HomeMy WebLinkAbout1644 Beale
In Re: William Beale, : File Docket: 13-025
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1644
: Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/10/14
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.” A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement were
subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The
Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement
has been approved.
I.ALLEGATIONS:
That William Beale, a public official/public employee in his capacity as a Member of
the Brackenridge Borough Council, violated \[Sections 1103(a), 1105(b)(1), and 1105(b)(5)\]
of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his public position
for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, an immediate family member, and/or a
business with which he or an immediate family member is associated, when \[he\]
participated in discussions and/or actions of Borough Council, resulting in contract(s)
being awarded by the Borough to Garvin Engineering at a time when he knew or had a
reasonable expectation that he and/or his child/son would \[be\] or was serving as a
subcontractor for ongoing projects awarded to Garvin Engineering; and when he failed to
list sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Borough for
calendar year 2009 and failed to list \[his\] name, address, and public position for \[calendar\]
year 2011.
II.FINDINGS:
1. William Beale has continuously served as a Councilman for Brackenridge Borough,
Allegheny County, since November 20, 2001.
a. Beale has served as the Parks and Recreation Committee Chairman since
2014.
Beale, 13-025
Page 2
1. Beale served as the Finance Committee Chairman for both 2012 and
2013.
2. Beale served as the Streets Committee Chairman prior to 2012.
b. Beale previously served on Brackenridge Borough Council from June 25,
1981, to December 1986.
c.Beale served as the Mayor of Brackenridge Borough from 1990 to 1997.
2. Professionally, Beale has experience in the construction industry, including
positions as a carpenter, carpenter foreman, project superintendent, and project
manager.
3. Beale Construction is a registered licensed contractor in the Commonwealth (HIC
license number PA029298).
a. Beale Construction is not incorporated within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
b. Beale Construction is owned by Beale’s spouse, Debora Beale.
c. Beale has performed work for Beale Construction.
4. Brackenridge Borough (hereafter, “Borough”) is governed by a six-Member Council
(hereafter, “Council”) and a Mayor.
a. Council reorganizes biennially to appoint a President, Vice President,
Solicitor, and Engineer.
5. Council holds regular monthly meetings at the Borough Municipal Building on the
first Thursday of each month.
a. Regular meetings are normally attended by Council, the Mayor, the Solicitor,
the Borough Engineer, and the Secretary/Treasurer.
b. Special meetings are held on an as-needed basis.
c. Council does not hold any workshop/agenda meetings prior to the day of the
voting meeting.
1. Council Members are compensated $100.00 for each regular meeting
of Council.
6. Voting at Council meetings can occur via a roll call or a group aye/nay vote,
depending on the issue at hand or upon request by the Council President.
a. All objections and abstentions are noted within the minutes.
b. The Mayor votes only in the event of a tie vote by Council.
7. The Borough employs an office staff and has a Police Department, a Streets
Department, and a Water Department.
a. The office staff consists of the Secretary/Treasurer, Denise Tocco, and
Office Clerk Barb Jones.
Beale, 13-025
Page 3
8. The office staff is responsible for the generation of Borough meeting minutes.
a. Tocco attends and audio records Borough legislative meetings to assist in
generation of the minutes.
b. The minutes are provided to Council Members and the Mayor for review prior
to the regular monthly meeting.
c. The minutes are approved for accuracy at the subsequent regular meeting.
9. The office staff assembles a meeting packet for each Council Member and the
Mayor that is made available to the Council Members and the Mayor on or before
the day of the meeting.
a. The packet includes a meeting agenda, the previous month’s minutes, a
financial report, police report, and various Borough-related
correspondences.
b. The packets are placed in the Council Members’ and Mayor’s inboxes
located within the Borough’s municipal office.
10. Council approves the payment of the monthly expenses at each regular Council
meeting without necessarily having reviewed each of the respective invoices.
a. The motion to approve the payment of bills encompasses invoices received
since the previous monthly meeting.
11. The office staff is responsible for preparing the payment of Borough bills.
a. Invoices received are reviewed by the Finance Committee prior to, or
immediately following, Council’s regular monthly meeting.
1. Invoices are initialed by each Finance Committee Member, signifying
their review and approval for payment.
b. Borough checks are generated by the office staff after the respective
invoices are reviewed by the Finance Committee and approved by Council
for payment.
c. Borough checks are signed by the Council President and
Secretary/Treasurer Tocco at or immediately following Council’s regular
monthly meetings.
12. Council appoints a Borough Engineer at its biennial reorganization meeting to
perform professional engineering services for the Borough.
a. The Borough Engineer serves at the pleasure of Council and can be
removed by Council at any point in time.
13. Senate Engineering (hereafter, “Senate”), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, served as the
Borough Engineer from February 2002 to December 2008.
a. An engineer from Senate Engineering was assigned to the Borough.
1. The engineer regularly attended Council meetings and provided a
report of engineering services/projects performed in the Borough.
Beale, 13-025
Page 4
2. The engineer was available (via phone contact, in person, etc.) to
Borough officials and employees in relation to Borough projects.
14. Jim Garvin was employed with Senate Engineering from April 1, 2002, to August 13,
2008.
a. Garvin’s duties/responsibilities while employed with Senate Engineering
included acting as a senior engineer representing Senate Engineering to the
respective clients; managing clients’ projects; and providing engineering
services related to designs, permitting, approvals, bidding and awarding,
construction oversight, budgets and schedules of clients’ projects.
15. Senate Engineering assigned Garvin to the Borough immediately after his hiring in
April 2002.
a. Garvin regularly attended Borough Council meetings from May 2002 to
August 2008 as an employee of Senate Engineering.
16. Garvin’s position with Senate Engineering included interaction with Council
Members during Council meetings and outside of Council’s regular meeting
settings.
a. These interactions included Garvin attending after-meeting social gatherings
that occurred immediately following Council meetings.
b. The after-meeting social outings were attended by Council Members and, on
occasion, by immediate family members of Council Members.
1. Not all Council Members attended the outings.
c. On occasion Beale’s spouse, Debora, and Beale’s son, Matthew, attended
the after-meeting outings.
1. Garvin gained knowledge that Beale had construction management
experience through his interaction with Beale at the after-meeting
social gatherings.
2. Garvin gained knowledge of Matthew Beale’s engineer education and
experience through their interaction at the after-meeting social
outings.
17. By 2008, Garvin became aware of the requirement to implement a Department of
Environmental Protection Consent Decree regarding the Borough that required
sewer separation projects in various municipalities, including the Borough.
a. The Consent Decree was the result of a directive by the federal Department
of Environmental Protection to implement a plan to separate storm water
from the sanitary sewer system.
18. Insight Pipe Contracting (Harmony, Pennsylvania) inquired of Senate Engineering
representatives regarding partnering to perform the storm water separation work
pursuant to Consent Decrees in the greater Pittsburgh area.
a. Insight Pipe Contracting is a full service contractor that specializes in the
maintenance and trenchless rehabilitation of underground utilities.
Beale, 13-025
Page 5
b. Senate Engineering had no interest in performing the work associated with
the required storm water separation work per the Consent Decrees.
19. Insight Pipe Contracting ultimately approached Garvin about performing the storm
water separation work that was required by the Consent Decrees.
a. Garvin created his own engineering firm in order to partner with Insight Pipe
Contracting as a consultant, to facilitate the work associated with the storm
water separation projects.
20. Garvin incorporated Garvin Engineering Municipal Management (“GEMM”) in or
about January 2008.
a. Pennsylvania Department of State records reflect that GEMM (entity
#3791068) was incorporated as a professional, for-profit company.
b. GEMM’s Articles of Incorporation, dated January 22, 2008, list an effective
date of April 1, 2008.
21. GEMM specializes in municipal engineering, including infrastructure, improvement
projects, water sealing streets, paving, and grant writing.
22. By or about the summer of 2008, Garvin informed Council President Larry Chifulini
of his intention to leave Senate Engineering to create GEMM.
a. The remaining Council Members became aware of the creation of GEMM
through word-of-mouth.
23. In the summer of 2008, GEMM and Insight Pipe Contracting pursued a joint venture
to perform the storm water separation projects in the Borough pursuant to the
Consent Decrees.
a. Garvin submitted a proposal to the Borough to perform the storm water
separation work.
b. The proposal was presented to Council for consideration at a time when
Garvin was still employed with Senate Engineering and acting as the
Borough Engineer.
24. At Council’s July 21, 2008, regular meeting, Council unanimously approved the
proposal for professional engineer services from GEMM and Insight Pipe
Contracting to perform the storm water separation work.
a. Beale was present for the meeting and participated in the vote to contract
with GEMM for the storm water separation work.
b. Garvin was present for the meeting as a representative of Senate
Engineering.
25. On July 28, 2008, Garvin informed Senate Engineering President Gordon Taylor of
his intention to resign from the company in order to pursue the creation of GEMM.
a. Garvin’s last date of employment with Senate Engineering was August 13,
2008.
26. Garvin expressed interest to Chifulini in having the Borough appoint GEMM as the
Borough Engineer at or about the time he resigned from Senate Engineering.
Beale, 13-025
Page 6
a. Chifulini advised Garvin to submit a letter of interest to the Borough for
professional engineer services.
b. Garvin submitted a letter of interest to the Borough in response to Chifulini’s
advice.
27. Following Garvin’s letter of interest addressed to the Borough, Council opted to
interview Garvin regarding his possible appointment as the Borough Engineer.
a. Council Members were in favor of appointing GEMM as the Borough
Engineer, due in part to GEMM’s lower fees and Garvin’s knowledge of the
Borough as a result of his years as the Senate Engineering representative
assigned to the Borough.
b. Beale participated in Council’s selection process to appoint GEMM as the
Borough Engineer, including Council’s interview of Garvin.
28. At Council’s December 15, 2008, regular meeting, Council voted favorably, via 4-1
margin, to appoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
a. Council Member Thomas Kish initially motioned to reappoint Senate
Engineering as the Borough Engineer.
1. Kish’s motion died for lack of a second to the motion.
b. Following Kish’s motion, Council Member Dunlap, Sr. motioned, seconded
by Beale, to appoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
1. The motion carried as follows:
Aye-Dunlap, Beale, Charlene Stobert, and Larry Chifulini
Nay-Thomas Kish.
2. Garvin was present at the meeting.
c. Beale was not an employee or subcontractor of GEMM at the time of the
appointment.
29. Beale and Garvin did not discuss prospective employment for Beale or Matthew
Beale with GEMM in conjunction with Council appointing GEMM as the Borough
Engineer.
a. Beale was employed as the Director of Operations at the Pittsburgh Mills
Mall at the time GEMM was appointed as the Borough Engineer.
30. The appointment of GEMM to provide professional engineer services was effective
immediately on December 15, 2008.
a. GEMM had been performing as a subcontractor to Inside Pipe Contracting
regarding the storm water separation projects for the Borough, per the
contracted agreement approved at the July 21, 2008, Council meeting.
b. The Borough was the first municipality to appoint GEMM as its Engineer of
record.
Beale, 13-025
Page 7
31. GEMM was reappointed as the Borough Engineer at Council’s January 4, 2010, and
January 3, 2012, reorganization meetings.
a. Council appointed Senate Engineering as the Borough Engineer at the
January 6, 2014, reorganization meeting.
32. In or about August 2009, subsequent to Garvin forming GEMM, Beale d/b/a as
Beale Construction and his son, Matthew Beale, began performing subcontracting
services for GEMM.
a. None of these subcontracts were related to the Borough.
b. The discussions between Beale and Garvin to utilize Beale Construction
occurred subsequent to Council’s initial vote in 2008 to appoint GEMM as
the Borough Engineer.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO MATTHEW BEALE SERVING AS A
SUBCONTRACTOR FOR GEMM AT A TIME WHEN GEMM WAS THE APPOINTED
BOROUGH ENGINEER.
33. Beale Construction mainly performs residential remodeling services but also
provides small commercial construction services.
a. Beale also has expertise as a construction inspector and project manager.
34. Garvin discussed employment opportunities with Matthew Beale in or about 2009
\[at after-meeting social outings of Council Members\].
a. Matthew Beale inquired about part-time employment with Garvin, but until
mid-2009 Garvin did not have any work available for Matthew Beale.
1. Garvin did not socialize with Matthew Beale outside of the after-
meeting social outings.
35. In or about August 2009, Beale and GEMM were both working on a project in the
th
City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, managed by the 12 Congressional Regional
th
Equipment Company, Inc. (hereafter, “12 REC”).
th
a. Beale worked on the 12 REC project as a subcontractor of Beale
Construction.
b. Beale was not employed or contracted by GEMM for the project.
th
1. Beale was contracted for the project directly by 12 REC through
Beale Construction in September 2009.
th
36. Garvin and Beale discussed the need for a sewer line inspector for the 12 REC
project.
a. Garvin and Beale discussed Matthew Beale’s qualifications as an inspector.
1. Matthew Beale, an engineer by trade, was certified in sewer line
inspections.
b. Garvin subsequently offered an inspector position to Matthew Beale.
Beale, 13-025
Page 8
c. Beale and Garvin agreed that hours worked by Matthew Beale would be
invoiced to GEMM from Beale Construction.
th
37. GEMM submitted six invoices in the total amount of $55,495.00 to 12 REC for work
performed from August to December 2009.
a. Beale Construction submitted six invoices directly to GEMM totaling
$6,600.00 for the hours worked by Matthew Beale.
38. GEMM made payment to Beale Construction in the amount of $6,600.00 in
response to invoices submitted for work performed by Matthew Beale.
39. Beale maintains a checking account at First Commonwealth Bank in the name of
Beale Construction.
a. Beale and his spouse both maintain signature authority over the account.
40. From October 2009 to December 2009, GEMM check payments in the amount of
$5,200.00 were deposited into Beale Construction’s First Commonwealth Bank
th
account as a result of work performed by Matthew Beale in relation to the 12 REC
project in McKeesport, Pennsylvania.
a. The disposition of check #1196 in the amount of $1,400.00 could not be
determined.
41. Between October 2009 and December 2009, when Beale and/or Beale Construction
was being compensated by GEMM for services rendered, Beale took no action as a
Borough Councilman regarding GEMM’s appointment as the Borough Engineer.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO GEMM SUBCONTRACTING WITH BEALE
AND HIS SON FOR A BLAIRSVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY PROJECT AT A TIME
WHEN GEMM WAS SERVING AS THE BOROUGH ENGINEER.
42. By 2007, the Blairsville Municipal Authority (hereafter, “BMA”) was seeking funding
from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development’s
PennWorks Program to construct and install an expansion of the Blairsville Sewage
Treatment Plant and to make improvements to its Main Sewage Pump Station.
a. An agreement dated February 28, 2007, between BMA and Bankson
Engineers, Inc. set forth professional engineering services for the expansion
of the Blairsville Sewage Treatment Plant and improvements to its Main
Sewage Pump Station.
1. Bankson Engineers was responsible for professional engineer
services related to the design, bidding, and construction phase of the
project.
43. In May 2009, the BMA Board received PennVest funding for the
expansion/upgrades of the sewage treatment plant and main pump station as well
as for the elimination of thirteen (13) Combined Sewer Overflows (hereafter, “BMA
Project”).
44. In August 2009, the BMA Board authorized Bankson Engineers to advertise for the
BMA Project.
a. Bankson Engineers sought general mechanical, electrical, and HVAC bids
through an open and public bidding process.
Beale, 13-025
Page 9
1. The bids were to be submitted by no later than September 30, 2009.
2. The advertisement did not include bids for on-site inspections.
45. At the October 8, 2009, regular BMA Board meeting, discussion was held regarding
pursuing an independent on-site inspector for the BMA Project.
a. The BMA Board agreed to contract with an independent on-site inspector
rather than to utilize Bankson Engineers’ services.
46. The BMA Board directed the BMA Executive Director, Ronald Hood, to approach
firms to identify an entity to conduct on-site inspections for the BMA Project.
a. Hood contacted Garvin after being directed by the BMA Board to research
on-site inspectors for the BMA Project.
1. Hood has known Garvin since the mid-2000s when Garvin served on
the BMA Board.
2. GEMM’s main office is located across the street from the BMA office.
47. Garvin consulted with BMA Solicitor and Borough Solicitor Michael Witherel about
hiring Beale as a Project Inspector for the plant expansion portion of the BMA
Project.
a. Witherel advised Garvin that the hiring would not pose a potential conflict for
Beale.
b. Witherel added that Beale should disclose his employment to Council and
refrain from voting on Borough matters relating to GEMM.
48. After consulting with Witherel, Garvin contacted Beale about providing
subcontracting services as a Project Manager for the BMA Project.
a. Garvin was aware of Beale’s experience in construction management
through their interaction at the Borough.
b. Garvin gained knowledge that Beale was leaving his position at the
Pittsburgh Mills Mall through conversations with Beale at the Borough after-
meeting social outings.
49. Beale expressed to Garvin his interest in performing subcontracting services for
GEMM in relation to the BMA Project.
a. Garvin informed Beale that the hourly rate would vary between $50.00-
$55.00/hour.
b. Beale agreed to the rate of $50.00 an hour.
50. Garvin approached Beale about employing Matthew Beale to perform inspections
for the sewer separation portion of the BMA Project.
a. Beale did not solicit Garvin to hire Matthew Beale for the BMA Project.
b. Garvin was aware of Matthew Beale’s qualifications from discussions with
th
Beale and services provided by Matthew Beale on the 12 REC project.
Beale, 13-025
Page 10
51. Garvin contacted Matthew Beale about his interest in performing inspections on a
part-time basis for the BMA Project.
a. Matthew Beale agreed to perform the inspections for the BMA Project
through Beale Construction.
b. Matthew Beale’s hours were documented on Beale Construction invoices
which were submitted to GEMM….
52. Matthew Beale received an hourly wage of $35.00 for inspection services
performed in relation to the BMA Project.
a. The hourly wage was decided upon by Beale, Matthew Beale, and Garvin.
53. No written contract exists between GEMM and Beale/Matthew Beale for services to
be rendered on the BMA Project.
a. The agreement between GEMM and Beale/Matthew Beale to perform
services for the BMA Project was a verbal agreement.
54. Garvin submitted a contract proposal to BMA, dated November 4, 2009, in response
to Hood’s solicitation.
a. The proposal specified the services GEMM would be responsible for in
relation to the sewer treatment plant expansion and sewer line separation.
b. The proposal included a proposed cost of the services, to include hourly
wages as follows:
Service Description Fee
Professional Services 20 hours per week for management Hourly Rate: $75.00
Clerk of the Works supervisor for duration of contract plus
punchlist work Estimated Hours: 1140
(57 weeks or 1140 hours) Proposed “Not to Exceed” Fee:
$85,500.00
Project Inspection Services 40 hours per week for single inspector for Hourly Rate: $55.00
Plant Expansion Contract duration of contract plus punchlist work
Estimated Hours: 2240
(56 weeks or 2240 hours)
Proposed “Not to Exceed” Fee:
$123,200.00
Project Inspection Services 40 hours per week for each inspector for Hourly Rate: $50.00
Line & Lateral Contract duration of contract plus punchlist work
with up to three inspectors Estimated Hours: 3600
(36 weeks or 3600 hours) Proposed Fee Per Inspector:
$180,000.00
Total Combined “Not to Exceed” Cost: $388,700.00
c. Beale’s resume was included in the proposal.
55. At the November 12, 2009, regular BMA Board meeting, the Board unanimously
approved a professional engineer service contract with GEMM to perform
inspection services for the BMA Project.
56. On or about December 10, 2009, Beale and Matthew Beale began performing
project management services overseeing the expansion of the Blairsville Sewage
Treatment Plant and inspection services for the sewer separation portion of the
BMA Project.
Beale, 13-025
Page 11
a. Beale Construction invoices reflect Beale submitted a total of 3,821 hours.
b. Beale Construction invoices reflect Matthew Beale submitted a total of 2,767
hours.
1. Matthew Beale ceased performing inspections for the BMA Project in
or about November 2011.
57. Subsequent to beginning work on the BMA Project, Beale discussed his
employment arrangement with GEMM in a private conversation with Council
Member Ronald Dunlap and Solicitor Michael Witherel at the Borough building’s
Council chambers.
a. Dunlap and Witherel advised Beale to abstain from approving Borough
payments to GEMM.
b. Dunlap and Witherel advised Beale that Beale Construction could not bid on
any projects within the Borough.
c. The date of the conversation could not be established.
58. In an executive session in late 2009/early 2010, Beale informed the remaining
Council Members that he was a GEMM subcontractor for the BMA Project.
a. Council Members advised Beale that the arrangement was acceptable with
the stipulation that Beale was not to work within the Borough and that the
work did not interfere with Borough-related business with GEMM.
b. The date of the specific meeting at which the discussion occurred could not
be determined.
59. Beale Construction submitted invoices to GEMM for the work completed by
Beale/Matthew Beale in relation to the BMA Project.
a. The invoices specified the hours worked and the work performed.
60. Garvin maintains a checking account for GEMM at Indiana First Bank.
61. GEMM issued check payments from its Indiana First Bank account to Beale
Construction totaling $287,550.00 in relation to the BMA Project.
a. GEMM payments to Beale Construction were mailed to Beale’s residence or
received by Beale at GEMM’s Blairsville, Pennsylvania, office.
b. From January 2010 to April 2013, Beale Construction deposited checks
received from GEMM in the total amount of $287,550.00 into Beale
Construction’s First Commonwealth Bank account.
62. Beale Construction received payments from GEMM for the BMA Project beginning
in January 2010.
a. Beale voted to reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer on January 4,
2010.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO SUBCONTRACTING SERVICES
PERFORMED BY BEALE FOR GEMM IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PITTSBURGH
Beale, 13-025
Page 12
BREWERY PROJECT AT A TIME WHEN GEMM WAS SERVING AS THE BOROUGH
ENGINEER.
63. In 2012, GEMM was conducting work demolition plans and roof replacement plans
for a project at the Pittsburgh Brewery Company, located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
a. Garvin inquired of Beale for assistance in reviewing project plans.
b. Beale agreed to conduct reviews and reports without a written employment
contract.
64. Beale submitted invoices through Beale Construction to GEMM in relation to the
work he performed for the Pittsburgh Brewery Company project.
a. Beale and Garvin agreed that Beale was to receive a wage of $50.00 per
hour for services performed.
65. GEMM issued payment checks from its Indiana First Bank account to Beale
Construction totaling $2,650.00 in relation to the Pittsburgh Brewery Company
project.
a. GEMM payment checks to Beale Construction were mailed or received by
Beale at GEMM’s main office in Blairsville, Pennsylvania.
b. GEMM checks were deposited into Beale Construction’s First
Commonwealth Bank account.
66. Beale did not disclose at a public meeting to Members of Council his contract with
GEMM in relation to the Pittsburgh Brewery Company project.
a. Beale’s employment with GEMM in relation to the Pittsburgh Brewery
Company project was discussed by Beale, Garvin, and Council Members
who attended after-meeting social outings.
b. Council Members who attended the after-meeting social outings did not
express concern or confront Beale about his employment arrangement with
GEMM regarding the Pittsburgh Brewery Company project.
67. From 2009 to 2013, Beale Construction, a business with which Beale is associated,
received payments totaling $296,800.00 as a result of Beale serving as a
subcontractor for GEMM, identified as follows:
Project Amount
12 th REC-McKeesport Project $6,600.00
Blairsville Municipal Authority $287,550.00
Pittsburgh Brewery Project $2,650.00
Total $296,800.00
68. Beale, in his capacity as a Council Member, voted in 2010 and 2012 for the
reappointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
a. From 2010 to 2013, Beale also participated in Council actions to approve
payments to GEMM.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO BEALE’S OFFICIAL ACTION AS A COUNCIL
MEMBER IN APPROVING PAYMENTS TO AND THE REAPPOINTMENT OF GEMM AS
THE BOROUGH ENGINEER.
Beale, 13-025
Page 13
69. GEMM submitted one hundred thirty (130) invoices to the Borough for professional
engineer services totaling $629,749.51 during the time period of January 2009 to
December 2013.
a. GEMM emailed invoices to the Borough office staff.
b. Upon receipt, GEMM invoices were normally approved for payment by
Council at the subsequent monthly meeting.
c. The Finance Committee reviews/approves payment of invoices
contemporaneous to Council’s monthly meeting.
d. Once invoices are reviewed/approved by the Finance Committee and
approved for payment by Council, the Secretary/Treasurer generates the
appropriate payment check.
70. The Borough issued GEMM ninety-nine (99) checks representing payment for
services rendered, from the time period of 2009 to 2013, in the total amount of
$632,344.90.
a. Beale voted to approve the payment of the monthly bills, including payments
to GEMM, for all meetings he attended.
1. Beale was present for all legislative meetings from January 2009 to
December 2013 in which the approval of the monthly bills included
payments to GEMM.
2. Beale voted affirmatively to approve all ninety-nine Borough checks
issued to GEMM from January 2009 through December 2013.
b. Beale reviewed and approved ninety-nine of the one hundred thirty GEMM
invoices received by the Borough ….
1. Beale’s review for approval is signified by his initials on the respective
invoices.
71. During the time from 2009 through 2013 when Beale, as a public official, was
participating in approving payments to GEMM, Beale, Beale Construction, and/or
Matthew Beale were contracting with GEMM for multiple projects.
72. The following chart identifies projects for which Beale Construction and/or Matthew
Beale subcontracted with GEMM and Beale’s actions as a Council Member to
approve payments to GEMM.
Name Time Period Project GEMM Payments
Invoices/Payments Approved to
Approved GEMM
Beale Dec. 2009 to Oct. Blairsville Municipal 99 $498,821.50
2012 Authority
Jan. and March 2013
Beale Aug. to Oct. 2012 Pittsburgh Brewery Included in 99 -
figure
M. Beale Sept. to Nov. 2009 12 th REC 0 0
McKeesport
M. Beale Dec. 2009 to Oct. Blairsville Municipal Included in 99 -
2011 Authority figure
Total 99 $498,821.50
Beale, 13-025
Page 14
a. Beale approved payment of ninety-nine (99) GEMM invoices in the total
amount of $498,821.50 during time periods that he and/or his son, Matthew
Beale, were contracting with GEMM.
Year Invoices Payment Amount
Approved Approved
2010 30 $32,040.50
2011 33 $189,510.00
2012 34 $248,614.50
2013 2 $28,656.50
Total 99 $498,821.50
73. As the Streets Committee Chairman and/or Finance Committee Chairman, Beale
motioned to approve specific invoices received from GEMM at meetings on May 18,
2009, June 15, 2009, July 20, 2009, April 19, 2010, and January 3, 2012.
a. The motions passed via unanimous vote.
b. Beale was not employed by/contracting with GEMM until December 2009.
74. Beale voted affirmatively to authorize GEMM to \[take actions regarding\] grant/loan
applications and/or funding at meetings on February 15, 2010, May 13, 2010,
October 13, 2010, and May 3, 2013.
a. The vote by Council authorizing GEMM to \[take actions regarding\] grant/loan
applications was unanimous.
75. Beale, in his capacity as a Council Member, voted affirmatively to reappoint GEMM
as the Borough Engineer at the January 4, 2010, and January 3, 2012,
reorganization meetings.
76. The reappointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer at the January 4, 2010,
reorganization meeting was approved via a 4-2 vote with Beale seconding the
motion.
a. Council interviewed GEMM and multiple other engineer firms prior to the
reappointment.
b. Beale participated in Council’s selection process of engineer firms, including
participation in actual interviews of \[GEMM and other potential firms\].
77. The reappointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer at the January 3, 2012,
reorganization meeting was approved via 6-0 vote.
a. Council did not interview any engineer firms, including GEMM, for
appointment as the Borough Engineer in 2012.
78. At the times Beale voted to reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer on January
4, 2010, and January 3, 2012, Beale, Beale Construction, and/or Matthew Beale
were contracting with GEMM to provide services in relation to the BMA Project.
a. Beale began performing services for the BMA Project in or about December
2009.
b. Between January 2010 and April 2013, Beale Construction received
payments from GEMM totaling $287,550.00.
Beale, 13-025
Page 15
79. Beale was an active subcontractor of GEMM during the time period he voted
affirmatively in the reappointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer at the January
4, 2010, and January 3, 2012, reorganization meetings.
a. Matthew Beale was actively serving as a subcontractor of GEMM during the
time period Beale voted affirmatively in the reappointment of GEMM as the
Borough Engineer in January 2010.
b. Beale and/or Matthew Beale were actively serving as subcontractors for
GEMM in relation to the BMA Project at the time GEMM was reappointed in
2010 and 2012.
80. GEMM’s fees for services to the Borough remained the same throughout GEMM’s
tenure as the Borough Engineer.
a. GEMM’s tenure as the Borough Engineer ended at the January 6, 2014,
reorganization meeting.
1. Council voted unanimously to appoint Senate Engineering as the
Borough Engineer.
2. Beale was absent from the meeting.
81. Commission Investigators interviewed Beale on February 25, 2014, at The Law
Offices of Eddy, DeLuca, Gravina, & Townsend, located at 564 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, and he asserted the following:
a. Beale and Matthew Beale became aware of Garvin and GEMM through
Beale’s position as a Council Member.
b. Beale did not accept any offer of future employment from GEMM in
exchange for his official vote to reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
c. Beale had no discussion with Garvin about future employment with GEMM
until the Blairsville Municipal Project in October/November 2009.
d. Beale did not solicit Garvin about securing future employment for Matthew
Beale.
e. Beale informed Solicitor Witherel about his employment with GEMM in
relation to the BMA Project, and Witherel found no wrongdoing as the BMA
Project was being done outside of the Borough.
f. Beale did not recall any other advice being given to him by Witherel.
g. During a winter meeting (late 2009/early 2010), Beale and Garvin informed
Council during an executive session about their business relationship, and
Council expressed no issue with the arrangement as long as work was not
being done in the Borough or affecting Borough projects performed by
GEMM.
h. Beale Construction invoices were not submitted to GEMM and GEMM
payments received by Beale Construction were not received in association
with Council-related meetings or events.
Beale, 13-025
Page 16
i. Beale regularly reviewed and initialed/signed GEMM invoices as the Finance
Committee Chairman and voted affirmatively to approve the monthly bills
which include payments to GEMM.
j. Beale’s review and approval of payments to GEMM were formalities in that
Council had already approved the budgets for the respective projects.
k. Beale regularly approved Borough projects administered by GEMM.
l. Beale voted affirmatively to reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer in
2010 and 2012, and he participated in Council’s interview of GEMM in 2010.
m. Beale did not discuss or consider abstaining from the votes to reappoint
GEMM or votes to approve specific payments to GEMM.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO BEALE’S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL
INTERESTS FORMS.
82. Statement of Financial Interests (“SFI”) filing requirements for public officials and
public employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act, which
st
requires a public official/employee to file an SFI no later than May 1 of each year
that he/she holds such a position and the year after leaving such a position.
83. Beale was required to file an SFI annually in his position as a Member of Council.
a. Beale’s most recent tenure as a Council Member was from November 20,
2001, to the present.
84. On September 18, 2013, an SFI compliance review was conducted for the Borough.
a. Beale had SFIs on file for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012
for his position as a Council Member.
85. Section 1105(b)(1), Required Information, of the State Ethics Act requires the
disclosure of the filer’s name, address, and public position.
a. Beale did not disclose his address on his SFI form for calendar year 2012.
86. Section 1105(b)(5), Required Information, of the State Ethics Act requires that any
direct or indirect sources of income totaling in the aggregate of $1,300.00 or more
shall be included in the calendar year with regard to the person required to file the
statement.
a. Beale failed to disclose his direct or indirect source of income from Beale
Construction on his SFI form for calendar year 2009.
87. Beale’s compensation as a Member of Council as confirmed by W-2s issued by the
Borough to Beale is as follows:
2009: $1,200.00.
2010: $1,200.00.
88. Beale, in his capacity as a Member of Council, utilized the authority of his public
position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a business with which he is
associated and a member of his immediate family when he participated in
discussions and/or actions of Borough Council to reappoint \[GEMM as the Borough
Beale, 13-025
Page 17
Engineer\] and approve payments to GEMM and/or invoices from GEMM, at a time
when he and/or his son were subcontractors of GEMM for ongoing projects outside
the Borough limits from 2010 to 2013.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Council Member for Brackenridge Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County,
since November 20, 2001, Respondent William Beale, also referred to hereinafter as
“Respondent,” “Respondent Beale,” and “Beale,” 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 Beale violated Sections 1103(a), 1105(b)(1), and
1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his public position for the
private pecuniary benefit of himself, an immediate family member, and/or a business with
which he or an immediate family member is associated, when he participated in
discussions and/or actions of Borough Council resulting in contract(s) being awarded by
the Borough to Garvin Engineering at a time when he knew or had a reasonable
expectation that he and/or his son would be or was serving as a subcontractor for ongoing
projects awarded to Garvin Engineering; and (2) when he failed to list sources of income
on Statements of Financial Interests (“SFIs”) filed with the Borough for calendar year 2009
and failed to list his name, address, and public position for calendar year 2011.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a)Conflict of interest.—
No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. The term does not include an action
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from
using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public
Beale, 13-025
Page 18
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure
that a person required to file the SFI form must provide.
Section 1105(b)(1) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI his
name, address, and public position.
Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section
1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address
of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more.
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
The Borough is governed by a six-Member Council (“Council”) and a Mayor. Beale
has served as a Member of Council since November 20, 2001. Beale served as the
Finance Committee Chairman for 2012 and 2013, and he served as the Streets Committee
Chairman prior to 2012.
Professionally, Beale has experience in the construction industry, including
positions as a carpenter, carpenter foreman, project superintendent, and project manager.
Beale has performed work for Beale Construction, which is a contractor owned by his
spouse. Beale Construction mainly performs residential remodeling services but also
provides small commercial construction services. Beale’s son, Matthew Beale, is an
engineer by trade.
Council reorganizes biennially, at which time it appoints a Borough Engineer to
perform professional engineering services for the Borough. The Borough Engineer serves
at the pleasure of Council and can be removed by Council at any point in time.
From February 2002 to December 2008, Senate Engineering of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, served as the Borough Engineer. Jim Garvin (“Garvin”), a Senate
Engineering employee, was assigned to the Borough in April 2002, and he regularly
attended Council meetings from May 2002 to August 2008. Garvin interacted with Council
Members during Council meetings and at social outings that occurred immediately
following Council meetings. The after-meeting social outings were attended by Council
Members and occasionally by immediate family members of Council Members, including
Beale’s spouse and Matthew Beale. Garvin gained knowledge of Beale’s construction
management experience and of Matthew Beale’s engineering education and experience
through interacting with them at the after-meeting social outings.
By 2008, Garvin became aware that projects to separate storm water from sanitary
sewer systems were required in various municipalities, including the Borough. Insight Pipe
Contracting (“Insight”), a full service contractor, inquired of Senate Engineering
representatives regarding partnering to perform storm water separation work in the greater
Pittsburgh area. Senate Engineering had no interest in performing the work, and Insight
ultimately approached Garvin about performing the storm water separation work.
In or about January 2008, Garvin incorporated his own engineering firm, Garvin
Engineering Municipal Management (“GEMM”), in order to partner with Insight as a
consultant. GEMM specializes in municipal engineering, including infrastructure,
improvement projects, water sealing streets, paving, and grant writing. In the summer of
2008, Garvin, who was still employed with Senate Engineering and acting as the Borough
Engineer, submitted a proposal to Council for GEMM and Insight to perform storm water
separation work for the Borough. On July 21, 2008, Beale participated in a unanimous
Beale, 13-025
Page 19
vote by Council to approve the proposal for professional engineer services from GEMM
and Insight.
Garvin subsequently resigned from Senate Engineering and submitted a letter of
interest to the Borough regarding his possible appointment as the Borough Engineer. On
December 15, 2008, Council voted to appoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer. Beale
voted in favor of GEMM’s appointment. Beale was not an employee or subcontractor of
GEMM at the time of GEMM’s appointment, and Beale and Garvin did not discuss
prospective employment for Beale or Matthew Beale with GEMM in conjunction with
Council appointing GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
In or about August 2009, GEMM and Beale were both working on a project in the
th
City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, that was managed by the 12 Congressional Regional
thth
Equipment Company, Inc. (the “12 REC Project”). Beale worked on the 12 REC Project
as a subcontractor of Beale Construction. Garvin and Beale discussed the need for a
th
sewer line inspector for the 12 REC Project and Matthew Beale’s qualifications as an
inspector. Garvin subsequently offered an inspector position to Matthew Beale, who was
certified in sewer line inspections. Garvin and Beale agreed that hours worked by Matthew
Beale would be invoiced to GEMM from Beale Construction. In response to invoices
submitted by Beale Construction, GEMM paid Beale Construction a total of $6,600.00 for
th
work performed by Matthew Beale in 2009 in relation to the 12 REC Project.
In May 2009, the Board of the Blairsville Municipal Authority (“BMA”) received
funding for a project (“BMA Project”) pertaining to the expansion/upgrading of the
Blairsville Sewage Treatment Plant and its Main Sewage Pump Station. After the BMA
Board agreed to contract with an independent on-site inspector for the BMA Project, the
BMA Executive Director contacted Garvin, who consulted with BMA Solicitor and Borough
Solicitor Michael Witherel (“Solicitor Witherel”) about hiring Beale as a project inspector for
the plant expansion portion of the BMA Project. Solicitor Witherel advised Garvin that the
hiring would not pose a potential conflict for Beale and that Beale should disclose his
employment to Council and refrain from voting on Borough matters relating to GEMM.
After consulting with Witherel, Garvin contacted Beale about providing
subcontracting services for GEMM in relation to the BMA Project, and Beale agreed to do
so at the rate of $50.00 an hour. Garvin also contacted Matthew Beale about his interest
in performing inspections for the sewer separation portion of the BMA Project, and
Matthew Beale agreed to do so through Beale Construction at an hourly wage of $35.00.
On or about December 10, 2009, Beale and Matthew Beale began performing
services in relation to the BMA Project. Subsequent to beginning work on the BMA
Project, Beale discussed his arrangement with GEMM in a private conversation with
Council Member Ronald Dunlap and Solicitor Witherel, who advised Beale to abstain from
approving Borough payments to GEMM. In an executive session in late 2009/early 2010,
Beale informed the remaining Council Members that he was a subcontractor for GEMM for
the BMA Project. Council Members advised Beale that the arrangement was acceptable
with the stipulation that Beale was not to work within the Borough and that the work did not
interfere with Borough-related business with GEMM.
Matthew Beale performed inspections for the BMA Project from December 2009
until approximately November 2011. Beale performed services for the BMA Project as a
subcontractor of GEMM from December 2009 to October 2012 and in January 2013 and
March 2013. Between January 2010 and April 2013, GEMM paid Beale Construction a
total of $287,550.00 for the work completed by Beale/Matthew Beale in relation to the BMA
Project.
In 2012, Beale agreed to perform work for GEMM at a wage of $50.00 per hour in
relation to a project at the Pittsburgh Brewery Company (“Pittsburgh Brewery Company
Beale, 13-025
Page 20
Project”). Beale was a subcontractor for GEMM for the Pittsburgh Brewery Company
Project from August 2012 to October 2012. Beale submitted invoices to GEMM through
Beale Construction, and GEMM paid Beale Construction a total of $2,650.00 for the work
that Beale performed for the Pittsburgh Brewery Company Project. Beale did not disclose
to Council at a public meeting his arrangement with GEMM in relation to the Pittsburgh
Brewery Company Project. Although Beale’s arrangement with GEMM was discussed at
after-meeting social outings, Council Members in attendance did not express concern or
confront Beale about his arrangement with GEMM.
From 2009 through April 2013, Beale Construction received payments from GEMM
totaling $296,800.00.
During the time frame when Beale Construction was receiving payments from
GEMM for work that Beale and Matthew Beale performed for GEMM, Beale participated as
a Council Member in matters pertaining to GEMM. When Council held its biennial
reorganization meeting on January 4, 2010, Beale seconded a motion for the
reappointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer, and the motion passed by a vote of
four to two, with Beale voting in favor of the motion. At the January 3, 2012, biennial
reorganization meeting of Council, Beale participated in a unanimous vote by Council to
reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer. Beale was not present at the January 6,
2014, biennial reorganization meeting of Council when Council voted to appoint Senate
Engineering as the Borough Engineer.
From 2010 to 2013, Beale participated in other matters related to GEMM. As the
Streets Committee Chairman or the Finance Committee Chairman, Beale participated in
approving specific invoices received from GEMM at meetings on April 19, 2010, and
January 3, 2012. Beale additionally participated in Council actions to approve payments
totaling $498,821.50 to GEMM for services rendered to the Borough.
The parties have stipulated that Beale, in his capacity as a Council Member, utilized
the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a business
with which he is associated and a member of his immediate family when he participated in
discussions and/or actions of Council to reappoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer and
approve payments to GEMM and/or invoices from GEMM, at a time when he and/or his son
were subcontractors of GEMM for ongoing projects outside the Borough limits from 2010 to
2013.
As a Council Member, Beale is required to annually file an SFI by May 1 disclosing
financial information for the prior calendar year. On September 18, 2013, an SFI
compliance review of the Borough was conducted. Beale failed to disclose Beale
Construction as a source of income on his SFI for calendar year 2009.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred in relation to Beale’s
participation in discussions and/or actions of
Borough Council, resulting in the appointment of
Garvin Engineering as the Borough Engineer, at
Beale, 13-025
Page 21
a time when he knew or had a reasonable
expectation that he, an immediate family
member, and/or a business with which he or an
immediate family member \[is\] associated, \[was\]
or would be serving as a subcontractor to Garvin
Engineering albeit on non-Borough related
projects.
b. That a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1105(b), occurred in relation to Beale’s failure to
list all sources of income on \[his\] Statement of
Financial Interests filed with the Borough for
calendar year 2009, and when he failed to list
his name, address, and public position \[on his
Statement of Financial Interests\] for \[calendar\]
year 2011.
4. Beale agrees to make payment in the amount of $1,700.00 in
settlement of this matter 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.
5. Beale agrees to file complete and accurate amended
Statements of Financial Interests with Brackenridge Borough
through the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, for the
2009 and 2011 calendar years within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
6. Beale agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation
or other payment from Brackenridge Borough representing a
full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement
of this matter.
7. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics
Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no
specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other
authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does
not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate
enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to
comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or
cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to
review this matter further.
Consent Agreement, at 2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendation of the
parties for a finding that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation
to Beale’s participation in discussions and/or actions of Council resulting in the
appointment of GEMM as the Borough Engineer, at a time when he knew or had a
reasonable expectation that he, an immediate family member, and/or a business with
which he or an immediate family member is associated was or would be serving as a
subcontractor to GEMM, albeit on non-Borough related projects.
Beale has performed work for Beale Construction, a contractor owned by his
spouse. Beale’s son, Matthew Beale, is an engineer by trade.
Beale, 13-025
Page 22
On December 15, 2008, Council voted to appoint GEMM as the Borough Engineer.
Beale voted in favor of GEMM’s appointment. Beale was not an employee or
subcontractor of GEMM at the time of GEMM’s appointment.
th
In or about August 2009, Beale and GEMM were both working on the 12 REC
Project. Garvin, who incorporated GEMM, and Beale discussed the need for a sewer line
th
inspector for the 12 REC Project, and Garvin offered an inspector position to Matthew
Beale. Garvin and Beale agreed that hours worked by Matthew Beale would be invoiced
to GEMM from Beale Construction. GEMM paid Beale Construction a total of $6,600.00
th
for work performed by Matthew Beale in 2009 in relation to the 12 REC Project. Beginning
in December 2009, Beale and Matthew Beale provided services for GEMM in relation to
the BMA Project. Between January 2010 and April 2013, GEMM paid Beale Construction
a total of $287,550.00 for the work completed by Beale/Matthew Beale in relation to the
BMA Project. From August 2012 to October 2012, Beale was a subcontractor for GEMM
for the Pittsburgh Brewery Company Project. GEMM paid Beale Construction a total of
$2,650.00 for the work that Beale performed for the Pittsburgh Brewery Company Project.
From 2009 through April 2013, Beale Construction received payments from GEMM totaling
$296,800.00.
During the time that Beale Construction was receiving payments from GEMM for
work performed by Beale and Matthew Beale for GEMM on various non-Borough related
projects, Beale used the authority of his public position as a Council Member in matters
involving GEMM when he: (1) seconded a motion and voted to reappoint GEMM as the
Borough Engineer on January 4, 2010; (2) voted to reappoint GEMM as the Borough
Engineer on January 3, 2012; (3) participated, as the Streets Committee Chairman or the
Finance Committee Chairman, in approving specific invoices received from GEMM at
meetings on April 19, 2010, and January 3, 2012; and (4) participated in Council actions to
approve payments to GEMM for services rendered to the Borough.
Based upon the Stipulated Findings and the Consent Agreement, we hold that
Beale violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his
participation in discussions and/or actions of Council resulting in the appointment of
GEMM as the Borough Engineer, at a time when he knew or had a reasonable expectation
that he, an immediate family member, and/or a business with which he or an immediate
family member is associated was or would be serving as a subcontractor to GEMM, albeit
on non-Borough related projects.
As for the allegations regarding Beale’s SFIs, it is clear that Beale failed to disclose
Beale Construction as a source of income on his SFI for calendar year 2009. Although the
Stipulated Findings do not address Beale’s SFI for calendar year 2011, per the Consent
Agreement, the parties are in agreement that Beale failed to disclose his name, address,
and public position on his SFI for calendar year 2011.
We hold that a violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b),
occurred in relation to Beale’s failure to list all sources of income on his SFI for calendar
year 2009, and when he failed to list his name, address, and public position on his SFI for
calendar year 2011.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Beale has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $1,700.00 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.
Beale has also agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment
from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in
settlement of this matter. Beale has further agreed to file complete and accurate amended
SFIs for the 2009 and 2011 calendar years with the Borough, through this Commission,
within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
Beale, 13-025
Page 23
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, Beale is directed to make
payment in the amount of $1,700.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
th
forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date
of this adjudication and Order.
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Beale is further directed to not accept
any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full
or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
To the extent he has not already done so, Beale is directed to file complete and
accurate amended SFIs for the 2009 and 2011 calendar years with the Borough, through
th
this Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
adjudication and Order.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV.CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Council Member for Brackenridge Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County,
since November 20, 2001, Respondent William Beale (“Beale”) 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. Beale violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to
his participation in discussions and/or actions of Borough Council resulting in the
appointment of Garvin Engineering Municipal Management (“GEMM”) as the
Borough Engineer, at a time when he knew or had a reasonable expectation that
he, an immediate family member, and/or a business with which he or an immediate
family member is associated was or would be serving as a subcontractor to GEMM,
albeit on non-Borough related projects.
3. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred in
relation to Beale’s failure to list all sources of income on his Statement of Financial
Interests for calendar year 2009, and when he failed to list his name, address, and
public position on his Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2011.
In Re: William Beale, : File Docket: 13-025
Respondent : Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/10/14
ORDER NO. 1644
1. As a Council Member for Brackenridge Borough (“Borough”), Allegheny County,
William Beale (“Beale”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his
participation in discussions and/or actions of Borough Council resulting in the
appointment of Garvin Engineering Municipal Management (“GEMM”) as the
Borough Engineer, at a time when he knew or had a reasonable expectation that
he, an immediate family member, and/or a business with which he or an immediate
family member is associated was or would be serving as a subcontractor to GEMM,
albeit on non-Borough related projects.
2. A violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b), occurred in
relation to Beale’s failure to list all sources of income on his Statement of Financial
Interests for calendar year 2009, and when he failed to list his name, address, and
public position on his Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2011.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Beale is directed to make payment in the
amount of $1,700.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded
th
to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day
after the mailing date of this Order.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Beale is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a
full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
5. To the extent he has not already done so, Beale is directed to file complete and
accurate amended Statements of Financial Interests for the 2009 and 2011
calendar years with the Borough, through the Pennsylvania State Ethics
th
Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this
Order.
6. Compliance with paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 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