HomeMy WebLinkAbout1639-R Sulc, Jr.
In Re: J. Gregory Sulc, Jr., : File Docket: 11-029
Respondent : X-Ref: Order No. 1639-R
: Date Decided: 7/28/14
: Date Mailed: 7/28/14
Before: John J. Bolger, Chair
Mark R. Corrigan
Roger Nick
Kathryn Streeter Lewis
On July 26, 2014, Respondent J. Gregory Sulc, Jr. (“Sulc”) faxed to the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) a Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to Order No. 1639, issued June 26, 2014.
Section 21.29 of the Commission Regulations provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 21.29. Finality; reconsideration.
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order or
opinion within 30 days of service of the order or opinion. The requestor shall
present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order or
opinion should be reconsidered.
(c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will
delay the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order
unless reconsideration is granted by the Commission.
. . .
(e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the
Commission if:
(1) A material error of law has been made.
(2) A material error of fact has been made.
(3) New facts or evidence are provided which would lead to
reversal or modification of the order or opinion and if these could not be or
were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence.
51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b), (c), (e).
This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the
Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be
made available with Order No. 1639 as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day
following the date of issuance of this Order.
Sulc, 11-029
Page 2
DISCUSSION
On June 26, 2014, we issued Sulc, Order No. 1639, following our review of the
record in this case.
The allegations were that Sulc, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a
Supervisor for North Strabane Township (“Township”), Washington County, violated
Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), 1104(d), and 1105(b)(5), (8), and (9) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1104(a), 1104(d), and
1105(b)(5), (8), and (9):
(1) When he used the authority of his public position for a private
pecuniary benefit when he participated in discussions and actions of
the Township Board of Supervisors (“Board”) to create a position of
Parks and Recreation Director, including the qualifications for said
position, at a time when he had a reasonable expectation that he
would be a candidate for the position;
(2) When he used confidential information obtained as a result of his
public position to solicit support from Members of the Board to obtain
such position;
(3) When he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) for the
2009 calendar year;
(4) When he failed to disclose direct/indirect sources of income on SFIs
filed for the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 calendar years; and
(5) When he failed to disclose on SFIs filed for the 2010 and 2011
calendar years his office, directorship and/or employment and his
financial interests in E.L. Aquatics.
In applying the allegations to the facts of record, we found that:
(1) Sulc violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a),
when he participated in discussions and actions of the Board to
create the position of Township Parks and Recreation Director,
including the qualifications for said position, at a time when he had a
reasonable expectation that he would be a candidate for the position;
(2) Sulc did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), as to the allegation that he used confidential information
obtained as a result of his public position to solicit support from
Members of the Board to obtain the Township Parks and Recreation
Director position, based upon an insufficiency of evidence;
(3) Sulc violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a),
when he failed to timely file an SFI for the 2009 calendar year;
(4) Sulc violated Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b),
when he failed to disclose direct/indirect sources of income on SFIs
filed for the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 calendar years and
when he failed to disclose on SFIs filed for the 2010 and 2011
calendar years his directorship and financial interest in E.L. Aquatics;
and
Sulc, 11-029
Page 3
(5) Sulc obtained a financial gain in the amount of $3,250.00 in
contravention of Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1104(d), when he received compensation as a Township Supervisor
but failed to properly file with the Township the requisite SFI for
calendar year 2009.
In addition, we ordered Sulc to pay restitution in the amount of $20,000.00 payable
to North Strabane Township and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth
th
(30) day after the mailing date of Order No. 1639. We further directed Sulc to not accept
any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Township representing a full
or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution. Finally, to the extent he had not
already done so, we directed Sulc to file with the Township amended SFIs for calendar
years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011, disclosing all required information, and to forward
th
copies of such filings to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the
mailing date of Order No. 1639.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Sulc seeks reconsideration of Order No. 1639
based upon his assertions regarding: (1) his testimony at the hearing; (2) amendment of
his Statements of Financial Interests; (3) a view that the penalty imposed is “excessive”
and the calculations are “unfounded”; and (4) a telephone message he claims was left on
his voice mail.
The Investigative Division has filed an Answer opposing Sulc’s Motion for
Reconsideration, contending that Sulc has failed to meet the regulatory criteria for the
exercise of this Commission’s discretion to grant reconsideration.
We conclude that Sulc’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to meet the requisite
standard for reconsideration. No material error of law has been established. No material
error of fact has been established. No new facts or evidence has been provided which
could not be or was not discovered by the exercise of due diligence and that would lead to
a reversal or modification of Order No. 1639.
Sulc has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish any need for
reconsideration. The Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
In Re: J. Gregory Sulc, Jr., : File Docket: 11-029
Respondent : Date Decided: 7/28/14
: Date Mailed: 7/28/14
RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1639-R
1. The Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of Sulc, Order No. 1639 is denied.
BY THE COMMISSION,
John J. Bolger, Chair