HomeMy WebLinkAbout1633 Simon
In Re: Dennis J. Simon, : File Docket: 12-026
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1633
: Date Decided: 4/24/14
: Date Mailed: 5/6/14
Before: John J. Bolger, Chair
Nicholas A. Colafella, Vice Chair
Raquel K. Bergen
Mark R. Corrigan
Roger Nick
Kathryn Streeter Lewis
Maria Feeley
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 Dennis Simon, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Member
and Vice-Chairman of the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority (“WPJWA”), violated
\[Section 1103(a)\] of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his
public position for the private pecuniary gain of himself and/or a business with which he is
associated by lobbying and soliciting WPJWA board members to support the appointment
of Chester Engineers, a business where he serves as a Vice-President, as \[the\] WPJWA
engineer; and when he participated in discussions and actions of the Board to replace the
existing WPJWA engineer at a time when he had a reasonable expectation that Chester
Engineers, a business with which he is associated would be chosen as the WPJWA
engineer; and when he participated in discussions and actions of the Board, including but
not limited to requesting a motion that Chester Engineers be appointed \[as the\] WPJWA
engineer.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Dennis J. Simon has served as a Member of the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water
Authority Board of Directors from January 16, 2001, through the present.
a. Simon has served in the office of Chairman of the Board of Directors since
May 8, 2012.
Simon, 12-026
Page 2
b. Simon served in the office of Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors from
January 24, 2006, to May 8, 2012.
c. Simon served in the office of Treasurer of the Board of Directors from
January 28, 2003, to January 24, 2006.
2. Simon currently serves as a Member of East Pittsburgh Borough Council in addition
to serving as an Authority Board Member.
a. Simon has served as a Council Member for East Pittsburgh Borough from
January 28, 1991, through the present.
b. Simon has served as the Chairman of East Pittsburgh Borough Council from
February 16, 1996, through the present.
1. Simon also served as the Chairman of Council from March 10, 1995,
until January 2, 1996.
3. The Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority (“Authority”) is an independent
municipal entity governed by a twelve-Member Board of Directors.
a. The Authority Board has regularly scheduled meetings on the fourth
Tuesday of every month to conduct Authority business.
1. The meetings consist of a workshop meeting at 6:30 p.m. which is
subsequently followed by the legislative meeting.
b. The Authority holds special meetings as necessary.
c. The Authority has not held a workshop/regular business meeting during the
month of December since at least the 2007 calendar year.
4. Voting at Authority legislative meetings occurs either via voice “aye/nay” vote (a/k/a
group vote) or individual roll call vote of those Board Members present.
a. Any objection cast during a group aye/nay vote triggers a subsequent roll
call vote.
b. Votes involving substantial amounts of funds are routinely conducted in roll
call fashion.
c. The Chairman of the Board votes last during roll call votes taken.
5. Any abstentions cast by Board Members during votes taken are specifically
documented in the meeting minutes.
a. Authority meetings are audiotaped to assist in generation of meeting
minutes.
1. Prior to at least June 2012, audio recordings of the Authority
meetings were not maintained after the Board approved the written
minutes of the meetings.
b. Minutes of all meetings held are approved for accuracy by the Board at
subsequent Board meetings.
Simon, 12-026
Page 3
1. All Board Members are presented the opportunity to review the
accuracy of the meeting minutes prior to voting to approve the
minutes.
6. The Authority Board Members receive informational packets via the United States
Postal Service at least one to three days prior to the monthly meetings, which
consist of the meeting notice, the meeting agenda, a copy of the prior month’s
meeting minutes, a bill listing (a/k/a voucher recap), and multiple reports.
a. The packets are developed and compiled by the Executive Director and
his/her Administrative Assistant.
1. The Executive Director determines the contents of the packet.
2. The Administrative Assistant assembles the packets.
b. Board Members also receive updates/additional information if applicable the
night of the actual meetings.
7. The bill listing/voucher recap presented for approval at the legislative meeting is
composed of bills received by the Authority between the time frame of the prior
legislative meeting and the current legislative meeting.
a. Normal recurring bills are paid as the bills are received by the Authority.
1. Checks are prepared every Thursday for issuance regarding bills
received by the Authority.
2. Checks are documented on the listing of bills presented to the
Authority Board for approval once issued.
3. The Board’s vote to approve payment of the monthly bills often
represents approval to pay various bills after the fact.
8. Signature authority over Authority accounts is maintained by the Authority Executive
Director, Assistant Director, Chairman, Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, Comptroller,
and Secretary.
a. Authority checks require the live signatures of any combination of two of the
identified authorized signatories.
9. In approximately 1888, the Pennsylvania Water Company merged with the Penn
Water Company to address water needs for various western Pennsylvania
communities.
a. The merger resulted in the Pennsylvania Water Company assimilating the
Penn Water Company into its operations.
b. The merger represented the first in a succession of steps towards providing
quality water service to western Pennsylvania communities.
10. The Authority was initially formed on September 11, 1945, at a meeting between
officials of Wilkinsburg Borough and Penn Township.
a. The Authority was incorporated with the Pennsylvania Department of State,
Corporation Bureau, as a PA Miscellaneous Business Corporation-Domestic
under Entity Number 390293 on or about October 8, 1945.
Simon, 12-026
Page 4
b. The Authority has a registered office address of 2200 Robinson Boulevard,
Wilkinsburg, PA 15221.
c. The Pennsylvania Water Company still serviced the Wilkinsburg-Penn area
and surrounding communities at that time.
11. In 1945, the Authority Board was initially composed of five total Members from the
two incorporating municipal entities.
a. Wilkinsburg Borough supplied three representatives to serve on the Board.
b. Penn Township supplied two representatives to serve on the Board.
12. In 1946, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission approved the Authority’s
purchase of the Pennsylvania Water Company.
a. Communities joining the Authority subsequent to the Authority’s purchase of
the Pennsylvania Water Company included the following:
1. East Pittsburgh Borough;
2. Churchill Borough;
3. North Braddock Borough;
4. Edgewood Borough;
5. Swissvale Borough;
6. Forest Hills Borough; and
7. Turtle Creek Borough.
b. Each of the communities joining the Authority was entitled to elect one
representative to serve on the Authority Board.
13. The Authority currently provides water service to twenty-three (23) separate
municipalities within the Commonwealth.
a. The Authority is the fifth-largest water authority in the Commonwealth,
serving approximately forty thousand customers.
b. Although twenty-three (23) separate municipalities are serviced by the
Authority, only nine municipalities have one or more appointed
representatives on the Board.
14. The Authority Board traditionally conducts a reorganization meeting immediately
prior to its regularly scheduled January meeting.
a. Actions taken at the reorganization meetings include the selection of
Authority Board officers (e.g., Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary,
Treasurer, etc.) and service providers of record (e.g., consulting engineer
and solicitor).
Simon, 12-026
Page 5
15. The duties and responsibilities of consulting engineers for a municipal authority are
associated with the overall operation and upkeep of the authority and include, but
are not limited to, the following:
a. Monitoring and approval of bonds/bond issuance for capital projects;
b. Preparation of plans for authority projects and supervision of construction;
c. Creation of project bid specifications and bid advertisements; and
d. Review of bid packets received and recommendation of lowest responsible
bidders.
16. Although the Authority appoints a consulting engineer (a/k/a engineer of record) at
its reorganization meetings, additional engineering firms have been utilized by the
Authority as needed for completion of various projects.
a. Authority projects for which additional engineering firms have been utilized
have not traditionally been publically bid or advertised.
1. The Authority considered performance of engineering work to be a
professional service which fell outside of competitive bidding
requirements.
17. Chester Engineers, Inc. (hereafter “Chester”) is an engineering services firm that
provides energy, water, and wastewater solutions to public and industrial clients in
the United States and internationally.
a. Chester is a current member of the Advanced Technology Systems, Inc.
(“ATS”) Group.
b. Chester’s services are segregated into three main categories of
services/work, including municipal, industrial, and international.
18. Chester’s municipal group performs planning and feasibility studies, facilities
design, construction management, and observation services.
a. Chester’s municipal group also provides operations assistance for water
supply, treatment, storage, and distribution; wastewater collection,
conveyance, and treatment; storm water management; and municipal
engineering services.
b. Chester’s municipal group was acquired and released by various companies
from the late 1990s to the present, including US Filter Engineering &
Construction.
19. Chester maintains a Governmental Affairs Group in association with its company
operations.
a. Executive Vice-Chairman Bruce Fletcher has supervisory/management
responsibility over the Governmental Affairs Group.
1. Fletcher supervises, among others, two individuals, each occupying
one of two Governmental Affairs Manager positions (later classified
as Vice-President of Governmental Affairs positions).
Simon, 12-026
Page 6
b. Individuals employed with the Governmental Affairs Group primarily operate
from the Governmental Affairs office located at 601 Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
c. Individuals employed with the Governmental Affairs Group also work at times
at/from Chester’s main office located at 1555 Coraopolis Heights Road,
Moon Township, PA 15108.
20. The Governmental Affairs Group is tasked with the responsibility of monitoring the
quality of service provided to existing clients/projects and assisting in the obtaining
of new clients/projects.
a. The responsibility for client retention and new client acquisition is primarily
met through the efforts of the individuals in the two Vice-President of
Governmental Affairs positions.
1. Each Vice-President of Governmental Affairs has a predominant
geographical region for which he is responsible.
b. The retention of existing clients and securing of new clients are the two main
duties and responsibilities associated with the position of Vice-President of
Governmental Affairs.
21. Simon is currently employed by Chester in one of the two positions of Vice-
President of Governmental Affairs.
a. Simon began his employment with Chester on or about July 8, 2002.
1. Chester was owned by US Filter Engineering & Construction at the
time of Simon’s hiring.
b. Simon has spent his entire tenure at Chester working within the
Governmental Affairs Group.
1. Simon was initially employed as a Manager of Governmental Affairs.
2. Simon was promoted to the title of Vice-President of Governmental
Affairs on or about May 12, 2008.
3. Simon’s duties and responsibilities did not change as a result of his
promotion in title to a company Vice-President.
22. Simon receives a semimonthly (twice per month) salary from Chester in his position
of Vice-President of Governmental Affairs.
a. Simon also receives a quarterly bonus in the amount of 0.25% of all
payments received by Chester from Simon’s clients during the applicable
quarter.
1. Simon has received quarterly bonuses from Chester since at least
August 2008.
b. Simon also is provided with a cellular telephone for use through his
employment with Chester.
Simon, 12-026
Page 7
1. Simon’s cellular telephone is assigned telephone number \[telephone
number redacted\] under Chester’s account with Sprint Nextel
(Account Number \[account number redacted\]).
23. Simon is eligible for reimbursement of expenses incurred in performance of his job-
related duties and responsibilities as a Chester employee via submission of an
expense report.
a. Simon is responsible for the information ultimately entered on his expense
reports.
1. Simon is to write out the information relating to expenses claimed and
provide it to a Chester employee for computer input.
2. Simon is responsible for signing off on the expense report when
completed.
b. Expenses eligible for reimbursement must be client/business related.
1. Simon is not authorized to claim or receive reimbursement from
Chester for personal expenses.
2. Simon’s business expense reimbursements are reviewed/approved by
Fletcher as Simon’s immediate supervisor.
c. Expense reports are formatted and issued to employees of Chester.
1. Employees have no authority/discretion to change the pre-printed
information contained on the form.
24. Geographic regions established for the individuals employed in the two positions of
Vice-President of Governmental Affairs include Allegheny County (overall) and the
City of Pittsburgh.
a. Simon’s geographic region primarily focuses on Allegheny County as well as
smaller clients located in the East Hills portion of the City of Pittsburgh.
1. The Authority falls within the geographic region for which Simon is
responsible.
b. Joe Cusick, the remaining Vice-President of Governmental Affairs, has a
geographic region which primarily focuses on the City of Pittsburgh as well
as smaller clients located in the Mon Valley.
25. Simon’s job description in his position as Vice-President of Governmental Affairs
provides/identifies a job summary, job requirements, job knowledge, and skills and
abilities, which include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Job Summary:
1. The position exists to execute the Company’s strategic plan for
assigned accounts and to identify selling opportunities in support of
client business needs.
2. The Governmental Affairs Group is to contribute to overall client
satisfaction, profitable revenue attainment, and a high performing
team environment.
Simon, 12-026
Page 8
b. Job Requirements:
1. Report on a monthly basis, or more often as required, the meetings
held with political leaders and representatives, and include in the
report all political contributions requested or made.
2. Establish working relationships with political leaders who are deemed
critical for the achievement of the Company’s business goals.
3. Work performed is to be in accordance with all provisions of the
Company’s Ethical Conduct Program to include participation in
training sessions on the Program and ensuring that other staff
members involved are aware and adhere to the Program’s
requirements.
4. Work with Company marketing and business development group and
senior management to perform market research and to assist in
establishing strategic marketing goals for the region.
5. Oversee the execution of accurate, complete and insightful client
business profiles including building and maintaining ongoing
relationships with Managers/Directors within the client organization
and attending client planning meetings as appropriate.
6. Identification of additional selling opportunities within assigned area
of responsibility to include other company’s products/services
including making in depth capabilities presentations to comparable
level client contacts.
7. Responsible for strategic planning and ongoing management of
assigned clients including client service, support, and renewal
activities.
c. Knowledge:
1. Good working knowledge of communication strategies, customer
service methods, and client management practices.
2. Knowledge of handling sensitive and confidential information.
d. Skills and Abilities:
1. Have exceptional decision-making and influencing skills to implement
various initiatives.
26. Simon receives Performance Appraisals from Fletcher in relation to his employment
with Chester.
a. The purpose of the appraisals, among other \[things\], is to review and
evaluate the employee’s performance; to improve the lines of communication
between the employee and supervisor through discussions regarding job
responsibilities and objectives, performance, attitude, etc.; and to establish
mutual goals.
27. Chester maintains an established Business Conduct Policy/Code in relation to its
business operations.
Simon, 12-026
Page 9
a. The Business Conduct Policy/Code is intended to accomplish, among other
\[things\], the following objectives:
1. The setting forth of Chester’s basic standards of legal and ethical
behavior;
2. The increasing of Chester’s employees’ sensitivity to legal and ethical
issues;
3. The emphasizing of Chester’s compliance with the law; and
4. The informing of employees about procedures for reporting known
and suspected violations of law or unethical behavior, without fear of
retaliation, to Chester management.
b. Management and other personnel who have direct interaction with clients
and vendors are required to sign an Annual Certification regarding
compliance with Chester’s Code of Business Conduct.
c. The Business Conduct Policy/Code is included in the “Standards of
Conduct” section of Chester’s Employee Handbook.
d. The Business Conduct Policy/Code was last revised in January 2009.
28. Section Nine of Chester’s Business Conduct Policy/Code as well as the second rule
of engagement of Chester’s Standards of Business Conduct specifically address
Conflict of Interest.
a. The Code specifies that “Employees should avoid any relationship with other
people of businesses that might impair the proper performance of their job
responsibilities.”
b. The second rule of engagement specifies that Chester representatives are to
“Avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of
interest in Client-Chester relationships.”
29. The Authority appointed Chester to serve as its consulting engineer on January 27,
1987.
a. Chester served as the Authority consulting engineer from approximately
January 27, 1987, until March 27, 1990.
b. Chester was replaced as consulting engineer by a vote of the Authority
Board.
30. In or about January 1990, the Authority formed a committee to review qualifications
of firms to be considered as consulting engineer.
a. A number of projects were not being timely completed at that time.
b. A backlog of work existed in 1990 at the time the Authority was reviewing
consulting engineer applicants.
31. At the March 27, 1990, regular Authority Board meeting, an Executive Session was
held by the Board for the purpose of analysis of the consulting engineer.
Simon, 12-026
Page 10
a. Then Board Member Anthony Russo, Jr., informed the Board of the
following:
1. That he and Board Member Mr. Major (first name unknown) were on
the committee for selection of another consulting engineer firm;
2. That six (6) resumes had been received which were narrowed down
to three; and
3. That NIRA Consulting Engineers (hereafter “NIRA”) had been
selected to serve as the Authority consulting engineer based on a
recommendation from the Executive Director.
b. A motion was subsequently made and carried via 9-0-1 vote that Chester be
relieved of its duties immediately and that all records concerning Authority
business be sent to NIRA.
32. NIRA was re-appointed annually as the Authority consulting engineer from January
1991 through January 2012.
a. NIRA’s appointments occurred as a result of unanimous affirmative votes
with the exception of votes taken at the 1992 and 1993 Authority
reorganization meetings.
1. Two Members of the Authority Board abstained from the votes to
appoint NIRA in both 1992 and 1993.
2. No objections were cast during votes to re-appoint NIRA during the
January 1991 through January 2012 time frame.
b. No significant concerns of any type were experienced regarding the
Authority’s use of NIRA during NIRA’s tenure as the Authority’s consulting
engineer (performance, billing, etc.).
33. The backlog of work to be completed ultimately resulted in the Authority’s use of
NIRA as well as additional engineering companies and in-house personnel to
complete the required projects.
a. The Authority Executive Director had the discretion to use additional
companies as needed for project completion.
1. Anthony Russo, Jr., was employed as the Executive Director from
approximately January 1992 until June 2012.
34. Engineering firms utilized for Authority projects from at least 1992 through May
2012 traditionally were selected by Russo, Jr., as the Authority Executive Director.
a. Russo, Jr., presented management reports at Authority workshop meetings,
identifying activities for the past month as well as the upcoming month,
including upcoming projects and the engineering firm selected to perform the
work.
1. If the project was to be funded via Community Development Block
Grant (“CDBG”) funds, Russo, Jr., frequently utilized the engineer of
record for the respective municipality in which the work was to be
completed.
Simon, 12-026
Page 11
b. The Authority Board ultimately voted to approve or deny the projects as
presented by Russo, Jr., which included tacit approval of the engineering
firm identified for the project.
35. From approximately January 1990 through April 2004, the Authority issued payment
to five separate engineering firms for the completion of various projects as shown
below:
Engineering Payment Number of Payment Percentage Consulting Engineer
Entity Date Payments Total of Work* During Range?
Range
Chester 01/90—06/95 16 $77,360.01 1.5% Yes (01/01/90-03/27/90)
NIRA 06/90—04/04 256 $3,992,115.81 79.6% Yes (03/27/90-04/30/04)
Bankson 01/90—03/98 46 $356,959.13 7.1% No
Engineering
R&D 10/96—12/01 49 $221,182.81 4.4% No
Engineering
Glenn 10/97—04/04 68 $368,916.53 7.4% No
Engineering
* The percentage of work received by each company is based upon the total payment received
by each company divided by total payment issued by the Authority for all projects/services
during the identified date range.
a. NIRA served as the Authority consulting engineer during the April 1990
through April 2004 time frame.
1. Companies serving in the role of consulting engineer traditionally
perform the majority of the engineering services desired by the
governing body.
b. No engineering companies beyond those identified received payment from
the Authority for completion of services during the January 1990 through
April 2004 time frame.
c. Payment to Chester was limited to services performed while serving as the
Authority consulting engineer for the first three months of 1990 and for an
Authority water line project in Forest Hills Borough in 1994-1995, with the
exception of an $8,000.00 payment in April 1992.
1. Chester was utilized for the water line project because Chester was
Forest Hills Borough’s appointed consulting engineer at that time.
2. Chester performed no engineering services for the Authority from
approximately July 1995 until during or about April 2004.
36. Chester had no existing working/client relationship with the Authority at the time that
Simon was appointed to the Authority Board in January 2001.
a. NIRA was the Authority consulting engineer at the time of Simon’s
appointment to the Authority Board.
37. In or about spring 2004, Simon initiated efforts to secure work from the Authority for
Chester through Nick Bianchi, then Chairman of the Authority Board.
a. Simon and Bianchi have a professional, friendly relationship.
Simon, 12-026
Page 12
b. Bianchi has served on Turtle Creek Borough Council for approximately
twenty-five (25) plus years.
1. Turtle Creek Borough and East Pittsburgh Borough border one
another geographically.
38. Bianchi’s approach of Russo, Jr., on Simon’s behalf, seeking work for Chester
resulted in Chester’s selection by Russo, Jr., to provide engineering services for the
Authority in association with Authority Contract 04-004, Mainline Replacement,
Pennwood Avenue (Wilkinsburg) and Whipple Street (Swissvale).
a. The Authority’s use of Chester for engineering services associated with
Contract 04-004 was the Authority’s first use of Chester in approximately
nine (9) years.
b. Russo, Jr., selected Chester for the project as a result of Bianchi’s request of
him on Simon’s behalf.
39. Chester’s Scope of Work and associated fees for the project, dated April 2, 2004,
signed by Robert E. Laskey, Senior Project Manager, Municipal Services Division,
confirmed Simon’s association with the project as an employee of Chester.
a. The Scope of Work and associated fees correspondence was courtesy
copied to Simon among other Chester representatives.
b. Chester’s records reflect the Authority as a client of Simon.
40. In or about September 2004, Simon was directed by Fletcher, his supervisor, to
concentrate on client development.
a. This direction was noted in Simon’s performance appraisal completed by
Fletcher.
1. Simon asserts that he has never received a copy of the performance
evaluation and has never seen Fletcher’s performance appraisal.
b. Simon’s performance appraisal for the 2003/2004 review period documented
the following future goals to meet agreed upon personal and business
objectives:
1. Help plan and implement a sales plan for Allegheny County;
2. Increase emphasis on client development vs. client maintenance;
3. More visible presence on Ross Street and with County Executive;
4. Focus on signing up new clients; and
5. Additional contract(s) from Wilk-Penn.
aa. Wilk-Penn is a reference to the Authority.
41. On multiple occasions between 2004 and 2012, Simon approached Bianchi,
seeking \[to have\] the Authority utilize Chester for engineering projects.
Simon, 12-026
Page 13
a. After being approached by Simon, Bianchi would as Authority Chairman then
advise Russo, Jr., to assist Simon by utilizing Chester for upcoming
engineering services/projects.
1. Bianchi and Russo, Jr., often met for breakfast on Saturdays to
discuss matters occurring at the Authority.
aa. Bianchi and Russo, Jr., met on Saturdays as a result of both
individuals working during the week.
bb. Bianchi and Russo, Jr., met due to Bianchi holding the office of
Board Chairman and Russo, Jr., holding the position of
Executive Director.
2. Bianchi solicited work for Chester from Russo, Jr., at Simon’s request
on multiple occasions at the Saturday breakfast meetings.
b. Russo, Jr., had the discretion as Executive Director to assign Authority work
to engineering firms of his choice.
1. Russo, Jr., reported to the Authority Board in his position of Executive
Director.
c. Simon asserts that he has no knowledge whether Russo, Jr., and Bianchi
met for breakfast meetings and what, if anything, was discussed at said
meetings.
42. Between 2004 and 2012, Simon spoke with Russo, Jr., at times during presentation
of the Authority’s annual capital budget regarding the Authority’s potential use of
Chester.
a. Simon inquired of Russo, Jr., if he (Chester) was slated to receive any
Authority work budgeted for within the capital budget.
43. Russo, Jr., ultimately utilized Chester on a consistent basis to provide engineering
services for Authority projects spanning from April 2004 until early May 2012.
a. Russo, Jr., restricted projects assigned to Chester to projects such as line
replacement and tank painting.
44. Simon served as the main point of contact/liaison between the Authority and
Chester from approximately April 2004 until early May 2012.
a. Simon was the most visible representative from Chester pursuing
work/projects from the Authority from approximately April 2004 into early May
2012.
45. Simon reported to representatives at Chester regarding work/projects for which
Chester had been chosen by Russo, Jr., to complete.
a. Simon asserts that representatives/project engineers of Chester would
periodically inform him as to the status of any ongoing project(s).
b. Simon also gained knowledge of the work/projects for which Chester had
been chosen as a result of either Russo, Jr.’s presentations to the Board or
through direct conversation with Russo, Jr., outside of a Board meeting
setting.
Simon, 12-026
Page 14
1. Simon asserts that Russo, Jr., would request to meet Simon, typically
in Russo, Jr.’s office and inform Simon of the already ongoing
projects.
46. Simon arranged for a Chester Project Manager through Fletcher or the Vice-
President of Municipal Services to contact Russo, Jr., regarding the work/project
after being informed of Chester’s selection by Russo, Jr., for the work/project.
a. Simon asserts that Russo, Jr., would request a meeting and that Simon was
not the initiator of any meetings.
b. Simon at times directed Russo, Jr., to contact a Project Manager directly if
Russo, Jr., had worked with the Project Manager multiple times.
47. During a recorded statement provided to Commission Investigators on September
5, 2012, Russo, Jr., stated the following:
a. The only thing that brought Chester to the table was the fact that he (Simon)
sat on the Board.
1. Simon was not privy to Russo, Jr.’s statement, and asserts that
Chester had completed work/project for a decade (ten years) before
he, Simon, became a Board Member.
b. Russo, Jr., was asked by the Chairman of the Authority Board if he could
help them (Chester) out/give them (Chester) any work.
1. The Authority Board served as Russo, Jr.’s immediate supervisor.
2. Russo, Jr., was an “at will” employee.
c. At the time the Authority had work which needed completion.
48. From August 2007 through January 2012, Simon received a minimum of four (4)
Employee Performance Appraisals from Chester in association with his position as
Vice-President of Governmental Affairs which documented instructions to and/or
efforts by Simon to secure work from the Authority for Chester as shown below:
Date Signed Category Description
Aug. 22, 2007 Overall Supervisor Dennis has continued to maintain several of our key
Comments clients….He has also continued to get us more work
with Wilkinsburg-Penn.
June 29/30, 2009 Key Position Responsibilities Work with PMs to maintain key clients, i.e. Monroeville
& Goals and Objectives Municipality and Authority, West Mifflin Municipality and
Authority, …Wilk-Penn Auth,… Assist on collections
for above clients…
July 28, 2010 Key Position Responsibilities Work with PMs to maintain key clients, i.e. Monroeville,
& Goals and Objectives West Mifflin, …Wilkinsburg-Penn,….
Overall Supervisor Dennis continues to do an excellent job with respect to
Comments client retention. We had some negative political results
over the past year; however, Dennis was able to secure
our re-appointment in almost every instance. He is also
working on securing several new clients who can
support Chester’s rate structure. These are efforts that
Simon, 12-026
Page 15
Date Signed Category Description
will take time but will payoff in the long run if he is
successful. He is very effective doing behind the
scenes activities that benefit all of our clients, not just
the ones that he is assigned to handle. Finally he is
very effective at building relationships that have
the potential to lead to large volumes of work. He
works in a stealth mode so that his actions are not
obvious to outsiders including our competitors.
Finally, Dennis is effective in helping to position us for
the future by building relationships with politicians
whose upside is enormous.
January 12, 2012 Key Position Responsibilities Lay the ground work for recruiting new Mid-Market
& Goals and Objectives clients to help restock shrinking client base
Overall Supervisor Dennis is key to our Mid-Market business. Clients
Comments like Monroeville Municipality, Monroeville Authority,
Munhall Borough…Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint
Authority, etc., are all with Chester because of
Dennis. If he were to leave today those clients
would leave also….
Performance Milestones We need to target and secure at least four new Mid-
to Measure market clients in 2012
a. Simon’s performance evaluations were generated and presented by Fletcher
as Simon’s immediate supervisor.
b. Simon’s performance evaluations consistently identified the Authority as one
of Simon’s clients.
1. Fletcher identified Simon as “critical” for Chester at the Authority as
Simon had all of Chester’s relationships at the Authority.
2. Fletcher affirmed potential difficulty in maintaining the Authority as a
client if Simon was to gain similar employment with another
engineering company.
c. Simon asserts that the comments provided on his Employee Performance
Appraisals were not reviewed by him (Simon) in advance and nor does he
(Simon) view the description following the completion of performance
evaluations by Chester.
49. From approximately May 2004 through April 2012, the Authority issued payment to
three separate engineering firms, including Chester, for the completion of various
projects as shown below:
Engineering Payment Number of Payment Percentage Consulting Engineer
Entity Date Payments Total of Work* During Range?
Range
NIRA 05/04—04/12 104 $1,649,490.83 68.7% Yes (05/01/04—04/30/12)
Glenn 05/04—04/12 12 $46,698.23 1.9% No
Engineering
Chester 05/04—04/12 94 $705,351.13 29.4% No
* The percentage of work received by each company is based upon the total payment received
by each company divided by total payment issued by the Authority for all projects/services
during the identified date range.
Simon, 12-026
Page 16
a. Chester received approximately 29.4% of all the Authority engineering work
from May 2004 through April 2012, even though Chester was not the
appointed engineer.
b. The percentage of Authority work completed by NIRA from May 2004
through April 2012 decreased by 10.9% although NIRA was the appointed
consulting engineer at all times during the specified date range.
c. The percentage of Authority work completed by Glenn Engineering from May
2004 through April 2012 decreased by 5.5% during the specified date range.
d. Bankson Engineers and R & D Engineers received no work from the
Authority over the May 2004 through April 2012 date range.
50. From approximately mid-2004 to early 2012, Simon made overt efforts to have
Chester appointed as the Authority’s consulting engineer.
a. Simon desired Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer in
order to increase the amount of work Chester received.
1. Appointed consulting engineers routinely complete the majority of
engineering work/projects for the appointing governmental body.
51. As early as 2006, Simon sought support of Authority Board Members for the
appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
a. Simon had made previous efforts to \[sic\] Russo, Jr., and various Board
Members for the removal of NIRA and appointment of Chester.
b. Simon arranged a meeting on January 11, 2006, with Russo, Jr., at
Applebee’s restaurant.
1. Simon’s meeting with Russo, Jr., occurred approximately two weeks
before the Authority reorganization meeting of January 24, 2006.
2. Simon paid for the $25.46 cost incurred at the meeting.
aa. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester for
reimbursement via submission of Expense Sheet 24121.
1. Simon documented on Expense Sheet 24121 the
purpose of the meeting with Russo, Jr., as “To discuss
work at the W.P.J.W.A.”
2. Expense Sheet 24121 documented that the expense
incurred during the meeting with Russo, Jr., was not a
personal expense.
c. Simon arranged a dinner meeting on January 19, 2006, at the Winchester
Room restaurant at which seven of the twelve Authority Board Members
were present, including Jean Calabria, Clarence Hall, Edgar Thompson,
Irene Navarri, Nick Bianchi, John Vento, and Simon.
1. During the dinner meeting Simon presented and discussed the topic
of appointing Chester as the Authority consulting engineer instead of
re-appointing NIRA.
Simon, 12-026
Page 17
aa. Simon made statements regarding NIRA and NIRA’s rates in
comparison with Chester.
2. The January 19, 2006, dinner meeting occurred only five days before
the Authority reorganization meeting of January 24, 2006.
3. Simon submitted the entire $315.12 cost incurred at the dinner
meeting as a business expense.
aa. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester for
reimbursement via submission of Expense Sheet 24122.
1. Simon documented on Expense Sheet 24122 the
purpose of the meeting with the identified Authority
Board Members as “To discuss upcoming work at the
W.P.J.W.A.”
2. Expense Sheet 24122 documented that the expense
incurred during the meeting with the identified Authority
Board Members was not a personal expense.
d. Simon participated in multiple conversations with Thompson while at various
Authority conferences during which Simon expressed his desire for more
Authority work for Chester.
1. Simon made statements to Thompson that Chester should be
receiving more work from the Authority.
e. Simon suggested to Authority Board Member Carl Lewis the idea of
replacing NIRA as the Authority consulting engineer with Chester on two
separate occasions between late summer and late fall 2011.
1. Simon first initiated the subject with Lewis in passing via discussion at
a conference both individuals were attending.
2. Simon again lobbied Lewis’s support in removing NIRA and
appointing Chester late in 2011 during a break taken between an
Authority workshop meeting and regular meeting.
f. Simon asserts that since his arrival on the Authority Board, Board Members
would frequently ask Simon about Chester and its capabilities for
engineering services.
52. In addition to seeking work for Chester from Authority representatives, Simon’s role
as a representative of Chester, with the Authority, is documented in notes regarding
the Authority’s completion of Customer Satisfaction Index (“CSI”) Reports.
a. Chester routinely requests that clients complete CSI reports every six
months.
b. Simon asserts that Kathi Good, an employee of Chester, actually prepares
the customer satisfaction reports, to which Simon is not privy, nor does he
(Simon) review or participate in the preparation of the same.
53. On January 3, 2012, Chester representative Kathi Good provided a Chester CSI
Report to Authority Administrative Assistant Vanessa Davis via email for completion
by Russo, Jr.
Simon, 12-026
Page 18
a. On January 11, 2012, Davis responded to Good via email that “Mr. Russo
does not wish to participate at this time nor future surveys preferring instead
to let things simply proceed according to plans that have already been
established. It would be most appreciated if you would remove him from
your client survey list.”
54. Good subsequently emailed Chester representative Jan Elliott for advice prior to
responding to Davis’s email.
a. Elliott subsequently emailed Simon, Fletcher, and Frank Chester for input on
the matter.
55. On January 17, 2012, Fletcher sent an email message to Good advising that “We
would prefer that Tony Russo not be involved since he has other loyalties. The
person that we should speak with is the Authority Chairman, Nick Bianchi. Nick has
a vote. Tony does not. I will have Denny get you Nick’s contact information.”
a. Denny is a reference to Simon.
b. On January 25, 2012, Simon provided Good with a contact number for
Bianchi (\[telephone number redacted\]).
56. The Authority held its annual reorganization meeting for the 2012 calendar year on
January 24, 2012.
a. Board Members present at the meeting were Jean Calabria, George Fuller,
Clarence Hall, Brenda Joyce-May, Philip Scolieri, Edgar Thompson, Carl
Lewis, Vivian Broz, Anthony Russo, Sr., Nick Bianchi, and Simon.
b. Board Member John Vento was absent.
57. NIRA was re-appointed as the Authority consulting engineer for the twelfth
consecutive year at the January 24, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting.
a. NIRA was appointed as the Authority consulting engineer by a unanimous
11-0 vote of all Board Members present.
1. Simon was present at and participated in the unanimous vote taken at
the reorganization meeting to appoint NIRA as the Authority
consulting engineer.
58. Although Simon had voted in favor of re-appointing NIRA as the Authority
consulting engineer at the 2012 Authority reorganization meeting, Simon initiated
efforts to garner support for NIRA’s removal and Chester’s appointment as the
Authority consulting engineer as early as February 20, 2012.
a. Simon lobbied support for replacing NIRA with Chester through a series of
arranged lunches, telephone calls, and meetings with various Authority
Board Members.
59. Simon arranged a lunch meeting with Authority Board Members Lewis and Vento at
Longhorn Steakhouse at the Waterfront in West Homestead, Pennsylvania, which
occurred on February 20, 2012.
Simon, 12-026
Page 19
a. Simon divulged to Lewis during the telephone call inviting Lewis to the
meeting that Simon wanted to discuss the possibility of a vote to bring
Chester to the Authority as the consulting engineer.
1. Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer was the
impetus for the meeting.
aa. The main focus of the meeting was the replacement of NIRA
with Chester.
2. Vento supporting the appointment of Chester as the new Authority
consulting engineer and Simon supporting the appointment of Bruce
Dice & Associates as the new Authority solicitor was additionally
discussed at the meeting.
3. Making a change in the pension consultant was also discussed.
b. During the meeting, Simon expressed his desire to appoint Chester as the
Authority consulting engineer and questioned if he had Lewis’s support.
1. Lewis questioned Simon’s reasoning for NIRA’s removal.
aa. Simon responded that NIRA received considerably more work
from the Authority than did Chester.
2. Lewis suggested a meeting with Russo, Jr., in order to arrange a
more equal split in work between NIRA and Chester.
aa. Simon responded that it was “all or nothing.”
3. At the conclusion of the meeting, Lewis informed Simon that he could
not support Simon in his efforts.
aa. Prior to leaving, Simon requested that Lewis speak to Authority
Board Member Thompson on Simon’s behalf.
1. Lewis subsequently spoke to Thompson and relayed
Simon’s wishes.
2. Thompson was not supportive of Simon’s efforts to
remove NIRA but was willing to meet to discuss the
issue.
3. Lewis subsequently relayed Thompson’s response to
Simon.
4. Simon paid for the cost of the February 20, 2012, meal in the amount
of $73.31 (including gratuity) via his personal MasterCard credit card.
aa. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his
Detailed Expense Report documenting “February Expenses”
for reimbursement.
c. Simon purports that he did not arrange the meeting at Longhorn Steakhouse
on February 20, 2012, but rather that Lewis requested Simon to arrange said
meeting because he learned of the minority ownership of Chester and that
Simon, 12-026
Page 20
Lewis desired the meeting for various reasons including wanting to give
more business to a minority-owned company.
60. Although Lewis informed Simon that Thompson was not receptive of removing
NIRA, Simon (with Lewis as a go between) arranged an afternoon meeting on
February 23, 2012, with Lewis and Thompson at Eat N’ Park located in Monroeville,
Pennsylvania.
a. During the meeting, Simon expressed his desire for Chester to be appointed
as the Authority consulting engineer.
1. Simon questioned if the Authority could look into Chester receiving
more Authority work than it did at that time since Russo, Jr., was
retiring.
aa. Information had been circulating of Russo, Jr.’s pending
retirement although Russo, Jr., had made no formal
announcement at that time.
2. Simon specifically proposed the appointment of Chester as the
consulting engineer to accomplish such.
b. Thompson informed Simon that he was not in favor of NIRA’s removal.
1. Thompson expressed his willingness to consider an equal division
(50/50) of labor between Chester and NIRA.
2. Thompson also proposed making Chester the consulting engineer but
maintaining an equal division of work (50/50) between NIRA and
Chester.
aa. Simon presented the position that Chester would not be willing
to share the consulting engineer duties.
c. Simon divulged at the meeting of the Board Members he had spoken to \[sic\]
regarding Chester’s appointment and their agreeability to the change.
d. Simon paid for the $20.26 cost incurred at the meeting (including gratuity)
via his personal MasterCard credit card.
1. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his Detailed
Expense Report documenting “February Expenses” for
reimbursement.
61. Simon received Chester Engineers Check Number 98856 dated March 16, 2012, in
the amount of $1,451.78 through First Niagara Bank for February 2012 business
expenses reported/incurred.
a. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $73.31 on February
20, 2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented
information including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. February 14, 2012, as the date of call;
Simon, 12-026
Page 21
aa. The actual date of the meeting was February 20, 2012, per the
Longhorn Steakhouse receipt.
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA Board”;
7. The client contact as Lewis, Vento, and Simon; and
8. Remarks as “Lunch meeting to discuss various issues at WPJWA.”
b. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $20.26 on February
23, 2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented
information including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. February 21, 2012, as the date of call;
aa. The actual date of the meeting was February 23, 2012, per the
Eat N’ Park receipt.
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA Board Members”;
7. The client contact as Thompson, Lewis, and Simon; and
8. Remarks of “Meeting to discuss new issues with WPJWA Board.”
62. Fletcher approved reimbursement to Simon of business expenses incurred/reported
for February 2012 as documented on Simon’s Sales Call Reports.
a. Fletcher approved the reimbursements as business expenses incurred by
Simon in his capacity as an employee of Chester.
63. On or about February 25, 2012, during a Saturday breakfast meeting approximately
one month after the 2012 reorganization meeting, Russo, Jr., informed Bianchi of
his intent to retire from his position as the Authority Executive Director.
a. \[A certain occurrence\] influenced his decision to retire.
b. Russo, Jr., informed Bianchi of his intent to announce his retirement at the
February 28, 2012, Authority meeting.
c. No other individuals were present at the Saturday breakfast meeting.
Simon, 12-026
Page 22
d. Simon was not present at this breakfast meeting and has no independent
knowledge of the events of same.
64. After the February 25, 2012, meeting with Russo, Jr., Bianchi informed Simon of
Russo, Jr.’s intent to announce his retirement at the February 28, 2012, Authority
meeting.
a. Simon subsequently informed Bianchi that the Authority should reorganize at
the February Authority meeting.
1. Bianchi was not supportive of a reorganization at that time.
2. Bianchi believed that it was in the Authority’s best interest for Russo,
Jr.’s retirement to be the topic of the February 28, 2012, meeting.
b. During the continuing conversation Bianchi expressed interest in and lobbied
for himself to Simon for the Executive Director position.
1. Bianchi informed Simon that if the opportunity was available he
(Bianchi) was interested in the Executive Director position.
2. Simon explained to Bianchi that in order for Bianchi to take the
Executive Director position Bianchi had to resign from the Board,
which would create a need to reorganize at that point.
65. Subsequent to his discussion with Bianchi, Simon initiated three (3) cellular
telephone contacts with Authority Board Member Joyce-May on February 28, 2012.
a. February 28, 2012, was the scheduled date for the Authority workshop and
regular meetings.
b. Simon had not contacted Joyce-May via telephone for at least eight months
prior to February 28, 2012.
66. During the contact Simon expressed to Joyce-May that he was not satisfied with the
way the Authority Board conducted business.
a. Simon expressed his interest in reorganization of the Authority Board to
Joyce-May and questioned her interest on the topic.
1. Simon recommended reorganizing not only the Board officers but the
consulting engineer and solicitor as well.
2. It is Simon’s assertion that he was simply conveying what other Board
Members had expressed to him.
b. Joyce-May expressed an interest to Simon in a potential reorganization.
1. Joyce-May felt the Board should have more oversight and voice in
approving engineering work and who is awarded the work.
c. Simon expressed to Joyce-May his intention to contact other Board Members
as well.
d. Simon’s cellular telephone records for February 28, 2012, confirm Simon
also initiating telephone contact with at least Authority Board Members Vento
and Lewis.
Simon, 12-026
Page 23
67. At the conclusion of the second contact with Simon on February 28, 2012, Joyce-
May knew that Simon intended to make a proposal for reorganization at the
February 28, 2012, regular meeting.
a. Joyce-May received a third contact from Simon on February 28, 2012, prior
to the February Authority meetings.
b. Simon informed Joyce-May that the reorganization would not be proposed at
the February 28, 2012, meeting due to the fact that Russo, Jr., was to
announce his retirement that evening.
1. Simon informed Joyce-May that reorganization would be addressed
when Russo retired.
68. At the February 28, 2012, Authority workshop meeting, Russo, Jr., formally
announced his intention to retire upon his eligibility date of June 1, 2012, and the
obtaining of his successor.
a. Minutes of the workshop meeting document that the Executive Committee
was to convene to discuss the criteria for securing Russo, Jr.’s replacement.
1. The Executive Committee has been typically composed of the
individuals serving in the offices of Board Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
Secretary, and Treasurer.
69. Simon subsequently organized a lunch meeting with Authority Board Members
Bianchi, Vento, and Scolieri at Michael A’s restaurant located in Oakmont,
Pennsylvania, for March 6, 2012.
a. During the meeting Bianchi informed all those Board Members present that
he was very interested in the Authority Executive Director position and
presented his qualifications for the position.
1. Bianchi lobbied for the Authority Executive Director position
approximately three weeks prior to the public advertisement of the
position.
b. Simon’s Sales Call Report for Chester regarding the March 6, 2012, meeting
specifically documented the purpose as “Meeting with WPJWA Board to
discuss engineering projects.”
c. Simon paid the $51.95 cost incurred at the meeting via his personal
MasterCard credit card.
1. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his Detailed
Expense Report documenting “March Expenses” for reimbursement.
70. Shortly after the February 28, 2012, regular meeting when Russo, Jr., announced
his retirement, Simon contacted Lewis via telephone to discuss planned changes in
Authority management.
a. Simon informed Lewis that they were going to place Bianchi into the
Executive Director position.
b. Simon further informed Lewis that he (Simon) was to be made Chairman of
the Authority Board.
Simon, 12-026
Page 24
c. Simon asserts that during the conversation he never expressly stated “they
were going to put Bianchi there,” but rather that Simon simply said Bianchi
was interested in the position.
71. Lewis objected to Bianchi’s automatic placement into the position of Executive
Director.
a. Lewis believed that an advertisement and search for qualified candidates
was needed.
b. Lewis explained that he would not support Bianchi’s “automatic”
appointment.
c. Lewis questioned why Authority Assistant Executive Director Anthony Sorce
was not in consideration for the position.
72. Simon informed Lewis that Sorce would not be selected for the Executive Director
position.
a. Lewis’s continued objections led to the ultimate establishment of a search
committee and public advertisement of the position.
b. To the best of Simon’s knowledge, Anthony Sorce never applied for the
position of Executive Director.
73. At or about that same time, various Members of the Authority Board expressed
concern over their belief that no electronic files existed regarding the Authority’s
infrastructure, line studies, etc.
a. Various Authority Board Members expressed interest in moving the Authority
from paper Mylar records (e.g., maps, transmission lines, etc.) to
computerized records (e.g., Geographic Information System, a/k/a “GIS”).
1. Records on file at the actual Authority offices were primarily
maintained in paper format.
2. NIRA had computerized/digitized copies of all the services provided
for the Authority in archived files.
74. In or about March 2012, Simon continued his efforts seeking Chester’s appointment
as the Authority consulting engineer by arranging a tour of the Chester
headquarters facility located in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, for select Members
of the Authority Board.
a. Simon specifically offered to arrange a tour of Chester’s facilities to select
Board Members to present Chester’s capabilities, especially in relation to
GIS capabilities.
1. Simon specifically invited Board Members Fuller, Joyce-May, Vento,
Hall, and Bianchi.
2. Board Members Broz, Thompson, Lewis, Russo, Sr., and Scolieri did
not attend.
Simon, 12-026
Page 25
b. Some Members of the Authority Board were interested in pursuing
computerized mapping and GIS services as a result of his \[sic\] service as an
Authority Board Member.
75. Simon arranged a tour of Chester’s headquarters office in Moon Township through
his capacity as a representative of Chester.
a. Simon informed Fletcher of the need to schedule a tour.
1. Fletcher contacted Chester representative Jim Protin to organize and
conduct the actual tour.
b. The tour was conducted on March 14, 2012, at approximately 10:00 a.m.
76. Simon drove Bianchi and Hall to Chester’s headquarters office in Moon Township
on March 14, 2012, to participate in the tour.
a. Simon picked up Hall at Hall’s residence at approximately 9:30 a.m.
1. Bianchi was present in Simon’s vehicle when Hall was picked up.
b. Remaining Authority Board Members participating in the tour provided their
own transportation to Chester’s Moon Township office.
77. The two main topics of conversation presented for discussion in Simon’s vehicle
during the drive to Chester’s office focused on the removal of NIRA and
appointment of Chester as well as Bianchi’s selection for the to be vacant Executive
Director position.
a. The primary topic of conversation presented by Simon during the trip to the
tour of Chester’s office was the removal of NIRA and the appointment of
Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
1. Simon’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Chester included, among others,
statements that:
aa. NIRA’s service rates could not compare to Chester’s;
bb. Chester was computerized in regard to GIS mapping which
allowed for potential changes to be instantly made for
consideration; and
cc. Chester was a bigger company than NIRA.
\[2\]. Simon purports that due to the fact that the rates/hours and pricing
points are completely different for NIRA and Chester, no discussion
as to competitive pricing took place. Further, Simon purports that
Councilman Hall, at 80 years old, does not have the capacity to
discuss such matters but rather was more interested in what food was
served in the cafeteria and if Chester had the pie that Hall liked.
b. The secondary topic of conversation during the trip to the tour of Chester’s
office was Bianchi’s selection for the to be vacant Executive Director
position.
1. Bianchi expressed his interest to Hall in the Executive Director
position.
Simon, 12-026
Page 26
2. Hall questioned Bianchi on his background and experience.
3. Bianchi expressed his interest to and participated in discussion with
Hall about the pending vacant Executive Director position during the
drive prior to the position having been advertised.
c. The drive from Hall’s residence to Chester’s Moon Township office lasted
approximately thirty minutes.
78. The tour conducted by Protin for the Authority representatives at Chester’s Moon
Township office on March 14, 2012, lasted approximately two hours.
a. Chester’s Visitor Register for March 14, 2012, documents Joyce-May, Hall,
Bianchi, and Fuller arriving at approximately 10:10 a.m. and departing at
approximately 12:02 p.m.
b. Vento arrived late to the tour.
1. Vento did not sign the Visitor Register.
c. Simon accompanied the Authority Board Members on the tour primarily as a
representative of Chester.
1. Simon’s time sheet documents March 14, 2012, as a normal work day
for Simon.
2. Simon’s time sheet for March 14, 2012, documents Simon working
eight hours for “business development.”
d. Bianchi opined during the tour about his intent to update the Authority by use
of Chester and Chester’s GIS capabilities if he was selected to serve as the
Authority Executive Director.
79. During the tour the Authority representatives were familiarized with Chester’s
capabilities via introduction to and meeting with various members of Chester’s
management staff, a specific presentation on Chester’s GIS system, and
introduction to key Chester representatives involved in the GIS process.
a. Simon was aware of the Authority’s interest in possible pursuit of
computerized mapping and GIS services as a result of his service as an
Authority Board Member.
80. Upon completion of the tour, Joyce-May and Fuller departed while Simon, Vento,
Bianchi, and Hall ate lunch at the cafeteria located in the building which houses
Chester’s offices.
a. Simon paid the entire $38.70 cost incurred for the lunch via his personal
MasterCard credit card.
1. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his Detailed
Expense Report documenting “March Expenses” for reimbursement.
81. No Authority Board representatives made inquiry of any kind with NIRA, the existing
Authority consulting engineer, either prior to or after the tour of Chester’s offices, to
determine NIRA’s GIS capabilities.
Simon, 12-026
Page 27
a. NIRA had GIS/computer mapping capabilities at the time that the Authority
Board Members toured Chester’s offices.
1. NIRA has been utilizing GIS/computer mapping technology for at
least the last fourteen years.
b. NIRA continuously updates its technology equipment and its Computer
Aided Drafting (“CAD”) Department.
c. Simon claims to have no independent knowledge as to whether Joyce-May
ever requested NIRA as she did Chester for a tour of its facilities.
82. Simon received Chester Engineers Check Number 99253 dated April 13, 2012, in
the amount of $8,645.05 through First Niagara Bank for March 2012 business
expenses reported/incurred.
a. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $51.95 on March 6,
2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented information
including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. March 6, 2012, as the date of call;
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA”;
7. The client contact as Bianchi, Vento, Scolieri, and Simon; and
8. Remarks of “Meeting with WPJWA Board to discuss engineering
projects.”
b. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $38.70 on March 14,
2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented information
including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. March 14, 2012, as the date of call;
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA”;
7. The client contact as Fuller, May, Vento, Hall, Bianchi, and Simon;
and
Simon, 12-026
Page 28
8. Remarks of “Tour of Chester Offices.”
83. Fletcher approved reimbursement to Simon of business expenses incurred/reported
for March 2012 as documented on Simon’s Detailed Expense Report and Sales Call
Reports.
a. Fletcher approved the reimbursement as business expenses incurred by
Simon in his capacity as an employee of Chester.
84. The advertisement for the Authority Executive Director position was ultimately
placed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, The Tribune Review, and online as follows:
EXEC DIR-Municipal authority seeks qual Exec Dir to prov overall dir & plan, direct or coord
oper activities at highest level w help of mgmt. staff. Exec Dir formulates oper & cap
budgets; directs all const & eng matters; oversees & directs consultants & all public relations
& media related issues; decides on all oper, fin & personnel matters. Must have ext. exp in
admin, mgmt., supv, & budget dev with min 10 yrs. Exp w/in union envir. + skills in public and
emp relations. Exc comm skills & strong work ethic. BS/BA req’d; adv. deg. Pref. EOE; Incl.
salary req. with resume to: Box # 5691 Pittsburgh Post Gazette, P.O. Box 300, Pittsburgh, PA
15230.
a. The advertisement was created by Russo, Jr., and Authority Human
Resource Director Sharon Ricketts.
b. The advertisement was published from March 27 through April 1, 2012, and
was also posted online through Monster.com.
85. The Authority received a total of seventeen (17) responses to the advertisement.
a. Bianchi’s resume and cover letter were present in the responses received.
b. Bianchi was one of three candidates selected by Russo, Jr., and Ricketts for
an interview before the Selection Committee.
1. The remaining two (2) candidates were Timothy Little and Richard
Janus.
2. The Selection Committee was composed of Russo, Jr., Ricketts,
Vento, Joyce-May, Fuller, Russo, Sr., and Simon.
86. Although Bianchi was aware of the upcoming Authority Executive Director vacancy
as early as February 25, 2012; had expressed his interest in and lobbied for the
Executive Director position to multiple Authority Board Members prior to the
advertisement being placed; and was aware of the time that the advertisement was
to be placed, Bianchi utilized language in his cover letter that attempted to conceal
his prior knowledge and lobbying actions.
a. Bianchi’s cover letter was dated April 9, 2012.
b. The first sentence of Bianchi’s cover letter read:
“It was with great interest that I read today your online posting for the
position of Executive Director.”
c. Simon has no independent knowledge as to what Bianchi knew or did not
know, but acknowledges the events outlined occurred.
Simon, 12-026
Page 29
87. Interviews of the three selected candidates were scheduled for April 18, 2012, in
the board room of the Authority Administration Building as follows:
a. Timothy Little: 6:30 p.m.
b. Richard Janus: 7:00 p.m.
c. Nick Bianchi: 7:30 p.m.
88. Simon organized a lunch meeting with Bianchi which occurred on April 17, 2012, at
The Common Plea located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
a. Simon and Bianchi met one day prior to Bianchi’s scheduled interview before
the Selection Committee.
1. Simon was a member of the Selection Committee and participated in
Bianchi’s April 18, 2012, interview.
b. Simon’s business expense reports for Chester document the meeting was
held to discuss the “manager’s job” at WPJWA.
1. Simon was a member of the Selection Committee and the Vice-
Chairman of the Authority Board at the time that he and Bianchi met
to discuss the Authority Executive Director position.
aa. As a member of the Selection Committee, Simon was
responsible for participating in discussions with the Selection
Committee to recommend a candidate to the Authority Board
to serve as the Authority Executive Director.
bb. As a Member of the Authority Board, Simon was responsible
for and had the authority to vote for a candidate to be
employed as the Authority Executive Director.
2. Bianchi was one of three candidates in consideration for the Authority
Executive Director position at the time that he met Simon to discuss
the Authority Executive Director position on April 17, 2012.
aa. Simon did not meet with either of the remaining two (2)
candidates in any setting prior to their respective interviews.
3. During the tour of Chester’s facility Bianchi had expressed his intent
to utilize Chester and Chester’s GIS capabilities if appointed as the
Authority Executive Director.
c. No additional individuals were present at the April 17, 2012, meeting
between Simon and Bianchi.
d. Simon paid the $33.89 cost incurred at the meeting (including gratuity) via
his personal MasterCard credit card.
1. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his Detailed
Expense Report documenting “April Expenses” for reimbursement.
89. Interviews for the Authority Executive Director position were conducted on April 18,
2012, in the board room of the Authority Administration Building pursuant to the
procedures \[sic\].
Simon, 12-026
Page 30
a. Authority representatives conducting/participating in the interviews were
Russo, Jr., Ricketts, Vento, Joyce-May, Fuller, Russo, Sr., and Simon.
b. Each interview lasted approximately thirty (30) minutes.
90. The Selection Committee remained at the Authority Administration Building upon
completion of the interviews in order to discuss the candidates.
a. No second round interviews were scheduled or ultimately conducted.
b. The Selection Committee ultimately selected Bianchi as the candidate for
recommendation to the Authority Board.
91. After departing from the Authority Administration Building, Simon recommended
meeting for a drink to Joyce-May and Fuller.
a. Simon, Joyce-May, and Fuller ultimately met at Dunnings Grill on the night of
April 18, 2012, after departing from the Authority Administration Building.
92. Simon, Joyce-May, and Fuller discussed various Authority issues while at Dunnings
Grill, including the utilization of Chester.
a. The subjects of individuals serving on the Board, the role of the Board, the
direction the Authority was headed, and Authority reorganization were
discussed.
b. Simon provided information and spoke favorably about Chester to Joyce-
May and Fuller during the discussions.
c. Simon paid the $40.50 cost incurred at the meeting (including gratuity) via
his personal MasterCard credit card.
1. Simon ultimately submitted the expense to Chester on his Detailed
Expense Report documenting “April Expenses” for reimbursement.
93. Simon received Chester Engineers Check Number 99793 dated May 18, 2012, in
the amount of $2,597.42 through First Niagara Bank for April 2012 business
expenses reported/incurred.
a. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $33.89 on April 17,
2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented information
including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. April 17, 2012, as the date of call;
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA”;
Simon, 12-026
Page 31
7. The client contact as Bianchi and Simon; and
8. Remarks of “Meeting to discuss Manager’s position.”
b. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the amount of $40.50 on April 18,
2012, as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report documented information
including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. April 18, 2012, as the date of call;
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client name as “WPJWA”;
7. The client contact as Fuller, May, and Simon; and
8. Remarks of “Meeting to discuss reorganization meeting at WPJWA.”
94. Fletcher approved reimbursement to Simon of business expenses incurred/reported
for April 2012 as documented on Simon’s Detailed Expense Report and Sales Call
Reports.
a. Fletcher approved the reimbursement as business expenses incurred by
Simon in his capacity as an employee of Chester.
95. The Authority workshop and regular meetings for April 2012 were held on April 23,
2012.
a. The agenda for the regular meeting documented a report to be provided by
the Selection Committee as part of the Executive Committee report.
96. Included in the information presented to the Authority Board Members for the April
23, 2012, meetings was an Authority memo dated April 23, 2012, regarding the
selection of an Executive Director.
a. The memo was noted as being from “Dennis Simon & Selection Committee.”
b. The memo documented Bianchi as the candidate recommended to the
Authority Board to serve as the Executive Director.
c. Simon purports that he never received or reviewed this memo prior to it
being provided to the other Board Members.
97. During the Report of Committees portion of the regular meeting under the Executive
Committee Report, Simon acknowledged the efforts of the Selection Committee,
Russo, Jr., and Ricketts in the search and interview selection process.
a. Simon subsequently motioned, seconded by Vento, that Bianchi be offered
the position of Authority Executive Director with a full benefit package
effective June 4, 2012.
Simon, 12-026
Page 32
1. Bianchi was offered the following in relation to the Executive Director
position:
aa. A starting salary of $105,626.40;
bb. A benefit package related to the position, including family,
effective upon date of hire;
cc. A monthly vehicle allowance of $500.00;
dd. Four weeks vacation; and
ee. A cellular telephone.
2. The motion to offer the Authority Executive Director position to
Bianchi carried 8-1-1 with Broz opposing and Bianchi abstaining.
98. During the New Business portion of the April 23, 2012, regular meeting, Bianchi
read his letter of resignation from the Authority Board as the representative of Turtle
Creek Borough effective at the close of the April 23, 2012, Board meeting.
a. Bianchi’s letter of resignation was dated April 23, 2012.
b. Bianchi had prepared his letter of resignation in advance of the April 23,
2012, meeting.
99. Immediately after Bianchi resigned, Simon recommended a motion be made to
schedule and advertise for a reorganization meeting to be held on May 8, 2012, at
6:30 p.m.
100. Simon utilized Bianchi’s resignation as an opportunity to conduct a complete
reorganization of the Authority officers and appointed service providers.
a. The Authority Board was operating with a full complement of twelve (12)
Board Members at the time of Bianchi’s resignation.
1. Any six of the remaining eleven Board Members constituted a quorum
for any meetings to be held/decisions to be made.
b. Simon held the office of Vice-Chairman at the time of Bianchi’s resignation.
1. A duty/responsibility of the individual serving in the office of Vice-
Chairman is to assume the role of the Chairman in the Chairman’s
absence.
101. Simon subsequently made a motion, seconded by Vento, to approve the advertising
and convening of an Authority reorganization meeting on May 8, 2012, at 6:30 p.m.
a. The advertising and convening of the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting
was approved by unanimous voice vote of all Authority Board Members
present.
1. Simon voted in favor of advertising and convening the May 8, 2012,
reorganization meeting.
aa. No objections or abstentions were cast during the voice vote.
Simon, 12-026
Page 33
1. Any objection or abstention cast during a voice vote
automatically triggers a roll call vote.
2. No roll call vote was taken on the motion.
102. After the April 23, 2012, Authority Board meetings, Simon continued taking steps to
promote Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer at the
scheduled May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting.
a. Simon arranged a lunch meeting with Vento, Scolieri, Calabria, and Hall at
Churchill Valley Country Club (“CVCC”) which occurred on May 2, 2012.
1. Simon has a membership at CVCC . . . for which his club dues are
paid by Chester.
aa. Simon’s membership is maintained by Chester in order to
provide a convenient location in the East Hills at which to meet
with/entertain clients.
bb. Simon was not a member of CVCC until employed with
Chester.
103. During the lunch meeting at CVCC, Simon advocated removing NIRA and
appointing Chester as the Authority consulting engineer at the May 8, 2012,
reorganization meeting.
a. Simon promoted the capabilities of Chester during the discussion at the
lunch.
b. All Board Members attending the lunch meeting participated in the
discussion regarding the appointment of Chester.
c. The discussion which occurred was presented as an effort to persuade Hall
to support Simon’s proposal.
1. Vento, Scolieri, and Calabria were already supportive of Simon at that
time.
2. Hall refused to support the removal of NIRA.
d. The entire $99.75 cost incurred at the lunch meeting was documented on
Simon’s monthly CVCC statement which totaled $308.25 for the month of
May 2012.
1. Simon’s May 2012 CVCC statement documented expenses incurred
totaling $99.75 at the CVCC Skylight Lounge on May 2, 2012;
expenses incurred on May 31, 2012, in the amount of $135.00 for
social dues; and additional personal expenses incurred totaling
$73.50.
aa. Simon issued payment to CVCC via check from his personal
account at PNC Bank dated June 22, 2012, in the amount of
$308.25.
bb. Simon ultimately submitted the expenses for the May 2, 2012,
lunch ($99.75) and his social dues ($135.00) in the total
Simon, 12-026
Page 34
amount of $234.75 to Chester on his Detailed Expense Report
documenting “May Expenses” for reimbursement.
104. Simon received Chester Engineers Check Number 100341 dated June 22, 2012, in
the amount of $1,638.67 through First Niagara Bank for May 2012 business
expenses reported/incurred.
a. Business expenses incurred by Simon in the total amount of $234.75 during
the month of May 2012 at CVCC as reported on a Chester Sales Call Report
documented information including the following:
1. Simon’s name as the Chester employee making the sales
call/incurring the expense;
2. June 7, 2012, as the date of call;
aa. The actual date of the lunch meeting was May 2, 2012, and the
actual date of the social dues charge was May 31, 2012, per
Simon’s May 2012 CVCC monthly statement.
3. The type of contact as “Personal Contact”;
4. The type of call as “Follow-Up”;
5. The type of client as “Existing”;
6. The client contact as “WPJWA Board”; and
7. Remarks of “Client Entertainment & Monthly Dues.”
105. Fletcher approved reimbursement to Simon for business expenses
incurred/reported for May 2012 as documented on Simon’s Detailed Expense
Report and Sales Call Reports.
a. Fletcher approved the reimbursement as business expenses incurred by
Simon in his capacity as an employee of Chester.
106. Simon contacted multiple Board Members/Authority representatives on behalf of
Chester and was aware that he had obtained the support of a majority of the
Authority Board Members to appoint Chester as the Authority consulting engineer
leading into the May 8, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting.
a. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on May 28,
2013, Lewis stated, in part, the following:
1. Simon and Lewis had multiple conversations from January 2012 to
early May 2012 during which Simon expressed his interest in Chester
being appointed as the Authority consulting engineer.
aa. Simon expressed his thoughts to Lewis on:
1. NIRA’s long standing with the Authority;
2. The age of NIRA’s principal;
3. NIRA’s size in comparison with Chester’s size;
Simon, 12-026
Page 35
4. The ethnic make-up of NIRA in comparison with the
ethnic make-up of Chester;
5. The job that Simon felt Chester could do and why
Chester was not doing it at that time;
6. Advantages that Authority Board Members could enjoy
if Chester was appointed (including tickets to sporting
events, tickets to concerts, and meals); and
7. How the appointment could occur including when the
vote was to take place, the number of votes needed,
and which Board Members were or were not supportive
of the appointment.
b. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on January
10, 2013, Joyce-May stated, in part, the following:
1. Simon tried to “sell” his firm to Joyce-May during multiple
conversations.
2. Simon indicated his intent to attempt to get Chester appointed as the
Authority consulting engineer during multiple conversations with
Joyce-May leading to the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting.
aa. Joyce-May was aware based on conversations with Simon that
Chester was to be presented as an option at the
reorganization meeting if NIRA was not re-appointed.
3. Simon expressed his thoughts during multiple conversations with
Joyce-May that Chester was a better firm than others utilized by the
Authority and that Chester should receive more work.
4. Simon was not present and has no independent knowledge as to
what Joyce-May provided to Commission Investigators under oath.
c. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on February
12, 2013, Fuller stated, in part, the following:
1. Between the months of approximately March and May 2012, but prior
to the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting, Simon and Fuller
engaged in multiple conversations during which Simon stated that he
would like to see Chester have an opportunity to serve as the
Authority consulting engineer and questioned Fuller’s thoughts and
impression of the firm.
aa. Fuller indicated to Simon that Chester was an impressive firm
and it appeared that Chester had the mapping capabilities the
Authority desired.
bb. Fuller informed Simon that he would vote for Chester’s
appointment as the Authority consulting engineer.
cc. Simon relayed to Fuller that “we’re” going to try to make the
change and that if people voted the way he (Simon) expected
there may be a change in engineer.
Simon, 12-026
Page 36
2. Simon was not present and has no independent knowledge as to
what Fuller provided to Commission Investigators under oath.
d. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on
September 26, 2012, Thompson stated, in part, the following:
1. Between the February 28, 2012, and May 8, 2012, Authority
meetings, Simon contacted Thompson on at least one occasion and
asserted that Chester would be in the position to take over after
NIRA’s removal.
aa. Simon’s statement was in addition to statements made at the
February 23, 2012, meeting between Simon, Thompson, and
Lewis at Eat N’ Park.
2. Simon was not present and has no independent knowledge as to
.
what Thompson provided to Commission Investigators under oath
e. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on
December 20, 2012, Scolieri stated, in part, the following:
1. Scolieri had conversations with Vento during which he expressed his
desire to reorganize for purposes of replacing NIRA as the consulting
engineer and Campbell, Durant, Beatty, Palumbo, & Miller, P.C. as
the Authority solicitor.
aa. Scolieri specifically endorsed Chester to Vento and stated, “I’d
like to give, I’d give it to Denny….”
1. Vento affirmed to Scolieri his (Vento’s) support in
appointing Chester as the consulting engineer.
bb. Scolieri and Vento both desired the replacement of the existing
solicitor with Dice & Associates as the Authority solicitor.
1. Scolieri and Vento desired the change in solicitor due
to their personal views and opinions that the existing
solicitor was anti-union while Dice & Associates was
pro-union.
2. The appointment of Chester was a “perfect fit” as Chester was
already doing ten to twenty percent of the Authority’s engineering
work.
3. Scolieri expressed his desire to remove NIRA and Campbell, Durant,
Beatty, Palumbo, & Miller, P.C. from their Authority positions.
aa. Scolieri informed Simon that he (Scolieri) wanted to appoint
Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
bb. Simon supported and agreed with Scolieri.
4. Simon was aware that the appointment of Chester as the Authority
consulting engineer was to be presented as an option at the
reorganization meeting.
Simon, 12-026
Page 37
aa. Scolieri had discussions with Simon prior to the reorganization
meeting about appointing Chester at the reorganization
meeting.
5. Simon was not present and has no independent knowledge as to
what Scolieri provided to Commission Investigators under oath.
f. During a sworn statement provided to Commission Investigators on
September 20, 2012, Bianchi stated, in part, the following:
1. Bianchi participated in conversation with Simon days prior to the May
8, 2012, reorganization meeting during which Simon expressed to
Bianchi his (Simon’s) interest in Chester serving as the Authority
consulting engineer.
aa. Simon specifically expressed his interest to Bianchi after
Simon had recommended and voted in favor of Bianchi’s
employment as the Authority Executive Director.
2. Going into the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting, Bianchi believed
that Chester would be appointed as the Authority consulting engineer.
aa. Bianchi based his belief on conversations held with various
Board Members.
3. Simon was not present and has no independent knowledge as to
what Scolieri provided to Commission Investigators under oath.
107. In or about February 2012, Simon relayed to Fletcher at a time subsequent to
Russo, Jr.’s, retirement announcement that the opportunity might exist for Chester’s
appointment as the Authority consulting engineer.
a. Simon informed Fletcher that the Authority Board planned to look at the
professional positions of consulting engineer and solicitor.
1. At the time of Simon’s assertion to Fletcher, the Authority had not
planned to renew \[sic\] either the consulting engineer or solicitor
positions.
2. The interest of or potential to secure a new municipal client is
routinely relayed to CEO Robert Agbede through direct contact
initiated by the potential client or by a Chester employee in one of the
Vice President of Governmental Affairs positions.
108. Simon subsequently confirmed to Fletcher that the Authority Board had scheduled a
meeting for reorganization to be held on May 8, 2012.
a. Simon informed Fletcher that Chester had a good chance of being appointed
as the Authority consulting engineer at the reorganization meeting.
1. No Chester representatives, excluding Simon, had contacted Russo,
Jr., as the Authority Executive Director; Bianchi as the future
Executive Director; or any Members of the Authority Board, to express
Chester’s interest in serving as the Authority consulting engineer.
aa. Simon was the only representative from Chester who had
initiated contact with any Authority representatives regarding
Simon, 12-026
Page 38
the appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting
engineer.
1. No presentations were made at any Authority Board
meetings identifying the potential benefits of appointing
Chester as the consulting engineer.
2. No formal fee schedule was presented to the Authority
Board or management personnel for consideration in
relation to fees to be charged by Chester in the
capacity of consulting engineer.
3. The only exposure to additional Chester
representatives and Chester abilities occurred during
the tour of the Chester facilities on March 14, 2012,
which Simon orchestrated/arranged.
2. Simon asserts that Ken Kurious and John Balweski of Chester have
had communication with Russo, Jr., Bianchi, and several Board
Members on varying dates not exclusive to the March \[14\], 2012,
meeting.
b. Fletcher was aware that Simon made efforts to inform Authority Board
Members of Chester’s capabilities and lobby Authority Board Members for
majority support in appointing Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
1. Fletcher was aware of Simon’s efforts based on conversations held
with Simon.
109. Simon had telephone, email, and/or text contact of a limited nature with Authority
Board Members as a whole in the six month period of time leading up to January
2012.
a. None of the eleven remaining Authority Board Members maintain a socially
friendly relationship with Simon.
1. Simon asserts that Vento, Scolieri, Calabria, Hall, Bianchi, Carl Lewis
and Thompson have engaged socially from time to time.
b. Telephonic contact which occurred between Simon and remaining Board
Members primarily concerned and/or involved some type of Authority
business/issue.
110. Telephone records obtained during the course of the inquiry into the allegations
support a finding that the frequency of telephone, email, and/or text contact
between Simon and remaining Members of the Authority Board increased
significantly in the four months leading up to the May 8, 2012, reorganization
meeting in comparison with the approximate six month period of time prior to mid-
January 2012 and after May 2012.
111. Telephone records obtained during the course of the inquiry into the allegations
support a finding that the volume and frequency of telephone communication
between Simon and Authority Board Members Bianchi, Lewis, Calabria, and Vento
increased substantially in the months leading up to Chester’s appointment as the
designated engineer and subsequently decreased following appointment of same.
Simon, 12-026
Page 39
a. The amount of telephonic contact between Simon and the Board Members
identified increased approximately 515% from January 15, 2012, through
May 8, 2012, in comparison to July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011.
b. The amount of telephonic contact between Simon and the remaining Board
Members and subsequent Executive Director decreased approximately
147% from May 9, 2012, through November 30, 2012, in comparison to
January 15, 2012, through May 8, 2012.
c. Authority Board Members Bianchi, Lewis, Calabria, and Vento all voted in
favor of appointing Chester as the consulting engineer.
112. The agenda for the May 8, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting was created by
Russo, Jr., in his position as Executive Director.
a. The Order of Business as documented on the agenda included, among other
items, the election of officers of the Board and appointments regarding
professional services providers.
1. Campbell, Durrant, Beatty, Palumbo, & Miller, P.C. was specifically
documented for consideration as the Authority solicitor.
2. NIRA was specifically documented for consideration as the Authority
consulting engineer.
113. No additional professional service providers were documented on the agenda for
potential consideration for appointment as solicitor or consulting engineer.
a. Although the agenda is created by the Executive Director, any of the Board
Members may request that an item be placed on the agenda for
consideration.
b. No Members of the Authority Board contacted Russo, Jr., to request that
Chester Engineers be placed on the agenda for consideration to serve as
the appointed consulting engineer.
114. The special meeting called on May 8, 2012, for the purpose of reorganization
commenced at approximately 6:30 p.m. at the Authority administrative offices.
a. All twelve Authority Board Members were in attendance at the meeting.
b. Additional Authority representatives present at the meeting were Russo, Jr.,
Davis, and Bianchi.
115. Simon presided over the start of the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting in his
capacity as the Vice-Chairman due to the existing vacancy in the office of
Chairman.
a. Simon subsequently turned conduction of the meeting over to Russo, Jr.
b. Russo, Jr., opened the floor for nominations of Authority Board officers.
116. Prior to the making of nominations for Authority Board officers, discussion occurred
among the Board Members present regarding the need to conduct a complete
reorganization as opposed to a partial reorganization only.
Simon, 12-026
Page 40
a. At least two (2) Board Members questioned the need for a complete
reorganization as a consulting engineer and solicitor were already in place.
1. At least two (2) Board Members desired to reorganize only the
Authority Board officers due to the existing vacancy in the office of
Board chairman.
b. At least two (2) Board Members were opposed to a partial reorganization.
1. At least two (2) Board Members wanted a full reorganization in order
to implement previously made decisions to replace the consulting
engineer and solicitor.
117. Lewis ultimately made a motion, seconded by Broz, that the Authority Board not
conduct a full reorganization but fill only the vacated offices on the Authority Board
and that the remaining agenda items be stricken.
a. The motion failed via 4-7-1 vote with Thompson casting the abstention.
b. Simon voted in opposition of only a partial reorganization of the Board.
1. Simon cast his vote in opposition of a partial reorganization with the
knowledge that conduction of a partial reorganization would not allow
for the opportunity to change the consulting engineer.
2. Simon cast his vote in opposition of a partial reorganization at a time
when he had knowledge that Chester was to be appointed as the
Authority consulting engineer at the full reorganization.
3. Simon asserts that he cast his vote as outlined above because the
vote only concerned the Executive Director position.
118. After the vote the Authority Board moved forward with the nomination and selection
of the Authority Board officers.
a. Simon was elected to the office of Chairman of the Authority Board as a
result of reorganization of the Board offices.
b. Russo, Jr., turned the meeting over to Simon immediately after Simon was
elected as the Authority Board Chairman.
119. Upon completion of election of the Authority officers, Simon called for a motion for
appointment of the solicitor.
a. Simon first called for a motion to determine if the current solicitor was to be
retained before entertaining nominations for alternative firms.
1. The motion ultimately made by Scolieri, seconded by Vento, to retain
the existing solicitor failed via 4-8 roll call vote.
aa. Simon, Scolieri, and Vento were included in the eight (8)
individuals voting against retention of the existing solicitor.
1. Scolieri and Vento desired to remove the existing
solicitor for replacement with Dice & Associates.
Simon, 12-026
Page 41
bb. Simon, Scolieri, and Vento had all participated in the
unanimous Board vote to appoint Campbell, Durrant, Beatty,
Palumbo, & Miller, P.C. as the Authority solicitor three and
one-half months earlier at the January 24, 2012, Authority
reorganization meeting.
b. Simon subsequently requested a motion to appoint Dice & Associates as the
Authority solicitor.
1. The motion ultimately made by Scolieri, seconded by Vento, to retain
Dice & Associates carried via 8-4 roll call vote.
aa. Simon, Scolieri, and Vento were included in the eight
individuals voting in favor of retaining Dice & Associates.
120. Simon had been in communication (telephone, text, and/or email) with Attorney
Bruce Dice of Dice & Associates on twenty (20) occasions from at least February
20, 2012, through May 7, 2012, leading up to the May 8, 2012, reorganization
meeting.
a. Simon’s communications with Dice began on or about February 20, 2012,
when Simon met with Vento and Lewis at Longhorn Steakhouse at the
Waterfront.
b. The Authority had no ongoing professional/business relationship of any kind
with Dice & Associates during the February 20, 2012, through May 7, 2012,
time frame.
c. Simon asserts that he has maintained a relationship with Bruce Dice for over
ten (10) years and that he has regular discussions with Dice regarding other
roles of the municipalities that Dice serves and Simon has as clients.
121. Simon called for a motion to specifically appoint Dice & Associates as the Authority
solicitor although Dice & Associates was not documented on the meeting agenda as
a firm for potential consideration for appointment.
a. Simon was aware of Vento’s and Scolieri’s desire to have Dice & Associates
appointed as the Authority solicitor.
122. After the selection of the Authority solicitor, Simon called for the appointment of the
consulting engineer.
a. Simon did not specifically call first for a motion to determine if the then
current consulting engineer (NIRA) was to be retained prior to entertaining
nominations for alternative firms as he had done regarding appointment of
the Authority solicitor.
123. Lewis made a motion to appoint NIRA as the consulting engineer; however, prior to
it being seconded, Joyce-May requested that the motion be tabled for further
consideration on the matter.
a. The motion to table the matter was defeated via 5-7 roll call vote.
b. Simon voted to table the motion.
124. Simon subsequently entertained the motion once again for the appointment of NIRA
to serve as the Authority consulting engineer.
Simon, 12-026
Page 42
a. The motion made by Lewis, seconded by Broz, to retain NIRA as the
Authority consulting engineer initially failed via 5-7 roll call vote.
1. Simon initially voted in opposition to retention of NIRA as the
Authority consulting engineer.
2. Simon was questioned by at least one Board Member on his ability to
vote on the motion due to Simon’s knowledge that Chester was to be
presented for consideration to serve as the consulting engineer at the
reorganization meeting.
3. Simon responded that he voted to appoint NIRA in prior years and
could vote against NIRA’s appointment if he wished to do so.
4. Continued discussion on and opposition to Simon’s ability to vote on
the motion resulted in Simon instructing Davis to change his vote from
one in opposition to the motion to an abstention.
aa. As the final Board Member to vote, Simon was aware at the
time that he instructed Davis to change his vote that a majority
of Board votes had already been cast to defeat the motion.
b. The final vote to retain NIRA was five (5) in favor, six (6) against, with Simon
being recorded as abstaining.
125. After the motion to retain NIRA failed, Simon specifically requested a motion be
made for the appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
a. Simon presented no other engineering firm(s) by name for consideration in
his request for a motion.
b. The motion ultimately made by Scolieri, seconded by Vento, to retain
Chester carried via 6-5-1 roll call vote with Simon abstaining from the vote.
1. Scolieri and Vento were included in the six individuals voting in favor
of retaining Chester.
126. Five of the six Board Members who ultimately voted at the May 8, 2012,
reorganization against retaining NIRA and in favor of appointing Chester as the
Authority consulting engineer had participated in the unanimous vote to retain NIRA
as the Authority consulting engineer approximately three and one-half months
earlier at the January 24, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting.
a. No performance issues occurred with NIRA between the dates of the
January 24, 2012, and May 8, 2012, reorganization meetings.
b. Six of twelve Authority Board Members voted to appoint Chester as the
Authority consulting engineer without any Chester representative other than
Simon having attended any Authority Board meetings to present information
on Chester verbally, on paper, etc.
1. Information received by the Authority about Chester was limited to
Simon’s lobbying efforts during discussion with Authority Board
Members and the tour of Chester’s offices which Simon had
orchestrated.
Simon, 12-026
Page 43
c. The six Authority Board Members voting to appoint Chester as the Authority
consulting engineer did so without having received any specific, established
fee schedule regarding the costs which would be assessable to the Authority
for Chester’s services.
1. The only information the Authority Board Members had regarding
Chester was provided or arranged by Simon.
d. Simon asserts that Chester had a long relationship with the Authority and
had performed engineering services.
127. Ted Czekaj voted at the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting for the removal of
NIRA and appointment of Chester although having only been appointed at a
meeting of Turtle Creek Borough Council on May 7, 2012, to replace Bianchi as the
Turtle Creek Borough representative to the Authority.
a. Czekaj is employed with Glenn Engineering.
128. Glenn Engineering had not been utilized by the Authority for any engineering
projects for a period of approximately one year and nine months prior to Czekaj’s
appointment to the Authority Board.
a. Prior to May 2012, Glenn Engineering had most recently received three
payments from the Authority spanning the time frame of May 13, 2010,
through August 12, 2010, totaling $682.50.
1. Prior to 2010 Glenn Engineering had not been utilized by the
Authority since approximately February 2005.
129. Since Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer on May 8, 2012,
through May 31, 2013, Glenn Engineering has been the only other engineering firm
utilized by the Authority for engineering projects.
a. Since Czekaj’s appointment to the Authority Board, Glenn Engineering has
received at least ten payments totaling $46,865.00 from the Authority for
engineering services rendered.
130. Although a potential conflict of interest for Simon regarding Chester was raised and
openly discussed at the May 8, 2012, reorganization meeting, Simon continued to
have involvement in Authority matters as a representative of Chester.
a. Simon was involved in billing discussions with Chester’s John R. Balewski,
P.E., Vice-President, Municipal Services, regarding billing rates applicable to
the Authority.
1. In an email transmission dated May 22, 2012, from Balewski to
Chester representatives Erik Nielsen and Lynn Resta regarding the
Authority, Balewski documented the following:
“Attached is the AB form for the retainer and the project description.
Please open as soon as possible.
I am going to the meeting tonight and I will talk to Denny about billing
for May (which will slightly change the form).
We were retained based on the Mid-Market rates being utilized for
Wilkins Township. All Wilk-Penn job need to change to the mid-
Simon, 12-026
Page 44
market rates as of June 1, 2012. Again, we may need to change
May billings as well. I will talk to Denny. Can you find out how much
time has been billed to Wilk-Penn in May? I don’t believe it will be
substantial.”
aa. Denny is a reference to Simon.
b. Simon was referenced in relation to the Authority CSI report to be conducted
in July 2012.
1. On July 17, 2012, Chester’s Good received an email message from
Fletcher in response to an earlier email that same day which stated,
in part:
“…Mr. Bianchi is no longer the Authority Chairman – but is still the
client contact and Bruce would have Dennis Simon get me his current
number (may have changed from what I have). I told Bruce I would
wait to hear from Dennis Simon with a current contact phone number.
(Bruce also said Dennis Simon is the Chairman now.)”
2. Later that same day Simon informed Good of the following:
“New DIRECTOR for WPJWA is Nick Bianchi. He used to be the
Chairman of the Board. His phone number is \[telephone number
redacted\]. John Balewski is the Project manager.”
131. The Authority held its annual reorganization meeting for the 2013 calendar year on
January 22, 2013.
a. Board Members in attendance at the meeting included Simon, Fuller, Hall,
Joyce-May, Czekaj, Broz, Lewis, Russo, Sr., and newly appointed Member
John Vahosky.
b. Board Members Vento, Scolieri, and Thompson were absent.
132. Action to be taken at the reorganization meeting included election of Authority
Board officers as well as the appointment of a solicitor and consulting engineer.
a. The agenda for the January 22, 2013, reorganization meeting did not
specifically identify any individuals or firms for consideration of appointment
as solicitor or consulting engineer.
133. Bianchi presided over the reorganization meeting until the election of the Authority
Board Chairman was complete.
a. The election of the Authority Board Chairman represented the first vote
taken at the reorganization meeting.
b. Simon was elected to serve as the Chairman of the Authority Board.
c. Bianchi turned the meeting over to Simon upon Simon’s election as
Chairman of the Board.
134. After the selection of the remaining Board officers and appointment of the Authority
solicitor for the 2013 calendar year, Simon called for the appointment of the
Authority consulting engineer.
Simon, 12-026
Page 45
a. A motion was ultimately made by Joyce-May, seconded by Fuller, that
Chester be retained as the Authority consulting engineer for a period of one
year or until successors had been chosen and qualified.
b. The motion was defeated via 4-4-1 roll call vote.
1. Joyce-May, Fuller, Vahosky, and Czekaj voted in favor of retaining
Chester.
2. Hall, Lewis, Broz, and Russo, Sr., voted in opposition of retaining
Chester.
3. Simon abstained from the vote.
135. Written minutes of the January 22, 2013, Authority reorganization meeting
document no additional information regarding appointment of the consulting
engineer for the 2013 calendar year.
a. The minutes of the January 22, 2013, reorganization meeting fail to identify
the appointment of any specific individual, firm, etc., to serve as the Authority
consulting engineer for the 2013 calendar year.
136. The audio cassette recording of the January 22, 2013, Authority reorganization
meeting documents the retention of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer
although the vote taken to retain Chester had been defeated.
a. Upon completion of the roll call vote, Simon stated that per the solicitor the
consulting engineer remained the same.
b. Dice confirmed Simon’s statement.
137. \[Neither\] Simon nor any other Board Member requested, called for, or presented
any other individual or firm for consideration for appointment as the Authority
consulting engineer.
a. After Dice confirmed Simon’s statement, Simon requested a motion to
adjourn to the Authority regular business meeting.
138. On January 23, 2013, Dice authored correspondence to Bianchi reversing his
opinion given at the January 22, 2013, reorganization meeting that Chester was to
remain as the Authority consulting engineer even though the specific vote to
approve such had been defeated.
a. Dice noted, in part, the following information in the correspondence:
1. Nine of the eleven Authority Board Members were in attendance at
the reorganization meeting.
aa. Nine of twelve Authority Board Members were actually in
attendance at the meeting.
2. The vote to retain Chester was recorded as four yes, four no, and one
abstention.
3. The vote to retain Chester was defeated.
4. No other engineering firm was discussed.
Simon, 12-026
Page 46
b. Dice provided his opinion that the Authority should continue to deal with
Chester for the month of January 2013 until the February 2013 meeting
when the matter should again be placed on the agenda for a vote.
139. The Authority regular business meeting for the month of February 2013 occurred on
February 26, 2013.
a. The agenda for the February 26, 2013, Authority regular meeting
documented nomination of a consulting engineer under Section X,
Unfinished Business.
1. Authority Board Members receive the agenda for the upcoming
Authority meeting at least one to three days prior to the actual
meeting.
b. All twelve Members of the Authority Board were present at the February 26,
2013, Authority regular meeting.
140. During the unfinished business portion of the February 26, 2013, Authority regular
meeting, Simon opened the floor for nominations for the consulting engineer
position.
a. A motion was made by Fuller, seconded by Thompson, that Chester be
retained as the Authority consulting engineer until successors had been
chosen and qualified.
b. The motion carried via 6-4-2 roll call vote.
1. Fuller, Vento, Scolieri, Joyce-May, Vahosky, and Czekaj voted in
favor of retaining Chester.
2. Hall, Lewis, Broz, and Russo, Sr., voted in opposition of retaining
Chester.
3. Simon and Thompson abstained from the vote.
c. Vento and Scolieri represented the swing votes in Chester’s successful 6-4-2
appointment at the February 26, 2013, meeting.
1. Vento and Scolieri had been absent from the January 22, 2013,
reorganization meeting.
141. Additional business conducted at the February 26, 2013, meeting involved the
design plans for the GIS model for the Authority.
a. Bianchi ultimately requested and received authorization from the Authority
Board at the February 26, 2013, Authority regular business meeting to move
forward with plans to complete the Authority GIS model through Chester.
b. Bianchi had verbalized his intent to implement such for the Authority during
his tour of Chester’s headquarters facility in March 2012.
142. From July 2011 through December 2012, Simon provided additional meals, alcohol,
and/or entertainment to multiple Authority Board Members which Simon claimed on
his employment expense reports for which he ultimately received reimbursement
from Chester.
Simon, 12-026
Page 47
a. Reimbursement for the items sought by Simon from Chester as noted above
totaled $2,509.95.
143. From approximately September 20, 2007, through May 31, 2013, Chester received
approximately seventy-five checks totaling $786,120.44 from the Authority for
engineering services.
a. Chester received fifty-eight (58) checks from the Authority totaling
$468,906.40 from September 20, 2007, until May 8, 2012, when appointed
as the Authority consulting engineer.
1. Invoices issued versus amounts paid from September 20, 2007,
through May 8, 2012, document a balance of approximately
$9,827.69 due to Chester.
b. Chester received seventeen checks from the Authority totaling $317,214.04
from May 9, 2012, through May 31, 2013, as the Authority consulting
engineer.
c. During the approximate thirteen month period from May 2012 through May
2013, Chester received payments from the Authority totaling approximately
sixty-eight percent of the total amount received from the Authority during the
approximate four year and eight month period from September 2007 through
April 2012.
144. During the time frame of at least September 2007 through May 2012, Simon
annually filed a general abstention notice with the Authority contemporaneous to
the annual reorganization meeting as follows:
“Pursuant to Section 3(j) of the State Ethics Acts \[sic\], and on advice of the
Authority Solicitor, the undersigned Board Member hereby abstains from voting at
any time on any matter involving Chester Engineers for the following reason:
I am employed by Chester Engineers
This abstention is to be automatically in effect for all future votes unless expressly
direct otherwise. Any vote I may cast with respect to a group of multiple invoices,
bills or payments shall not extend to any bills, invoices or payments relating to the
above-named person or entity.
I ask that this Memorandum be filed as a matter of public record with the Authority
and be attached to the minutes of the Board meeting.”
a. Simon’s general abstention notices for the identified time frame are dated
February 27, 2007; January 22, 2008; January 30, 2009; March 23, 2010;
January 25, 2011; January 24, 2012; and January 22, 2013.
b. The content of the general abstention form filed with the Authority remained
unchanged with the exception of the actual corporate name of Simon’s
employer.
1. Simon’s employer was consistently identified as a name variant of
Chester Engineers on the memorandums filed.
Simon, 12-026
Page 48
c. Simon’s filing of Memorandums of Abstention verifies Simon’s knowledge of
potential conflicts of interest between his public office with the Authority and
his employment with Chester.
145. Simon consistently abstained from voting to approve payment to Chester included
in Authority monthly bill listings from at least the June 2012 Authority regular
meeting through the June 2013 Authority regular meeting.
a. No Authority regular business meeting was held during the months of July
2012 or December 2012.
146. Simon receives a set salary in association with his employment with Chester.
a. Simon’s salary consistently increased in his employment with Chester from
September 2007 through May 2013 as shown below:
Effective Date Salary
September 1, 2007 $75,250.00
April 14, 2008 $100,000.00
July 15, 2009 $103,000.00
December 1, 2010 $108,150.00
January 1, 2012 $114,639.00
April 18, 2013 $119,796.00
b. Simon receives his established salary via twice monthly direct deposit into
his personal checking account.
147. Since at least August 2008, Simon has been eligible to receive commissions as
additional compensation in relation to his employment with Chester.
a. Simon receives commissions from Chester on a quarterly basis when
applicable.
b. Simon receives commissions in the amount of one-quarter of one percent of
all payments received by Chester from Simon’s clients during the applicable
quarter.
c. When due, Simon’s commission amounts are normally added to and
deposited with Simon’s regular bi-monthly salary direct deposit amount.
1. An exception to this routine occurred regarding Simon’s receipt of
check number 102513 dated October 23, 2012, from Chester for his
commissions received for the third quarter of 2012.
148. Simon received quarterly commission payments from Chester totaling
approximately $14,089.84 over the time period of August 2008 through April 2013
as a result of payments received by Chester from Simon’s clients, including the
Authority.
a. The accounts receivable cash receipt registers generated by Chester to
calculate Simon’s quarterly commissions from August 29, 2008, through July
16, 2012, consistently documented the Authority as one of Simon’s clients
and commissions due Simon from Authority payments received by Chester.
b. The accounts receivable cash receipt registers generated by Chester to
calculate Simon’s quarterly commissions from October 23, 2012, through
April 15, 2013, no longer documented the Authority as one of Simon’s clients
Simon, 12-026
Page 49
or any commissions due Simon from Authority payments received by
Chester.
1. Simon is no longer receiving commissions from Chester for payment
received by Chester from the Authority.
aa. The determination to cease issuance of commissions to Simon
attributable to payments received by Chester from the
Authority was made jointly by Simon and Fletcher.
bb. The ceasing of commissions to Simon attributable to Authority
payments received by Chester occurred subsequent to the
current Commission investigation of Simon’s actions.
1. Simon’s Notice of Investigation letter was dated August
22, 2012.
149. Of the $14,089.84 total commission received by Simon, approximately $1,064.90
was issued to Simon as a direct result of payments received by Chester from the
Authority for services performed.
a. Approximately 7.6% ($1,064.90 ÷ $14,089.84) of the total commission
amount received by Simon over the time period of August 2008 through April
2013 was directly attributable to payments received by Chester from the
Authority for services performed.
150. Simon received approximately $630,133.12 in salary, commission, and bonus
payments from approximately August 31, 2007, through May 31, 2013, as a result of
his employment with Chester.
a. All wages received by Simon through his employment with Chester were
deposited into Simon’s personal banking account at PNC Bank.
151. Simon realized a private pecuniary gain when he utilized the authority of his office
as a Member of the Wilkinsburg Penn Joint Water Authority Board to influence
Members of the Authority Board to appoint a business with which he is associated,
Chester Engineering, as the Authority consulting engineer:
a. Simon provided meals and/or other hospitality to Members of the
Wilkinsburg Penn Joint Water Authority Board, contemporaneous with
Simon using his public position to vote to remove NIRA Consulting
Engineers as the Authority consulting engineer, and seeking to have Chester
Engineers, his employer, appointed as the Authority consulting engineer;
1. Between February 2012 and May 2012, Simon was reimbursed by
Chester for incurring expenses to purchase meals and drinks for
Authority Board Members.
2. The purpose of Simon’s incurring expenses on behalf of Chester
Engineers was to solicit support for Chester from Authority Board
Members.
b. Simon, contemporaneous with his efforts to remove NIRA Consulting
Engineers as the Authority consulting engineer, proposed a tour of Chester
Engineer’s headquarters office to select Members of the Wilkinsburg Penn
Joint Water Authority Board, for the purpose of bolstering Chester
Engineers’ appointment as the Authority consulting engineer;
Simon, 12-026
Page 50
1. Simon arranged the tour on March 14, 2012, during the same time
period when he was approaching Authority Board Members to seek
support for Chester’s appointment.
c. Simon participated in discussions \[sic\] of the Authority Board, including his
motion for, and vote in favor of, scheduling and advertising for a
reorganization meeting of the Wilkinsburg Penn Joint Water Authority Board,
at a time when he had previously, and was then currently, endorsing the
removal of NIRA Consulting Engineers and seeking the appointment of
Chester Engineers as the Authority consulting engineer;
1. On April 28, 2012, Simon made the motion to reorganize the Authority
on May 8, 2012, including appointment of an engineer.
2. Simon took Authority Board Members to lunch on May 2, 2012, to
influence Members to replace NIRA with Chester. Simon was
reimbursed for the lunch expense by Chester.
3. Six (6) days later on May 8, 2012, the Authority replaced NIRA as
consulting engineer with Chester.
d. Simon utilized the authority of his public office by voting against a partial
reorganization and instead advancing a vote for complete reorganization of
the Authority Board and service providers, all at a time when Simon had a
reasonable expectation that Chester Engineers would be chosen as the
Authority consulting engineer as a result of efforts undertaken by him to
influence Members of the Authority Board.
e. Simon, as Chairman of the Authority Board, intentionally sought a motion at
the May 8, 2012, meeting to name Chester Engineers as the Authority’s
consulting engineer.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Member of the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority (“Authority”) Board of
Directors (“Board”) from January 16, 2001, through the present, Respondent Dennis J.
Simon, hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Simon,” and “Simon,”
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 Simon violated Section1103(a) of the Ethics Act: (1) when
he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary gain of himself and/or
a business with which he is associated by lobbying and soliciting Authority Board Members
to support the appointment of Chester Engineers, Inc. (also referred to herein as “Chester”
and “Chester Engineers”), a business where he serves as a Vice-President, as the
Authority engineer; (2) when he participated in discussions and actions of the Authority
Board to replace the existing Authority engineer at a time when he had a reasonable
expectation that Chester Engineers, a business with which he is associated, would be
chosen as the Authority engineer; and (3) when he participated in discussions and actions
of the Board, including but not limited to requesting a motion that Chester Engineers be
appointed as the Authority engineer.
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
Simon, 12-026
Page 51
(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 Authority currently provides water service to twenty-three separate
municipalities within the Commonwealth. The Authority Board consists of twelve Members.
Simon has served as a Member of the Authority Board from January 16, 2001, through the
present. Simon served as Vice-Chairman of the Authority Board from January 24, 2006, to
May 8, 2012, and he has served as Chairman of the Authority Board since May 8, 2012.
The Authority Board traditionally conducts a reorganization meeting immediately
prior to its regularly scheduled January meeting. Actions taken include the selection of
Authority Board officers and service providers of record, such as the Authority consulting
engineer and solicitor. The duties and responsibilities of a consulting engineer for a
municipal authority are associated with the overall operation and upkeep of the municipal
authority. Although an Authority consulting engineer is appointed, the Authority has
utilized additional engineering firms as needed for completion of various projects.
Chester Engineers provides energy, water, and wastewater solutions to public and
industrial clients in the United States and internationally. The Authority Board appointed
Chester to serve as the Authority consulting engineer on January 27, 1987. Chester
served as the Authority consulting engineer from approximately January 27, 1987, until
March 27, 1990, when the Authority Board appointed NIRA Consulting Engineers (“NIRA”)
Simon, 12-026
Page 52
to serve as the Authority consulting engineer. NIRA was reappointed as the Authority
consulting engineer annually from January 1991 through January 2012.
As a result of a backlog of work, the Authority used additional engineering firms and
in-house personnel as well as its consulting engineer, NIRA, to complete required projects.
Anthony Russo, Jr. (“Russo”), who was employed as the Authority Executive Director from
approximately January 1992 until June 2012, had the discretion to use additional firms as
needed for project completion. Between 1990 and 1995, Chester received payment from
the Authority for the completion of projects. Chester performed no engineering services for
the Authority from approximately July 1995 until approximately April 2004.
Simon has been employed with Chester since approximately July 8, 2002. Simon
has spent his entire tenure at Chester working within Chester’s Governmental Affairs
Group, which is tasked with the responsibility of monitoring the quality of service provided
to existing clients/projects and assisting in obtaining new clients/projects. The
responsibility for client retention and new client acquisition is primarily met through the
efforts of the individuals in two Vice-President of Governmental Affairs positions. Simon
was initially employed as a Manager of Governmental Affairs with Chester, and he was
promoted to the title of Vice-President of Governmental Affairs on or about May 12, 2008.
Chester had no existing working/client relationship with the Authority at the time that
Simon was appointed to the Authority Board in January 2001. In or about spring 2004,
Simon initiated efforts to secure work from the Authority for Chester through Nick Bianchi
(“Bianchi”), then Chairman of the Authority Board. As a result of a request that Bianchi
made to Russo on behalf of Simon, Russo selected Chester to provide engineering
services for the Authority for a project.
In or about September 2004, Simon was directed by his supervisor at Chester to
concentrate on client development. On multiple occasions between 2004 and 2012, Simon
approached Bianchi, seeking to have the Authority utilize Chester for engineering projects.
After being approached by Simon, Bianchi would advise Russo to assist Simon by utilizing
Chester for upcoming engineering services/projects. Russo ultimately utilized Chester on
a consistent basis to provide engineering services for Authority projects. Simon served as
the main point of contact/liaison between the Authority and Chester from approximately
April 2004 until early May 2012.
From approximately mid-2004 to early 2012, Simon made overt efforts to have
Chester appointed as the Authority consulting engineer in order to increase the amount of
work Chester received. As early as 2006, Simon sought the support of Authority Board
Members for the appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer. In
particular, Simon arranged a dinner meeting at a restaurant on January 19, 2006, at which
seven Authority Board Members were present. During the dinner meeting, Simon
presented and discussed the topic of appointing Chester as the Authority consulting
engineer instead of reappointing NIRA. Simon also suggested to Authority Board Member
Carl Lewis (“Lewis”) the idea of replacing NIRA with Chester on two separate occasions
between late summer and late fall 2011, once while both individuals were attending a
conference and once during a break taken between an Authority workshop meeting and an
Authority regular meeting. Simon further expressed his desire for more Authority work for
Chester in multiple conversations with Authority Board Member Edgar Thompson
(“Thompson”) while both individuals were at various Authority conferences.
At the annual Authority reorganization meeting on January 24, 2012, Simon
participated in a unanimous Authority Board vote to appoint NIRA as the Authority
consulting engineer for a twelfth consecutive year. Although Simon voted in favor of
NIRA’s appointment, he initiated efforts to garner support for NIRA’s removal and
Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer as early as February 20, 2012.
Simon, 12-026
Page 53
Simon lobbied support for replacing NIRA with Chester through a series of arranged
lunches, telephone calls, and meetings with various Authority Board Members.
Simon arranged a lunch meeting at a restaurant with Authority Board Members
Lewis and John Vento (“Vento”), which occurred on February 20, 2012. During the
meeting, Simon expressed his desire to appoint Chester as the Authority consulting
engineer and questioned if he had Lewis’s support. Lewis questioned Simon’s reasoning
for NIRA’s removal as the Authority consulting engineer, and Simon responded that NIRA
received considerably more work from the Authority than did Chester. When Lewis
suggested a meeting with Russo in order to arrange a more equal split in work between
NIRA and Chester, Simon responded that it was “all or nothing.”
On February 23, 2012, Simon met with Lewis and Thompson at a restaurant.
During the meeting, Simon expressed his desire for Chester to be appointed as the
Authority consulting engineer. Thompson informed Simon that he was not in favor of
NIRA’s removal as the Authority consulting engineer. Thompson proposed making
Chester the consulting engineer but maintaining an equal division of work between NIRA
and Chester. Simon presented the position that Chester would not be willing to share the
consulting engineer duties.
On or about February 25, 2012, Russo informed Bianchi of Russo’s intent to
announce his retirement from his position as the Authority Executive Director at the
February 28, 2012, Authority Board meeting. During a subsequent conversation with
Simon, Bianchi expressed his interest in the Executive Director position. Simon explained
that in order for Bianchi to take the Executive Director position, he had to resign from the
Authority Board, which would create a need to reorganize at that point.
On February 28, 2012, prior to the Authority Board meeting scheduled for that same
evening, Simon telephoned Board Member Brenda Joyce-May (“Joyce-May”) and
expressed his dissatisfaction with the way the Authority Board conducted business. Simon
recommended reorganization of the Authority Board as well as the Authority consulting
engineer and solicitor. Joyce-May expressed an interest to Simon in a potential
reorganization. Prior to the meeting that evening, Simon telephoned Joyce-May again and
informed her that the reorganization would not be proposed at the meeting due to the fact
that Russo was to announce his retirement that evening. Simon further informed Joyce-
May that reorganization would be addressed when Russo retired. At the meeting that
evening, Russo formally announced his intention to retire upon his eligibility date of June
1, 2012, and the obtaining of his successor.
Shortly after Russo announced his retirement, Simon contacted Lewis and informed
him that Bianchi, who had previously expressed interest in the Authority Executive Director
position, was to be placed into that position. Lewis objected to Bianchi’s automatic
placement into the position of Executive Director, and a search committee was ultimately
established.
At or about that same time, various Members of the Authority Board expressed
interest in moving the Authority from paper Mylar records to computerized records in a
Geographic Information System (“GIS”). In or about March 2012, Simon continued his
efforts seeking Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer by arranging a
tour of Chester’s headquarters located in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, for select
Members of the Authority Board. Simon, as a representative of Chester, specifically
offered to arrange a tour of Chester’s facilities to present Chester’s capabilities, especially
in relation to GIS capabilities. On March 14, 2012, a Chester representative conducted a
tour of Chester’s headquarters for Authority Board Members Joyce-May, Vento, Bianchi,
George Fuller (“Fuller”), and Clarence Hall (“Hall”). Simon drove Bianchi and Hall to
Chester’s headquarters for the tour, and on the drive there, they discussed the removal of
NIRA and appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer as well as Bianchi’s
Simon, 12-026
Page 54
interest in the Executive Director position. During the tour the Authority representatives
were familiarized with Chester’s capabilities via introduction to and meeting with various
members of Chester’s management staff, a specific presentation on Chester’s GIS system,
and introduction to key Chester representatives involved in the GIS process. No Authority
Board representatives made inquiry of any kind with NIRA to determine its GIS
capabilities.
After the Authority Executive Director position was advertised, Bianchi submitted a
resume, and he was selected to interview before a selection committee along with two
other candidates. Interviews were conducted on April 18, 2012, and the selection
committee, which included Simon, ultimately selected Bianchi as the candidate for
recommendation to the Authority Board. Following the interviews, Simon recommended
meeting for a drink to Joyce-May and Fuller, who were also on the selection committee.
That night, Simon, Joyce-May, and Fuller discussed various Authority issues, including the
utilization of Chester and Authority reorganization. Simon provided information and spoke
favorably about Chester to Joyce-May and Fuller during the discussions.
At an Authority Board meeting on April 23, 2012, Simon participated in a Board vote
which approved offering the Authority Executive Director position to Bianchi effective June
4, 2012. During the meeting, Bianchi read his letter of resignation from the Authority Board
effective at the close of the meeting. Simon subsequently made a motion to schedule and
advertise for a reorganization meeting to be held on May 8, 2012. Simon, who was then
Vice-Chairman of the Authority Board, utilized Bianchi’s resignation as an opportunity to
conduct a complete reorganization of the Board officers and appointed service providers.
The Authority Board approved the motion by a unanimous vote.
After the April 23, 2012, Authority Board meeting, Simon continued taking steps to
promote Chester’s appointment as the Authority consulting engineer at the scheduled May
8, 2012, reorganization meeting. Simon arranged a lunch meeting with Authority Board
Members Vento, Hall, Philip Scolieri (“Scolieri”), and Jean Calabria at a country club on
May 2, 2012. During the meeting, Simon advocated removing NIRA and appointing
Chester as the Authority consulting engineer. Simon also contacted multiple Authority
Board Members/Authority representatives on behalf of Chester, and he was aware that he
had obtained the support of a majority of the Board Members to appoint Chester as the
Authority consulting engineer leading into the May 8, 2012, Authority reorganization
meeting.
The agenda for the May 8, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting included, among
other items, the election of officers of the Authority Board and appointments regarding the
Authority consulting engineer and the Authority solicitor. NIRA was specifically
documented for consideration as the Authority consulting engineer. No additional
professional service providers were documented on the agenda for potential consideration
for appointment as the consulting engineer.
At the reorganization meeting on May 8, 2012, at least two Board Members
questioned the need for a complete reorganization as a consulting engineer and solicitor
were already in place. Simon participated in a vote that defeated a motion to not conduct
a full reorganization but only fill the vacant office on the Authority Board. Simon cast his
vote in opposition of a partial reorganization with the knowledge that conduction of a
partial reorganization would not allow for the opportunity to change the consulting engineer
and with the knowledge that Chester was to be appointed as the Authority consulting
engineer at the full reorganization as a result of Simon’s efforts to influence Authority
Board Members. The Authority Board then moved forward with the nomination and
selection of its officers, and Simon was elected as Chairman.
Upon completion of the election of the Authority Board officers, Simon called for a
motion for appointment of the Authority solicitor. The Authority Board subsequently voted
Simon, 12-026
Page 55
to appoint Dice & Associates as the Authority solicitor. After the selection of the Authority
solicitor, Simon called for the appointment of the Authority consulting engineer.
When Lewis made a motion to retain NIRA as the Authority consulting engineer,
Joyce-May requested that the motion be tabled for further consideration on the matter.
The motion to table the matter was defeated by a vote of 5-7, with Simon voting in favor of
tabling the matter. Lewis’ motion to retain NIRA as the consulting engineer initially failed
by a 5-7 vote, with Simon voting in opposition of the motion. After Simon was questioned
by at least one Board Member on his ability to vote on the motion due to his knowledge
that Chester was to be presented for consideration to serve as the consulting engineer,
Simon instructed the Authority Administrative Assistant to change his vote from one in
opposition to the motion to an abstention. The motion to retain NIRA as the consulting
engineer failed by a vote of 5-6, with Simon recorded as abstaining from the vote.
After the motion to retain NIRA failed, Simon specifically requested that a motion be
made for the appointment of Chester as the Authority consulting engineer. Simon
presented no other engineering firm by name for consideration. A motion made by Scolieri
to retain Chester as the Authority consulting engineer carried by a vote of 6-5-1, with
Simon abstaining from the vote. The information that the Authority had received about
Chester was limited to Simon’s lobbying efforts during discussions with Authority Board
Members and the tour of Chester’s headquarters which Simon had orchestrated.
On January 22, 2013, the Authority held its annual reorganization meeting. Simon
was elected to serve as the Chairman of the Authority Board, and he subsequently called
for the appointment of the Authority consulting engineer. A motion that Chester be
retained as the Authority consulting engineer for a period of one year or until successors
had been chosen and qualified was defeated by a 4-4-1 vote from which Simon abstained.
Upon completion of the vote, Simon stated that per the Authority solicitor the consulting
engineer remained the same, and his statement was confirmed by the Authority solicitor.
The Authority solicitor subsequently reversed his opinion given at the reorganization
meeting that Chester was to remain the consulting engineer, and he opined to the
Authority Executive Director that the Authority should continue to deal with Chester until
the Authority Board’s February 2013 meeting, when the matter should again be placed on
the agenda for a vote. At the Authority Board’s regular meeting on February 26, 2013,
Simon abstained from a vote which approved a motion that Chester be retained as the
Authority consulting engineer until successors had been chosen and qualified.
From May 9, 2012, through May 31, 2013, Chester, as the Authority consulting
engineer, received seventeen checks from the Authority totaling $317,214.04. In his
employment with Chester, Simon is eligible to receive commissions on a quarterly basis as
compensation in addition to his salary. Simon receives commissions in the amount of
one-quarter of one percent of all payments received by Chester from Simon’s clients
during the applicable quarter. Through July 16, 2012, Simon received commissions based
upon payments made to Chester by the Authority. The parties have stipulated that Simon
realized a private pecuniary gain when he utilized the authority of his office as a Member
of the Authority Board to influence Members of the Authority Board to appoint Chester as
the Authority consulting engineer.
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:
Simon, 12-026
Page 56
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when Simon participated in
discussions and actions of the WPJWA Board to
replace the then existing WPJWA engineer with
Chester Engineers, a business with which Simon
is associated and serves as a Vice-President, by
utilizing the authority of his office to persuade
WPJWA Board Members to support the
appointment of Chester Engineers and when he
subsequently requested a motion be made by
the WPJWA Board to appoint Chester Engineers
as the WPJWA engineer.
4. Simon agrees to make payment in the amount of $9,500.00 in
settlement of this matter as follows:
a. $7,500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania
State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days
of the issuance of the final adjudication in this
matter.
b. $2,000.00 in reimbursement, representing a
portion of the expenses and costs incurred by
the State Ethics Commission in the investigation
and administrative prosecution of the instant
matter, payable by certified check or money
order made payable to the Pennsylvania State
Ethics Commission.
5. Simon agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation
or other payment from Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority
representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid
in settlement of this matter.
6. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics
Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no
specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other
authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does
not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate
enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to
comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or
cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to
review this matter further.
Consent Agreement, at 2.
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
Act occurred when Simon participated in discussions and actions of the Authority Board to
replace the then existing Authority engineer with Chester, a business with which Simon is
associated and serves as a Vice-President, by utilizing the authority of his office to
persuade Authority Board Members to support the appointment of Chester, and when he
subsequently requested that a motion be made by the Authority Board to appoint Chester
as the Authority engineer.
Simon, 12-026
Page 57
The Authority Board appointed NIRA to serve as the Authority consulting engineer
on March 27, 1990, and NIRA was reappointed as the consulting engineer annually from
January 1991 through January 2012. Simon was appointed to the Authority Board in
January 2001.
Chester is a business with which Simon is associated as an employee and as an
officer (Vice-President of Governmental Affairs). From approximately mid-2004 to early
2012, Simon made overt efforts to have Chester appointed as the Authority consulting
engineer. Although some such efforts may have been undertaken in Simon’s private
capacity, others clearly constituted uses of the authority of Simon’s public office. For
example, Simon suggested replacing NIRA with Chester to Board Member Lewis on two
separate occasions in 2011, once while both individuals were attending a conference and
once during a break taken between an Authority workshop meeting and an Authority
regular meeting. On February 28, 2012, prior to an Authority Board meeting scheduled for
that same evening, Simon expressed to Board Member Joyce-May his dissatisfaction with
the way the Authority Board conducted business and recommended reorganization of the
Authority Board as well as the Authority consulting engineer. On the evening of April 18,
2012, Simon met with Board Members Joyce-May and Fuller after they had interviewed
candidates for the position of Authority Executive Director, and they discussed various
Authority issues, including the utilization of Chester and Authority reorganization. Simon
spoke favorably about Chester during the discussions.
When Authority Board Chairman Bianchi resigned at the April 23, 2012, Authority
Board meeting after being offered the position of Authority Executive Director, Simon
utilized Bianchi’s resignation as an opportunity to conduct a complete reorganization of the
Authority Board officers and appointed service providers. Simon made a motion and
participated in a unanimous vote by the Authority Board to schedule and advertise for a
reorganization meeting to be held on May 8, 2012.
Simon was aware that he had obtained the support of a majority of the Authority
Board Members to appoint Chester as the Authority consulting engineer leading into the
May 8, 2012, Authority reorganization meeting. Simon used the authority of his office at
the reorganization meeting when he voted in opposition of a partial reorganization, which
would not have allowed for the opportunity to change the consulting engineer. Simon
further used the authority of his office when he specifically requested that a motion be
made for the appointment of Chester as the consulting engineer after a motion to retain
NIRA as the consulting engineer failed to pass.
From May 9, 2012, through May 31, 2013, Chester, as the Authority consulting
engineer, received seventeen checks from the Authority totaling $317,214.04. The parties
have stipulated that Simon realized a private pecuniary gain when he utilized the authority
of his office as a Member of the Authority Board to influence Members of the Authority
Board to appoint Chester as the Authority consulting engineer.
Based on 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 when Simon
participated in discussions and actions of the Authority Board to replace the then existing
Authority engineer with Chester, a business with which Simon is associated and serves as
a Vice-President, by utilizing the authority of his office to persuade Authority Board
Members to support the appointment of Chester, and when he subsequently requested
that a motion be made by the Authority Board to appoint Chester as the Authority engineer.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Simon has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $9,500.00 in settlement of this matter payable as follows: (a) $7,500.00 payable
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30)
days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter; and (b) $2,000.00 in
reimbursement representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by this
Simon, 12-026
Page 58
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.
Simon has further agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the Authority representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid
in settlement of this matter.
We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a
proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis
and the totality of the facts and circumstances.
Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Simon is directed to make
payment in the amount of $9,500.00 payable as follows: (a) $7,500.00 payable to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the
th
thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order; and (b) $2,000.00
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.
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Simon is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Authority representing a full or
partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Member of the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority (“Authority”) Board of
Directors (“Board”) from January 16, 2001, through the present, Respondent Dennis
J. Simon (“Simon”) has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred
when Simon participated in discussions and actions of the Authority Board to
replace the then existing Authority engineer with Chester Engineers, Inc. (“Chester
Engineers”), a business with which Simon is associated and serves as a Vice-
President, by utilizing the authority of his office to persuade Authority Board
Members to support the appointment of Chester Engineers, and when he
subsequently requested that a motion be made by the Authority Board to appoint
Chester Engineers as the Authority engineer.
In Re: Dennis J. Simon, : File Docket: 12-026
Respondent : Date Decided: 4/24/14
: Date Mailed: 5/6/14
ORDER NO. 1633
1. As a Member of the Wilkinsburg-Penn Joint Water Authority (“Authority”) Board of
Directors (“Board”), Dennis J. Simon (“Simon”) violated Section 1103(a) of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he
participated in discussions and actions of the Authority Board to replace the then
existing Authority engineer with Chester Engineers, Inc. (“Chester Engineers”), a
business with which Simon is associated and serves as a Vice-President, by
utilizing the authority of his office to persuade Authority Board Members to support
the appointment of Chester Engineers, and when he subsequently requested that a
motion be made by the Authority Board to appoint Chester Engineers as the
Authority engineer.
2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Simon is directed to make payment in
the amount of $9,500.00 payable as follows: (a) $7,500.00 payable to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
th
Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
Order; and (b) $2,000.00 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.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Simon is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Authority representing a
full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
4. Compliance with Paragraphs 2 and 3 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