had
concluded that the Auditors did not have the authority to change the rate established for
the use of personal vehicles while on Township business. The Resolution directed the
Township Secretary to continue issuing payment to the Supervisors/roadmasters for the
use of their personal vehicles while conducting Township business.
At the January 25, 2012, meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Resolution was
presented for adoption by a motion by Geary, which was seconded by Keefer. The three
Supervisors approved the Resolution by a unanimous vote. The Resolution established a
flat rate of $250.00 per month payable to Supervisors/roadmasters regardless of actual
miles traveled and did not require any accountability to verify that miles traveled were
required and actually used for authorized Township business. The $250.00 monthly
payment applied only to Supervisors/roadmasters, and all remaining Township employees
were to be reimbursed for any use of their personal vehicles via specific per mile
reimbursement at the rate established by the Supervisors at the annual Supervisors
reorganization meeting.
In the Stipulated Findings, the parties (Respondent and the Investigative Division)
have set forth their interpretation of certain provisions of the Second Class Township Code
and the Uniform Mileage Fee Law and have stipulated that the monthly mileage allowance
set by the Resolution was a form of compensation, rather than a mileage fee. Through
their Stipulations, the parties have contractually designated the nature of the payments
made pursuant to the Resolution as compensation that only the Auditors could set. As a
result of the parties’ Stipulations, we are not presented with legal issues as to how mileage
fees should be structured under the Second Class Township Code and Uniform Mileage
Fee Law, which laws this Commission does not have the statutory jurisdiction to interpret.
The parties have further stipulated that Geary used the authority of his public
position for a private pecuniary gain when he approved the Resolution, which resulted in a
benefit for him in his Township employee capacity.
Geary and the other two Supervisors received the $250.00 monthly vehicle
allowance throughout the 2012 calendar year as a result of voting to approve the
Resolution. Geary voted on all twelve occasions to approve his receipt of the $250.00
monthly vehicle allowance for 2012, and he signed as an authorized Township signatory
all twelve of the monthly vehicle allowance checks made payable to him in 2012. For the
time frame of January 2012 through December 2012, Geary received twelve checks from
the Township totaling $4,191.04 in allowances/reimbursements, of which $3,000.00 was
representative of the monthly vehicle allowance detailed in the Resolution.
The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (“PSATS”) has been
serving Second Class Townships since approximately 1921. PSATS sponsors an annual
conference held at The Hershey Lodge & Convention Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, for
its member townships for the purpose of education, training, and networking regarding
local government. The PSATS conference routinely begins on Sunday and concludes on
Wednesday. The Second Class Township Code limits allowed expenses for delegates
attending the PSATS conference to the registration fee, mileage for use of a personal
Geary, 12-017
Page 15
vehicle or reimbursement of actual transportation expense going to and returning from the
PSATS conference, and all other actual expenses that the township board of supervisors
agrees to pay. Delegates attending the PSATS conference must submit to the township
board of supervisors an itemized account of all expenses incurred in relation to the PSATS
conference.
The Township is a PSATS member township. Geary participated by voting at the
Supervisors reorganization meetings in 2007 and from 2009 through 2012 to approve
Township representative and/or Supervisor attendance at each applicable year’s PSATS
conference and general mileage reimbursement. Township reorganization meeting
minutes for the years 2007 through 2012 document no separate or specific approval for
reimbursement of expenses such as lodging, subsistence, and the like incurred by
attendees at the PSATS conference. An understanding that reimbursement of valid
expenses was permitted was inherent in the approval for Township representatives to
attend the PSATS conference.
Geary’s attendance at all four days of each PSATS conference held in 2007, 2009,
2011, and 2012 is documented by his Official Delegate’s Attendance Certifications. Geary
utilized one of his personal vehicles to travel to the PSATS conferences in 2007, 2009,
2011, and 2012. Geary’s expense reports submitted to the Township for travel to and
attendance at the PSATS conferences in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012 documented
mileage reimbursement claims totaling $847.62. Geary claimed reimbursement for
mileage in association with his travel to the PSATS conferences and voted to approve the
payment of per mile reimbursement even though he received a monthly vehicle
reimbursement for use of his personal vehicle for Township business.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a) occurred in relation to Geary’s use of
authority of his office as a Member of the Board
of Supervisors to set a monthly vehicle
allowance for Members of the Board of
Supervisors, in their capacity as employees of
the Township, which included himself as
roadmaster.
b. 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 Geary’s
submission and approval of a per mile
reimbursement to himself for use of his personal
vehicle in his capacity as an elected official,
while simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle
allowance as an employee.
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 Geary’s
Geary, 12-017
Page 16
submission and approval for reimbursement of
lodging and subsistence expenses related to
PSATS conferences.
4. Geary agrees to make payment in the amount of $4,000.00 in
settlement of this matter as follows:
a. Geary agrees to make payment in the amount of
$3,000.00 in settlement of this matter payable to
Bullskin Township and forwarded to the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within
thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
b. Geary agrees to make reimbursement in the
amount of $1,000.00, 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, and
made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission.
5. Nothing in this Consent Agreement prohibits Geary, and/or
other Members of the Board of Supervisors, from requesting of
the Township reimbursement for per mile usage of a personal
vehicle for official Township purposes during calendar year
2012, upon a showing of sufficient mileage logs and evidence
of actual usage, to the satisfaction of the governing body of the
Township.
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 of the parties, we accept the parties’
recommendation for a finding that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred
in relation to Geary’s use of authority of his office as a Member of the Board of Supervisors
to set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Board of Supervisors in their
capacity as employees of the Township, which included him as roadmaster.
The Auditors are responsible for setting the wages and benefits of Supervisors
serving as Township employees. Since 1973, the Supervisors serving as roadmasters
have consistently received—in the form of an employment benefit/compensation—either
actual per mile reimbursement at an established rate or a daily or monthly vehicle
allowance for use of their personal vehicles for Township business, as set by the Auditors.
From at least January 1995 through December 2011, the Auditors approved a flat $250.00
monthly vehicle allowance for use of a working Supervisor’s personal vehicle for Township
business.
Geary, 12-017
Page 17
For the year 2012, the Auditors abolished the $250.00 monthly vehicle allowance
for working Supervisors and replaced it with mileage reimbursement at the standard IRS
rate. Geary and the other two Supervisors, all of whom were employed as Township
roadmasters in 2012, subsequently directed the Township Solicitor to generate a
resolution for adoption which refuted the Auditors’ authority to institute the changes to the
method of payment for the Supervisors’ use of their personal vehicles for Township
business. All three Supervisors voted to approve Resolution Number 12-1-2, which
established a flat $250.00 monthly payment for Supervisors/roadmasters for use of their
personal vehicles while on Township business. Through their Stipulations, the parties
have contractually designated the nature of the payments made pursuant to the Resolution
as compensation that only the Auditors could set. The parties have further stipulated that
Geary used the authority of his public position for a private pecuniary gain when he
approved Resolution Number 12-1-2, which resulted in a benefit for him in his Township
employee capacity. Geary further used the authority of his public position as a Supervisor
when he voted on all twelve occasions to approve his receipt of the $250.00 monthly
vehicle allowance for 2012, and when he signed as an authorized Township signatory all
twelve of the monthly vehicle allowance checks made payable to him in 2012.
Based upon the particular 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 Geary’s use of authority of his office as a Member of the Board of Supervisors to
set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Board of Supervisors in their capacity
as employees of the Township, which included him as roadmaster.
The parties have recommended a finding that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act occurred in relation to Geary’s submission and approval of a per mile
reimbursement to himself for use of his personal vehicle in his capacity as an elected
official while simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance as an employee. The
parties have further recommended a finding that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act occurred in relation to Geary’s submission and approval for reimbursement of
lodging and subsistence expenses related to PSATS conferences. These
recommendations of the parties pertain to Geary’s attendance at PSATS conferences in
2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012.
The Second Class Township Code limits allowed expenses for delegates attending
the PSATS conference to the registration fee, mileage for use of a personal vehicle or
reimbursement of actual transportation expense going to and returning from the PSATS
conference, and all other actual expenses that the township board of supervisors agrees to
pay. In 2007 and from 2009 through 2012, the Board of Supervisors, including Geary,
approved Township representative and/or Supervisor attendance at each applicable year’s
PSATS conference and general mileage reimbursement, with the inherent understanding
that reimbursement of valid expenses was permitted.
Geary utilized one of his personal vehicles to travel to the PSATS conferences in
2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012, and he claimed reimbursement for mileage in association
with his travel to those conferences, as approved by the Board of Supervisors as per the
Second Class Township Code. There is no basis in the Stipulated Findings for concluding
that Geary used the authority of his public position for a private pecuniary benefit in
relation to his submission and approval for reimbursement of expenses related to his
attendance at the aforesaid PSATS conferences.
Based upon the Stipulated Findings and the Consent Agreement, we hold that no
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to
Geary’s submission and approval of a per mile reimbursement to himself for use of his
personal vehicle in his capacity as an elected official attending PSATS conferences while
simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance as an employee.
Geary, 12-017
Page 18
We further hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred in relation to Geary’s submission and approval for reimbursement of
lodging and subsistence expenses related to PSATS conferences.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Geary has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $4,000.00 in settlement of this matter payable as follows: (a) $3,000.00 payable
to Bullskin Township 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.
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, Geary is directed to make
payment in the amount of $4,000.00 payable as follows: (a) $3,000.00 payable to Bullskin
Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics 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 the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution
of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. We take administrative notice that on October 25,
2013, Geary made payment in the amount of $4,000.00 in accordance with the Consent
Agreement of the parties.
In that Geary has made payment in the amount of $4,000.00 as per the Consent
Agreement of the parties, no further action is required in this case and this case is closed.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Member of the Bullskin Township (“Township”) Board of Supervisors from
January 2, 1996, through the present, Respondent William H. Geary (“Geary”) 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. Based upon the particular Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, Geary violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in
relation to his use of authority of his office as a Member of the Township Board of
Supervisors to set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Township Board
of Supervisors in their capacity as employees of the Township, which included him
as roadmaster.
3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Geary’s submission and approval of a per mile reimbursement to himself
for use of his personal vehicle in his capacity as an elected official attending
Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors conferences while
simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance as an employee.
4. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Geary’s submission and approval for reimbursement of lodging and
subsistence expenses related to Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervisors conferences.
In Re: William H. Geary, : File Docket: 12-017
Respondent : Date Decided: 2/6/14
: Date Mailed: 2/12/14
ORDER NO. 1624
1. Based upon the particular Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, William H. Geary (“Geary”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his use
of authority of his office as a Member of the Bullskin Township (“Township”) Board
of Supervisors to set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Township
Board of Supervisors in their capacity as employees of the Township, which
included him as roadmaster.
2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Geary’s submission and approval of a per mile reimbursement to himself
for use of his personal vehicle in his capacity as an elected official attending
Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors conferences while
simultaneously receiving a monthly vehicle allowance as an employee.
3. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to Geary’s submission and approval for reimbursement of lodging and
subsistence expenses related to Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervisors conferences.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Geary is directed to make payment in
the amount of $4,000.00 payable as follows: (a) $3,000.00 payable to Bullskin
Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later
th
than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order; and (b) $1,000.00 in
reimbursement representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative
prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made
payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission.
a. We take administrative notice that on October 25, 2013, Geary made
payment in the amount of $4,000.00 in accordance with the Consent
Agreement of the parties.
5. In that Geary has made payment in the amount of $4,000.00 as per the Consent
Agreement of the parties, no further action is required in this case and this case is
closed.
BY THE COMMISSION,
___________________________
John J. Bolger, Chair