HomeMy WebLinkAbout1645 Spangler
In Re: Leah Spangler, : File Docket: 12-007
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1645
: Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/14/14
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 allegation(s). 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 Leah Spangler, a public official/public employee in her capacity as Member of
the Board of Directors of the Westmont Hilltop School District, violated Sections
1103(a) and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a)
and §1103(f), when a business with which she is associated, Learning Lamp, Inc.,
entered into contracts with the School District in excess of $500.00 without an open
and public process; and when she participated in discussions and negotiations with
school district administrators resulting in the award of the contracts.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Leah Spangler served as a Member of the Westmont Hilltop School District,
Cambria County (hereafter “District” or “WHSD”), Board of Directors from December
3, 2007, until August 13, 2012.
a. Spangler served as the Board Treasurer from December 5, 2011, until
August 13, 2012.
b. Spangler voluntarily resigned from her Director position effective August 13,
2012.
2. WHSD is governed by a nine Member Board of Directors.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 2
a. The Board holds two regularly scheduled meetings a month.
1. Non-legislative meetings are held on the first Monday of the month.
2. Legislative meetings are held on the second Monday of the month.
b. Special meetings are held as necessary.
3. Voting at WHSD Board meetings occurs via individual roll call vote.
a. Each individual Board Director’s vote\[s\], including abstentions or objections,
are recorded in the meeting minutes.
1. Abstention forms completed by the Directors are appended to the
meeting minutes.
b. Legislative and special meeting minutes are approved for accuracy by the
Board at the next meeting of the Board.
1. The Board does not approve non-legislative meeting minutes.
4. Bill lists (that appear as check registers) are voted on for approval by the Board at
each legislative meeting.
a. The bill lists document all of the bills received by the District for payment
since the last legislative meeting of the Board.
5. Signature authority over the WHSD financial accounts rests with the Board
President, Board Vice President, Board Treasurer, and the Board Secretary.
a. WHSD checks require the signature of any three of the four authorized
signatories.
b. WHSD checks are produced automatically with computer generated
signatures.
1. Spangler’s computer generated signature appeared on District checks
during the time period that she served as Board Treasurer.
6. Leah Spangler has been affiliated with Learning Lamp (hereafter “LL”) since or
about October 2003.
a. Spangler has served as the Executive Director of LL since approximately
October 2003.
b. Spangler, in her capacity as the Executive Director, is responsible for
performing the following duties and responsibilities:
1. Staff management,
2. Recruiting/staffing,
3. Business development,
4. Communication,
Spangler, 12-007
Page 3
5. Grant/fundraising research.
c. As Executive Director of LL, Spangler’s duties extend beyond those listed
above, and under the management structure of LL, performance of and
responsibility for these duties are regularly delegated to staff members
based on organizational and practical consideration.
7. Learning Lamp is a non-profit corporation which provides various educational
programs to assist elementary, middle school, and high school students succeed in
the classroom.
a. LL also provides services other than educational programs such as
professional development, grant writing, project consulting, and temporary
staffing.
b. Articles of Incorporation on file with the Department of State for LL reflect
that LL filed for incorporation status on September 25, 2003.
1. On September 26, 2003, LL was formally registered with the
Department of State as a non-profit organization within the
Commonwealth.
c. LL was formally established/created to do business within the
Commonwealth on or about September 26, 2003.
1. LL was established as a non-profit corporation, and specifically not
organized for profit under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
d. LL has been headquartered in the Johnstown, Pennsylvania, regional area
since its establishment.
1. The headquarters of LL has changed locations over the years.
2. Currently LL is located at 2025 Bedford Street, Johnstown, PA
15904.
3. LL does not maintain any other headquarter offices in Pennsylvania.
e. LL does not provide any services outside the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
1. Approximately seventy-seven (77) school districts utilize the services
of LL within Pennsylvania.
f. LL is currently an active organization within the Commonwealth.
8. LL began providing services to WHSD during the 2003-2004 school year through
private tutoring services, which continued into the 2004-2005 school year and
thereafter.
a. WHSD contracted with LL to provide student tutoring, funded by the PA
Department of Education, Accountability Block Grant (“ABG”) program.
b. Spangler was not a Board Director when WHSD initially contracted with LL
to provide tutoring.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 4
9. WHSD continued to utilize the LL for educational services after Spangler was
elected to serve on the Board of Directors in November 2007.
a. The LL provided various educational services to WHSD while Spangler
served as a WHSD Board Director.
b. Members of the School Board knew Spangler was the Executive Director of
the LL during the time Spangler served as a WHSD Board Director.
10. The WHSD does not have any formal policies that specifically address conflicts of
interest, other than Policy 005 adopted on October 8, 2001, which reads:
The President may request that a member of the Board excuse
himself/herself on any Board committee or deliberation that could involve a
potential conflict of interest.
a. As a WHSD Board Director, Spangler was never requested and/or instructed
to physically excuse herself from Board deliberations regarding the District’s
utilization of LL.
1. Spangler does not recall any Board deliberations regarding WHSD’s
use of LL services, and asserts that any discussions by the Board in
the presence of Respondent regarding LL services were informational
only and not deliberative.
11. In or about December 2007, as a newly elected Board Director, Spangler was
informed by WHSD Superintendent Susan Anderson of the need to abstain from the
approval process of District checks drafted/issued to LL, and to abstain from all
votes regarding the District’s contract(s) with LL, in order to avoid any potential
conflicts of interest.
a. Anderson’s advice to Spangler was limited to the official action of voting on
matters related to LL.
12. Between 2007, when Spangler began service as a WHSD Board Director, and late
2012, none of the contracts entered into between the WHSD and LL were publically
advertised for bid.
a. Not all of the contracts entered into between WHSD and LL were formally
approved by the WHSD Board of Directors by way of official vote or
recorded action of the Board, but invoices from LL were formally approved
by the WHSD School Board before any payments were made to LL.
b. Spangler was advised by WHSD officials that if the funding for services was
approved in the annual budget, then the WHSD administration was
authorized to obtain those services without further formal approval of the
WHSD Board of Directors, other than the monthly approval of the payment of
the invoices. Upon approval of the payment of the invoice by the WHSD
Board of Directors, the agreement between LL and WHSD became a legally
binding and enforceable contract.
c. No evidence suggests that WHSD ever made payment to LL for services that
were not fully provided by LL to the WHSD.
d. Invoices from LL to WHSD were computed based on the same rates that LL
used to compute invoices for the 76 other school districts to whom LL
provided services.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 5
e. Per the holding of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, “The \[Pennsylvania
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101-1113,\] is not a
procurement statute, and there is no indication that the General Assembly
intended it to constrain or modify the numerous statutory provisions … that
do set forth specific procedures for awarding contracts….\[The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court declines\] to infer that when the General Assembly chose to
use the phrase ‘an open and public process’ in the context of subsection
1103(f) \[(65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f)) of the Pennsylvania Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101-1113\], its actual intent was to
specify a competitive bidding process.” Kistler v. State Ethics Comm’n, 610
Pa. 516, 535 (Pa. 2011).
f. The invoices of LL were part of the Board agenda which provided prior
public notice, and they were part of the Board minutes which provided
subsequent public disclosure.
13. Contracts between the WHSD and LL which were approved by formal vote/action of
the Board were not presented to the Board in paper/document format.
a. LL contracts were generally reviewed and executed by Spangler as a
representative of LL and by Superintendent Anderson as a representative of
WHSD.
b. On some occasions, the Board was provided with cost analysis information
disclosing the costs associated with the services LL would be providing.
1. Ultimately the Board would receive the exact cost of services
provided by LL through the process of the Board approving the
payment of the invoice.
14. WHSD administrators entered into contracts with LL after Spangler took office as a
Board Director in 2007.
a. WHSD administrators who contacted Spangler regarding LL services
included:
1. Susan Anderson, Superintendent.
2. Steve McGee, Director of Education/Student Support.
3. Gregory Sanford, Business Manager.
b. If the request for services was within the scope of LL’s expertise, Spangler
recommended that WHSD administrators contact districts utilizing LL for the
same/similar services in order to determine if WHSD wanted to contract with
LL.
c. WHSD administrators entered into agreements with LL for services after
Spangler become a Board Member and at times obtained those services
from LL prior to Board approval; the administrators had no authority to make
a contract between LL and WHSD.
1. Any agreements made by WHSD administrators only became a
legally enforceable contract when they were approved by the WHSD
Board which often occurred through the Board approval of the
payment of the invoice for those services. Payments to LL for
Spangler, 12-007
Page 6
services provided to WHSD were never made until they were
approved by the WHSD Board.
15. From 2007 to 2012, during Spangler’s tenure as a Board Director for WHSD,
Spangler forwarded e-mails to WHSD administrators which highlighted LL’s
services and accomplishments.
16. Spangler also emailed WHSD administrators regarding the status of contracts and
inquired if the WHSD \[sic\] would be utilized for additional contracts.
17. During Spangler’s tenure as a Board Director for WHSD, Spangler instructed LL
staff to contact WHSD administrators to pursue LL contracts with WHSD.
a. The directives given by Spangler to LL staff were the result of contacts from
WHSD administrators requesting services from LL.
b. Spangler’s directives to LL employees were documented in email
communications between LL representatives and WHSD administrators.
c. WHSD Board Directors were not privy to the email communications between
LL representatives and WHSD administrators.
18. During Spangler’s tenure as a Board Director for WHSD, Spangler made requests
of WHSD administrators for support/assistance, and utilized WHSD administrators
as a resource for information.
a. Spangler’s requests were documented in email communications, as detailed
below:
1. On March 28, 2011, Spangler emailed Sam Brunatti, Elementary
Principal, WHSD, the following message:
I am writing to ask for your help with our PreK EITC application. I need
the attached letter on your school letterhead mailed to me. It will be
submitted with our application to the PA DCED. It allows me to
provide preschool scholarships for children attending our preschool at
Beth Sholom in Westmont. Call or email with questions. My deadline
is April 15, so any time before then would be great. Thank you!
2. On March 23, 2012, Spangler emailed Brunatti the following
message:
I am writing to request a curriculum alignment letter so I can renew
our status as a PreK Scholarship Organization through the DCED.
This will allow us to offer scholarships for the Westmont preschool,
which serves 25 Westmont-Hilltop families.
A sample letter is attached. Please cut and paste it on Westmont
Elementary letterhead and mail it to me at: The Learning Lamp, 2025
Bedford Street, Johnstown, PA 15904. I need to turn the letter in with
our renewal application. Thanks so much!
3. Spangler notes that since 2004 she annually requested this letter
from WHSD and six other elementary school providers, after LL
became a Pre-K scholarship organization. The support letter allowed
LL to renew its status as a Pre-K scholarship organization through the
DCED’s Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program (EITC), which
Spangler, 12-007
Page 7
enabled LL to raise money to provide preschool scholarships to low-
income students in Cambria, Somerset and Bedford counties.
4. On March 28, 2011, Spangler emailed Superintendent Anderson the
following message:
As you know, I am working on The Learning Lamp’s Educational
Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) application for the 2011-12 school
year. To renew our status as an Educational Improvement
Organization (EIO), I need to gather many (sic) support from school
superintendents across the region.
In 2010, The Learning Lamp worked with 8,368 students from 55
school districts in Pennsylvania. Many of those children participated in
our innovative in-school workshops featuring Earth Balloon, Discovery
Dome and the National Geographic Giant Traveling Maps. Without
support from the EITC program, those workshops would not be
possible.
Please help us renew our status as an EIO by placing the attached
support letter draft on your school district letterhead and mailing it to
me c/o The Learning Lamp, 108 College Park Plaza, Johnstown, PA
15904. Please do not mail directly to the DCED.
Thank you in advance for your support of our very worthwhile work.
5. Spangler notes that she has requested this letter annually since
2005. This support letter allows LL to renew its status as an
Educational Improvement Organization through DCED’s EITC
program. This letter is requested from 40 superintendents each year,
including \[the superintendent of\] WHSD. Response to this letter
allows LL to bring innovative science and geography programs into
public schools across the region at minimal cost to the school
districts.
6. On March 21, 2011, Spangler emailed WHSD Business Manager
Sanford the following message:
Another school district asked us to put together a proposal to provide
them with back-up subs. Do you have any idea what the IU charges
schools per day for the teachers on the emergency sub list? I need
some sort of base to start the proposal from…and the superintendent
had no idea!
7. On May 31, 2011, Spangler emailed Sanford the following message:
A local school district has asked us if we would be able to provide
them with OT and PT services. I was wondering if you might be able
to tell me the average hourly rate you pay to providers for OT and PT.
Thank you!
8. Spangler notes that she was simply asking the business manager for
guidance as to where to begin calculating a budget, and that it was a
simple request for advice from a colleague, and that she could have
requested this information from other business managers as well.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 8
9. On August 31, 2011, Spangler emailed Anderson the following
message:
Do you know what type of certification is required to teach
psychology? I need to recruit an online teacher, but am not sure what
certification to look for. Thank you!
10. Spangler notes that she did not know the correct certification for this
subject area, and knew the Superintendent could advise her. She
notes that it was a simple request for information that she could have
accessed from any superintendent or the PDE website.
11. On August 31, 2011, Spangler emailed Anderson the following
message:
Did Ferndale SD contact you? Word on the street is that they planned
to ask if they can partner with WHSD for alt ed classroom.
12. Spangler notes that she was simply passing along a message to the
Superintendent that there might be an opportunity for cost-savings for
WHSD.
The Following Findings Relate to WHSD Contracting with LL to Provide Tutoring
Services.
19. LL provided services to the WHSD during the 2006-2007 school year.
a. WHSD contracted with LL to provide tutoring through funding provided by a
PA Department of Education, Accountability Block Grant (“ABG”) program.
b. The intent of the program was to assist WHSD students struggling
academically during the 2006-2007 school year.
20. The WHSD Board of Directors approved of LL providing the aforementioned
tutoring at the April 10, 2006, and June 19, 2006, Board meetings.
a. Spangler was not a Board Director when the Board voted to utilize LL to
provide ABG funded tutoring.
21. On May 14, 2007, the WHSD Board of Directors voted to continue to use LL to
provide tutoring during the 2007-2008 school year.
a. Spangler was not a Board Director when the Board voted to approve the
continuation of the tutoring service.
22. Spangler was actively serving as a Board Director when a District payment related
to LL’s tutoring services was identified on a bill list for Board approval at the July
14, 2008, meeting.
a. Spangler abstained from the approval of the District payment to LL
presented on July 14, 2008, as shown below:
Meeting Date Official Action Check # Check Amount Paid Learning Lamp Invoice #
7-14-08 Abstained 49212 $892.50 4824 (in full)
Spangler, 12-007
Page 9
1. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number
redacted\] document that the $892.50 District payment to LL for
tutoring during the 2007-2008 school year was deposited into LL’s
account on July 8, 2008.
23. The District utilized LL for tutoring services during the 2010-2011 through 2011-
2012 school years.
a. WHSD administration did not seek formal Board approval when selecting LL
to provide tutoring for students, due to the number of students and the
overall costs.
b. The tutoring services for school years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were of a
continuing nature in the WHSD. The services were based on a pre-
established rate. Services of these types often arise on an emergency basis
as a result of a student injury or illness requiring tutoring services or
because of a last minute course requirement for a student looking to
graduate on time. WHSD, and other districts, are legally required to provide
the tutoring; the rates are established, and LL was the only practical provider
for these services at the time.
1. The total charges ranged from $130.00 to $1,040.00 per student in
relation to LL providing tutoring for District students.
c. WHSD administration did not utilize a public bid process in relation to the
selection of LL as the entity to provide the tutoring services per the Supreme
Court’s ruling in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission.
1. District administrators became aware that LL could provide tutoring
services based on information provided by Spangler to District staff.
24. The District received five (5) invoices for tutoring services provided by LL for the
2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years, totaling $3,120.00.
a. One of the invoices issued by the LL dated 12-31-2011 to the District related
to tutoring and was from “Spangler” to “Thomas Mitchell, Assistant Principal,
WHSD.”
b. Of the five (5) invoices seeking payment for tutoring services provided, only
two (totaling $2,340.00) were formalized via written contract.
25. On June 15, 2011, Spangler participated in email discussions with LL
representatives regarding the charges the District should be assessed related to
the tutoring of a student.
a. On June 15, 2011, Kristi Emerick, LL Assistant Director of Tutoring and
Special Services, emailed LL representatives Spangler, Diana
Chestnutwood, and Heidi Rizkalla the following message:
We are going to need to refund Steve McGee for the Credit Recovery with
\[STUDENT 2\]. She has withdrawn from the class. We paid the teacher for
two sessions.
b. On June 15, 2011, Chestnutwood responded to Emerick’s email by sending
an email to Spangler, Emerick, and Rizkalla stating the following:
Spangler, 12-007
Page 10
Westmont has not paid the invoice for this girl yet. Are we going to charge
the school for 2 sessions that we incurred?
c. Subsequently on June 15, 2011, Spangler responded to Chestnutwood’s
email stating:
Yes on the two sessions.
26. On or about June 21, 2011, LL issued check #20250 in the amount of $468.00 to
WHSD to reimburse the District for the tutoring associated with the tutoring of a
student.
a. Spangler did not sign the check as an LL signatory.
27. Five District payments were issued to LL in association with five separate LL
invoices totaling $3,120.00 in relation to LL providing tutoring services for WHSD
from 2010 through 2012.
a. Spangler abstained from the vote to approve bill lists on which four of the
five District checks issued to LL related to tutoring were documented.
b. Spangler was absent from the meeting when the bill list documenting the
issuance of check #58673 was approved by the Board.
28. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that the $3,120.00 in payments from WHSD to LL for tutoring services
from 2010 through 2012 were deposited into LL’s account.
The Following Findings Relate to the District Contracting with LL to Provide a
Technology Coach for the Classrooms of the Future Program.
29. In or about September 2007, the Board was informed that the District was to receive
monies from the PA Department of Education (“PDE”) Classrooms for the Future
(“CFF”) program.
a. The CFF program was established by the PDE to fund technological
advancements in the classroom.
30. The WHSD contracted with LL to provide the CFF education for the 2007-2008
school year through the 2009-2010 school year.
a. An LL Technology Coach was utilized to provide technology training.
b. Spangler was not a Board Director when the Board decided to utilize LL
Technology Coach during the 2007-2008 school year.
c. School District administrators became aware that LL could provide CFF
services based on information provided by Spangler.
31. The WHSD made payments totaling $17,985.00 to LL in relation to a Technology
Coach during the 2007-2008 school year.
a. Payments were made on three occasions between December 2007 and April
2008.
b. Spangler abstained from the approval of the District payments to LL for the
Technology Coaching services.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 11
32. On or about May 12, 2008, Spangler, in her capacity as Executive Director of LL,
engaged in contract discussions with WHSD administrators Susan Anderson and
Gregory Sanford via email in regards to the District continuing to use LL’s
Technology Coach during the 2008-2009 school year.
a. Spangler asserts that she was contacted by WHSD administrators regarding
the use of the Technology Coach and Respondent provided the requested
information needed to continue the program.
b. Spangler’s emails included budget figures related to the cost associated with
the District contracting with LL.
c. Spangler advised in her emails that she could adjust the budget figures
based on input from the District.
d. No Member of the Board Directors participated in the negotiations.
33. On or about October 3, 2008, WHSD received a contract from LL regarding the
District’s utilization of LL to provide a Technology Coach during the 2008-2009
school year.
a. The total amount of the contract was $31,213.98.
1. Neither Spangler nor Anderson signed the contract.
2. No official from either the WHSD or LL signed the contract.
34. The District’s decision to utilize an LL Technology Coach for the 2008-2009 school
year was not brought before the Board of Directors for approval by vote.
a. The Board was informed by the Superintendent, during a work session of the
Board, of the intent to contract with LL.
b. Spangler was present during the workshop session.
35. Two payments, totaling $31,213.98, were made to LL by the WHSD during the
2008-2009 school year for technology services.
a. Meeting minutes of the WHSD indicate that Spangler approved of one of the
two payments to be issued to LL, as shown below:
Meeting Date Official Action Check # Check Amount Paid Learning Lamp Invoice #
1-12-09 Abstained 50705 $20,809.32 7557 (in full), 1004 (in full)
4-13-09 Approved bill 51315 $10,404.66 7806 (in full)
Total: $31,213.98
b. While Spangler does not dispute that the records of WHSD appear to show
that she voted to approve that payment, she asserts there is an error in
regard to that record as she maintains that she never voted to approve a
payment to LL.
1. Spangler’s vote was not a controlling vote, and the remaining
members of the Board voted unanimously in favor of issuing payment
to LL.
36. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that the $31,213.98 in District payments to LL for CFF Technology Coach
Spangler, 12-007
Page 12
services provided during the 2008-2009 school year were deposited into LL’s
account.
37. Between August 24, 2009, and August 31, 2009, WHSD Superintendent Anderson
had email communications with Jennifer Heck, LL Education Director, related to the
District contracting with LL to provide a Technology Coach for the 2009-2010
school year.
a. Spangler was “carbon copied” on the email communications between
Anderson and Heck.
b. The emails between Anderson and Heck between August 24, 2009, and
August 31, 2009, reflect as follows:
1. On August 24, 2009, Jennifer Heck, Education Director LL, emailed
Anderson, Superintendent, WHSD, the following message:
“Here are the CFF budgets for your to review. I revised the second
one to accommodate your request for staff development. Please let
me know once approved. I cannot write Liz’s employee letter until her
days are set. Thank you”
On August 31, 2009, Jennifer Heck, Education Director, LL, emailed
Anderson, Superintendent, WHSD, a follow-up email that states:
“Here is the revised budget and contract. Once approved, I will
contact Liz with the details of her employment. The amount is a bit
higher than last year. We can cut out the grant writing if you will not
need those services. Please let me know if there are any final
revisions. I attached the contract from last year for you to compare.”
c. No other Board Directors were specifically included as recipients of the email
communications between Anderson and Heck.
38. The District’s decision to utilize LL to provide a Technology Coach for the 2009-
2010 school year was not submitted to the Board of Directors for approval.
a. The WHSD Board of Directors did not vote to approve LL as the Technology
Coach for the 2009-2010 school years.
1. The Board was advised at a workshop meeting by the Superintendent
that the District was entering into a contract with LL.
b. No written contract was ever executed between LL and the District for the
2009-2010 school year Technology Coach.
39. On December 28, 2009, Spangler (via email) advised LL representatives that the
District was discontinuing LL as Technology Coach, as detailed below:
Westmont Hilltop SD needs to discontinue the Westmont CFF coach contract
because of a change in staffing. Elisabeth Rutledge’s last day was December 21.
Please do not bill for the additional installments for this contract. Once all of her
training/conference charges hit the credit card, we can check the balance and then
refund any money due back to the district. Thanks!
40. On April 1, 2010, WHSD Administrator Steve McGee emailed Spangler, in her
capacity as LL Executive Director, to advise her that LL would need to reimburse
Spangler, 12-007
Page 13
the District any unused monies paid to LL for CFF related functions. McGee’s e-
mail provided as follows:
We have decided for many reasons that the best use of the remaining funds in the
CFF pot at Learning Lamp would be to purchase Promethean Boards at the First
Grade level.
a. No other LL representatives were included as recipients of McGee’s email.
b. No other Board Directors were specifically listed as recipients on McGee’s
email.
41. On April 2, 2010, Spangler responded to McGee via email indicating as follows:
“No problem…I’ll also submit a check request to Diana to cut back the remaining
CFF money to the District.”
a. No other LL representatives were included as recipients of Spangler’s email.
b. No other Board Directors were specifically listed as recipients on McGee’s
email.
42. On or about May 6, 2010, LL issued check #16682 in the amount of $5,342.08 to
WHSD as reimbursement to the District for money paid to LL for the CFF.
a. Spangler did not sign the check as an LL signatory.
43. The WHSD issued payments totaling $17,105.40 to LL for providing a Technology
Coach to WHSD for the 2009-2010 school year.
a. Spangler abstained from the District payments to LL, as shown below:
Meeting Date Official Action Check # Check Amount Paid Learning Lamp Invoice #
9-14-09 Abstained 52289 $8,552.70* 9325 (in full)
12-7-09 Abstained 52915 $8,552.70* 10539 (in full)
Total: $17,105.40
Key: * = Additional LL expenses were paid via said checks; therefore, the check totals are higher than what is reflected.
44. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that the $17,105.40 in District payments to LL for CFF Technology Coach
services during the 2009-2010 school year were deposited into LL’s account, as
shown below:
Check Check Deposit Date Check # Spangler’s Signature As a District Check Amount
Date Signatory
9-14-2009 9-18-2009 52289 No $8,552.70*
12-7-2009 12-14-2009 52915 No $8,552.70*
Total: $17,105.40
Key: * = Additional LL expenses were paid via said checks; therefore, the check totals are higher than what is reflected.
The Following Findings Relate to the District Contracting with LL to Provide Title
I Funded Education.
45. Title I is a federally funded supplemental education program that provides financial
assistance to districts to improve educational opportunities for educationally
deprived children.
a. The District utilized its own staff to provide Title I funded education prior to
the 2009-2010 school year.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 14
46. LL was utilized by the WHSD to provide Title I services to the District beginning
with the 2009-2010 school year.
a. The Board did not formally vote to approve a contract for 2008-2009 school
year.
b. The Board was informed by the Superintendent, during a work session of the
Board, of the intent to contract with LL.
c. Spangler was present during the workshop sessions.
47. LL was selected by the District to provide Title I education services beginning on or
about June 22, 2009.
a. Spangler served as a Board Director at the time the decision was made to
contract with LL.
48. Between August 3, 2010, and August 5, 2010, Spangler, in her capacity as
Executive Director of LL, engaged in contract discussions with District administrator
Steve McGee via email in regards to the District continuing to use LL to provide
Title I education services during the 2010-2011 school year, as shown below:
Email From Email To Date of Email Content of Email
Spangler McGee 08-03-10 I am touching base to double check on the Title 1 services. We’ll
need to renew the contract for this year if you plan to continue
working with Andrea. Do you have an idea of how many hours of
services you’ll need, and at which schools?
McGee Spangler 08-05-10 McGee emails Spangler the details LL needs to create the 2010-
2011 Title I contract with the District.
Spangler LL Representatives 08-05-10 Spangler forwarded McGee’s email with the following message:
Here is the info on the Westmont Title 1 contract. We need to
schedule a meeting to make sure that Andrea is able to serve all of
the schools that are requesting her. If not, we may need to hire
additional Title 1 staff.
49. The Board of Directors formally voted to utilize LL as a Title I funded education
provider for the 2011-2012 school year.
a. Spangler abstained from the vote taken at the August 1, 2011, Board
meeting to utilize LL as the Title I funded education provider.
50. The WHSD entered into seven contracts with LL totaling $46,279.96 during
Spangler’s tenure as a Board Director to provide Title I funded education, as shown
below:
Date of Services to be Provided Total Signed by Board
Contract Contract Vote of
Amount Approval
6-22-09 Temporary, part-time Title 1 position for $9,504.00 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of No
2009-2010 school year District on 6-22-09
Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
on 6-22-09
8-6-10 Title 1 supplies and technology $8,622.00 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of No
equipment for 2009-2010 school year at District on 2-14-11
Our Mother of Sorrows, Cathedral Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
Catholic Academy, and St. Andrews on 2-14-11
8-6-10 One part-time Title 1 tutoring position for $18,106.00 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of No
2010-2011 school year at Our Mother of District on 8-6-10
Sorrows, Cathedral Catholic Academy, Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
St. Andrews, and Johnstown Christian on 8-6-10
Schools
7-12-11 One part-time Title 1 tutoring position for $2,009.59 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of Yes
the 2011-2012 school year (St. Andrews District on 8-17-11 (8-1-11)
School) Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
on 8-22-11
Spangler, 12-007
Page 15
Date of Services to be Provided Total Signed by Board
Contract Contract Vote of
Amount Approval
7-12-11 One part-time Title 1 tutoring position for $6,028.77 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of Yes
the 2011-2012 school year (Our Mother District on 8-17-11 (8-1-11)
of Sorrows School) Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
on 8-22-11
7-12-11 One part-time Title 1 position for the $1,004.80 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of Yes
2011-2012 school year (Johnstown District on 8-17-11 (8-1-11)
Christian School) Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
on 8-22-11
7-12-11 One part-time Title 1 position for the $1,004.80 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of Yes
2011-2012 school year (Cathedral District on 8-17-11 (8-1-11)
Catholic Academy) Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL
on 8-22-11
TOTAL $46,279.96
a. Spangler signed all seven contracts as a representative of LL.
b. Anderson signed all seven contracts as a representative of the District.
c. The Board of Directors did not review the contracts that the District entered
into with LL prior to their execution.
d. The Board would be made aware of the cost associated with contracting with
LL.
51. The WHSD issued twelve (12) payments to LL representing payment of twenty-two
(22) separate LL invoices totaling $35,227.90 for Title I services.
a. Spangler abstained/did not participate in the Board’s vote to approve
monthly bills which included payment to LL on twenty of twenty-two
occasions in relation to Title I services.
1. The meeting minutes of the WHSD record Spangler as voting to
approve the bill list at the June 21, 2010, meeting at which District
check #54021, in the amount of $2,376.00, was approved to LL.
b. While Spangler does not dispute that the records of WHSD appear to show
that she voted to approve that payment, she asserts there is an error in
regard to that record as she maintains that she never voted to approve a
payment to LL.
1. Spangler’s vote was not a controlling vote, and the remaining
members of the Board voted unanimously in favor of issuing payment
to LL.
c. Spangler was absent from two of the meetings where the Board approved
District checks to be issued to LL related to Title I services.
52. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that $35,227.90 in District payments to LL for Title I services from 2009
through 2012, were deposited into LL’s account.
The Following Findings Relate to the District Contracting with LL to Provide ESL
(English as a Second Language) Education.
53. Pennsylvania school districts are required to provide ESL (English as a Second
Language) instruction to students who have limited English proficiency or are
considered an English language learner.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 16
a. The WHSD utilized its staff to provide ESL instruction prior to the 2009-2010
school year.
54. The District began utilizing LL to provide its students with ESL instruction beginning
with the 2009-2010 school year.
a. LL was selected by the District Superintendent and administrators to provide
ESL services on or about July 23, 2009.
b. The WHSD did not utilize a public bid process when contracting with LL to
provide ESL instruction services.
c. The ESL services provided by LL were considered a professional service by
school district administrators that did not require a public bid process.
d. Spangler served as a Board Director during the time period between 2009
and 2010 when contracts were awarded to LL without an open and public
process.
55. The WHSD administrative staff, including the Superintendent, engaged in contract
negotiations with Spangler for LL to provide ESL services.
a. This occurred for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.
b. The Board was informed by School District staff, during workshop sessions,
of the contracts with LL.
1. The Board did not vote to approve the contracts.
56. The Board of Directors did not formally vote to utilize LL as an ESL provider until
the 2011-2012 school year.
a. Spangler abstained from the vote at the August 1, 2011, Board meeting to
utilize LL as the ESL provider.
57. On July 22, 2011, LL Education Director Heidi Rizkalla emailed Anderson the
following message:
Leah Spangler said that you are still interested in the full-time ESL position. I did
send you a proposal (attached), and if you agree with proposal, I can send you an
agreement.
a. Rizkalla contacted Anderson about the District contracting with LL to provide
ESL services for the 2011-2012 school year, only after Spangler had
informed Rizkalla of the District’s interest.
58. On July 22, 2011, Spangler also emailed Anderson to inquire if the District was still
interested in contracting with LL to provide ESL services during the 2011-2012
school year, as indicated below:
I am double checking on this. Are you still interested in Jessica Dillon for full days
next year?
a. Jessica Dillon was the LL teacher that provided ESL services to the District.
59. Anderson replied, as follows, to Spangler’s email on July 22, 2011:
Spangler, 12-007
Page 17
Did you send a contract for the ESL? I was on hold for a while with that budget-
breaking news. I am ready now. We have our ESL tests back, and we will definitely
need to continue with ESL in all three of our buildings. We still have Patti, but we will
need Jessica, and ½ time will not be enough for this year unless some kiddos move,
so YES, to the ESL question. I am ready to sign the contract.
a. Spangler replied to Anderson’s email later that day stating:
Heidi will get it to you ASAP. Jessica will be excited not to travel so much this
year. Thank you!
1. “Heidi” is LL representative Heidi Rizkalla.
60. No other contractors/vendors were considered by the WHSD for the 2011-2012
ESL contract.
61. LL and the District entered into three contracts totaling $42,171.84 during
Spangler’s tenure as a Board Director, related to the District contracting with LL to
provide ESL education, as shown below:
Date of Services to be Provided Total Contract Signed by Board Vote of
Contract Amount Approval
7-23-09 Temporary, part-time ESL position for $11,312.40 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of District No
the 2009-2010 school year on 7-23-09
Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL on
8-4-09
5-12-10 Temporary, part-time ESL position for $10,954.90 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of District No
2010-2011 school year on 5-18-10
Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL on
5-21-10
7-27-11 ESL instructor for 2011-2012 school $19,904.54 Susan Anderson as Superintendent of District Yes
year on 8-7-11 (8-1-11)
Leah Spangler as Executive Director of LL on
8-10-11
TOTAL $42,171.84
a. Spangler signed all three of the contracts as a representative of LL.
b. Anderson signed all three of the contracts as a representative of the District.
c. The Board did not formally review the 2009 and 2010 contracts that the
District entered into with LL, prior to their execution.
1. The Board was made aware of the costs associated with contracting
with LL by WHSD administrators during workshop sessions.
62. Twelve District payments were issued to LL in association with twelve separate LL
invoices totaling $42,301.62, in relation to LL providing ESL services for WHSD,
from 2009 through 2012.
a. Meeting minutes of the WHSD reflect that Spangler voted to approve the bill
list at the June 21, 2010, meeting at which District check #54021 was
approved.
b. While Spangler does not dispute that the records of WHSD appear to show
that she voted to approve that payment, she asserts there is an error in
regard to that record as she maintains that she never voted to approve a
payment to LL.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 18
1. Spangler’s vote was not a controlling vote, and the remaining
Members of the Board voted unanimously in favor of issuing payment
to LL.
c. Spangler abstained from the Board vote to approve bill lists on which eleven
of the twelve District checks issued to LL related to ESL were documented.
d. Spangler was absent from the May 14, 2012, meeting at which check
#58673 was documented on the bill list for approval.
63. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that the $42,301.62 in District payments to LL for ESL services from 2009
through 2012, were deposited into LL’s account.
The Following Findings Relate to the District Contracting with LL to Provide On-
Site Alternative Education Services.
64. Pennsylvania’s Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth (“AEDY”) Program
provides a combination of intense, individual academic instruction and behavior
modification counseling in an alternative setting to assist students in returning
successfully to their regular classroom.
a. The AEDY program can be done on-site (utilizing District facilities), or off-
site resulting in the District contracting with entities to provide said service at
their facilities.
1. WHSD provided its AEDY program off-site prior to the 2010-2011
school year.
aa. Entities utilized by the District to provide off-site AEDY
programming included Alternative Community Resource
Program (“ACRP”) and Northern Point Learning (“NPL”).
65. Beginning with the 2010-2011 school \[year\], the WHSD provided AEDY program
services on-site by utilizing LL.
a. Currently the District is using only ACRP to provide its AEDY programming.
66. In or about 2010, the District was considering the option of providing its AEDY
program on-site rather than off-site.
a. The District believed that the students would benefit educationally and the
District would benefit financially by providing the program on-site rather than
off-site.
1. Housing the program on-site negated the District’s need to pay for
busing and other expenses that coincide with off-site programming.
67. District administrator Steve McGee became aware that LL could provide on-site
AEDY programming during a conversation with Spangler.
a. McGee asked Spangler during the conversation if LL could provide on-site
AEDY to which Spangler responded affirmatively.
b. McGee and Sanford were the administrators responsible for soliciting
proposals from businesses to provide services for the District.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 19
c. McGee solicited a proposal from LL in relation to the on-site AEDY program.
d. Proposals were not solicited from other potential bidders.
1. McGee believed that Northern Point was going out of business in late
2010, and therefore did not request a proposal from Northern Point.
2. McGee did not consider requesting a proposal from ACRP, the
District’s provider of AEDY off-site programming at that time.
aa. ACRP provides both on-site and off-site AEDY programming.
68. At the December 6, 2010, Board meeting, McGee informed the Board that he
reviewed a proposal submitted by LL related to on-site AEDY programming and
recommended to the Board that the District utilize LL to provide said service.
a. A motion was made by Board Director Kamal Gella and seconded by Board
Director Diana Schroeder to utilize LL to develop a pilot program for the
District’s on-site AEDY program.
b. The vote to approve the utilization of LL for on-site AEDY programming
passed 6-0-1.
c. Spangler abstained from the vote.
69. On or about March 16, 2011, LL provided the District a contract related to LL
providing pilot AEDY programming/services during the 2010-2011 school year.
a. Spangler signed the contract as a representative of LL on March 24, 2011.
b. Anderson signed the contract as a representative of the District on March 17,
2011.
70. LL invoiced the WHSD in the amount of $16,474.27 for services related to the pilot
AEDY program.
71. LL continued to provide AEDY programming for the WHSD during the 2011-2012
school year.
a. The contract for the 2011-2012 school year was not publicly bid.
1. Quotes were not solicited from any vendors other than LL.
72. The Board did not vote to approve LL as the District’s provider of AEDY
programming/services for the 2011-2012 school year.
a. The Board was advised by the Superintendent during a workshop session
prior to August 9, 2011, that LL was being contracted with for the AEDY.
73. On or about August 9, 2011, LL provided the District a contract related to LL
providing AEDY programming/services during the 2011-2012 school year.
a. Spangler signed the contract as a representative of LL on August 11, 2011.
b. Anderson signed the contract as a representative of the District on August
10, 2011.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 20
74. The contract entered into between Spangler and Anderson was not formally
reviewed or approved by the WHSD Board of Directors, prior to its execution.
75. Five District payments (totaling $65,303.51) in relation to LL providing AEDY
programming during the 2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years, were
documented on bill lists for Board approval during Spangler’s tenure as a Board
Director.
a. Spangler abstained from all five Board votes to approve bill lists on which
District checks issued to the LL for providing AEDY programming during the
2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years were documented.
76. First Commonwealth Bank records for bank account \[account number redacted\]
document that the $65,303.51 in District payments to LL for AEDY programming
services during the 2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years were deposited into
LL’s account.
The Following Findings Relate to the District Contracting with LL to Provide a Full-
Time Pennsylvania Mountain Service Corps Member.
77. The Pennsylvania Mountain Service Corps (“PMSC”) is a local initiative of
AmeriCorps that provides service opportunities through non-profit or government
organizations.
a. PMSC provides various services including educational instruction to K-12
students.
78. Sometime prior to August 21, 2009, the WHSD Superintendent selected the LL to
provide one full-time PMSC member to the WHSD for educational services during
the 2009-2010 school year.
a. Administrators of the WHSD were aware that LL could provide these
services through interaction with Spangler.
b. The decision to utilize LL to provide the PMSC member was not approved by
the Board via a vote at a public meeting.
1. The Board was informed by the Superintendent and District
administrative staff of the intent to utilize LL to provide the PMSC
member.
79. No formal written contract was entered into between the LL and WHSD in regards
to LL supplying a PMSC member to the District.
80. On or about August 21, 2009, the District received LL invoice #9234 noting that the
District owed LL $6,500.00 for the PMSC member.
a. At the September 14, 2009, Board meeting, the Board approved the
issuance of District check #52290 dated September 14, 2009, to be issued
to the LL to pay for the PMSC member.
1. Spangler abstained from the vote related to the payment of LL invoice
#9234.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 21
81. On September 18, 2009, District check #52290 in the amount of $15,052.70 was
deposited into the LL’s First Commonwealth Bank account \[account number
redacted\].
a. The District check paid for additional services provided by the LL other than
the $6,500.00 charge related to the PMSC member.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Member of the Westmont Hilltop School District (“School District”) Board of
Directors (“Board”) from December 3, 2007, until August 13, 2012, Respondent Leah
Spangler (hereinafter also referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Spangler,” and
“Spangler”) has been a public officialsubject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
The allegations are that Spangler violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the
Ethics Act: (1) when a business which she is associated, “Learning Lamp, Inc.” (“LL”),
entered into contracts with the School District in excess of $500.00 without an open and
public process; and (2) when she participated in discussions and negotiations with School
District administrators resulting in the award of the contracts.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a)Conflict of interest.—
No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. The term does not include an action
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official/public employee from
using the authority of public office/employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official/public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 22
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f)Contract.—
No public official or public employee or
his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which
the public official or public employee is associated or any
subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official or public employee is associated,
unless the contract has been awarded through an open and
public process, including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee
shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the
implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract
or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official/public
employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official/public employee
or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official/public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded.
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.
Respondent Spangler served as a Member of the Board from December 3, 2007,
until August 13, 2012. Spangler served as the Board Treasurer from December 5, 2011,
until August 13, 2012. Spangler voluntarily resigned from her School Director position
effective August 13, 2012.
The Board consists of nine Members. The Board holds two regularly scheduled
meetings per month. Non-legislative meetings are held on the first Monday of the month.
Legislative meetings are held on the second Monday of the month. Special meetings are
held as necessary.
Voting at Board meetings occurs via individual roll call vote. Each individual Board
Director’s vote, abstention, or objection is recorded in the meeting minutes. Abstention
forms completed by the Directors are appended to the meeting minutes. Legislative and
special meeting minutes are approved for accuracy by the Board at the next meeting of the
Board. The Board does not approve non-legislative meeting minutes.
Spangler, 12-007
Page 23
Bill lists are voted on for approval by the Board at each legislative meeting. The bill
lists document all of the bills received by the School District for payment since the last
legislative meeting of the Board.
Signature authority over the School District financial accounts rests with the Board
President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary. School District checks require the
signature of any three of the four authorized signatories. School District checks are
produced automatically with computer generated signatures. Respondent Spangler’s
computer generated signature appeared on School District checks during the time period
that she served as Board Treasurer.
In a private capacity, Spangler has served as the Executive Director of LL since
approximately October 2003. LL is a non-profit corporation that provides various
educational programs to assist elementary, middle school, and high school students
succeed in the classroom. Approximately 77 school districts utilize the services of LL
within Pennsylvania. As the Executive Director of LL, Spangler’s responsibilities include
staff management, business development, and communication.
LL first began providing services to the School District during the 2003-2004 school
year. The School District continued to utilize LL for educational services after Spangler
was elected to serve on the Board in November 2007. Members of the Board knew
Spangler was the Executive Director of LL during the time Spangler served on the Board.
School District administrators entered into contracts with LL after Spangler took
office as a School Director in 2007. Spangler was advised by School District officials that
if the funding for services was approved in the annual budget, then the School District
administration was authorized to obtain those services without further formal approval of
the Board, other than the Board’s monthly approval of the payment of the invoices.
Invoices from LL were formally approved by the Board before any payments were made to
LL. Upon approval of the payment of the invoice by the Board, the agreement between LL
and the School District became a legally binding and enforceable contract.
School District administrators who contacted Spangler regarding LL services
included: Susan Anderson (“Anderson”), Superintendent; Steve McGee (“McGee”),
Director of Education/Student Support; and Gregory Sanford (“Sanford”), Business
Manager. Contracts between the School District and LL were generally reviewed and
executed by Spangler as a representative of LL and by Anderson as a representative of
the School District.
Between 2007, when Spangler began service as a School Director, and late 2012,
none of the contracts entered into between the School District and LL were publically
advertised for bid. The invoices of LL were part of the Board agenda, which the parties
have stipulated provided prior public notice; the invoices of LL were also part of the Board
minutes, which the parties have stipulated provided subsequent public disclosure.
From 2007 to 2012, during Spangler’s tenure as a School Director for the School
District, Spangler forwarded e-mails to School District administrators which highlighted
LL’s services and accomplishments. Spangler also emailed School District administrators
regarding the status of contracts and inquired as to additional contracts. Spangler
instructed LL staff to contact School District administrators to pursue LL contracts with the
School District. The directives given by Spangler to LL staff were the result of contacts
from School District administrators requesting services from LL.
During Spangler’s tenure as a School Director for the School District, Spangler
made requests of School District administrators for support/assistance and utilized School
Spangler, 12-007
Page 24
District administrators as a resource for information as detailed in Fact Findings 18 a(1)-
(12).
The Stipulated Findings focus upon the following types of services provided by LL
to the School District during Spangler’s tenure as a School Director: (1) tutoring services;
(2) the provision of a “Technology Coach”; (3) Title I services; (4) “English as a Second
Language” (“ESL”) services; (5) on-site “Alternative Education for Disruptive Youth”
(“AEDY”) program services; and (6) the provision of a “Pennsylvania Mountain Service
Corps” (“PMSC”) member for educational services.
Re: Tutoring Services
The School District has contracted with LL to provide tutoring services through
funding provided by a Pennsylvania Department of Education (“PDE”) Accountability Block
Grant (“ABG”) program.
When Spangler took office as a School Director in December 2007, the Board had
already voted to utilize LL to provide ABG funded tutoring during the 2007-2008 school
year. At the Board’s July 14, 2008, meeting, Spangler abstained from the Board’s
approval of the School District’s payment to LL for such services.
The School District utilized LL for tutoring services during the 2010-2011 through
2011-2012 school years. School District administration did not utilize a public bid process
or seek formal Board approval when selecting LL to provide tutoring for students. The
tutoring services for school years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were of a continuing nature
and were based on a pre-established rate, and LL was the only practical provider for these
services at the time.
The School District received five invoices totaling $3,120.00 for tutoring services
provided by LL for the 2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years. Of these five invoices,
only two (totaling $2,340.00) were formalized via written contract. Five School District
payments were issued to LL in association with the aforesaid five LL invoices totaling
$3,120.00 for tutoring services from 2010 through 2012. Spangler abstained from the vote
to approve bill lists on which four of the five School District checks issued to LL related to
tutoring were documented. Spangler was absent from the meeting when the bill list
documenting the issuance of check #58673 was approved by the Board.
On or about June 21, 2011, LL reimbursed the School District in the amount of
$468.00 for one student who had withdrawn from tutoring.
Re: Technology Coach/Classrooms of the Future Program
Prior to Spangler becoming a School Director, the Board decided to use an LL
“Technology Coach” during the 2007-2008 school year, with monies from the PDE
“Classrooms for the Future” (“CFF”) program. For the 2007-2008 school year, the School
District made payments totaling $17,985.00 to LL in relation to the Technology Coach.
Spangler abstained from the approval of the School District payments to LL for the
Technology Coaching services.
On or about May 12, 2008, Spangler, in her capacity as Executive Director of LL,
engaged in contract discussions with Anderson and Sanford via email with regard to the
School District continuing to use LL’s Technology Coach during the 2008-2009 school
year. On or about October 3, 2008, the School District received a contract from LL
regarding the School District’s utilization of LL to provide a Technology Coach during the
2008-2009 school year. The total amount of the contract was $31,213.98. No official from
either the School District or LL signed the contract. The School District’s decision to utilize
an LL Technology Coach for the 2008-2009 school year was not brought before the Board
Spangler, 12-007
Page 25
for approval by vote. During a work session of the Board, the Board was informed by the
Superintendent of the intent to contract with LL. Spangler was present during the
workshop session.
Two payments totaling $31,213.98 were made to LL by the School District during
the 2008-2009 school year for technology services. Board meeting minutes indicate that
Spangler approved one of the two payments issued to LL, specifically, a payment in the
amount of $10,404.66. See, Fact Finding 35 a. Spangler asserts that the School District’s
records are erroneous in that regard as she maintains that she never voted to approve a
payment to LL. The remaining Board Members voted unanimously in favor of issuing
payment to LL.
Spangler was “carbon copied” on email communications between Anderson and the
LL Education Director related to the School District contracting with LL to provide a
Technology Coach for the 2009-2010 school year. The School District’s decision to utilize
LL to provide a Technology Coach for the 2009-2010 school year was not submitted to the
Board for approval. The Board was advised by the Superintendent at a workshop meeting
that the School District was entering into a contract with LL. No written contract was ever
executed between LL and the School District for the 2009-2010 school year Technology
Coach. On December 28, 2009, Spangler advised LL representatives via email that the
School District was discontinuing LL as Technology Coach.
The School District issued payments totaling $17,105.40 to LL for providing a
Technology Coach to the School District for the 2009-2010 school year. Spangler
abstained from the Board’s approval of these School District payments to LL. On or about
May 6, 2010, LL issued check #16682 in the amount of $5,342.08 as reimbursement to the
School District for money paid to LL for the CFF.
Re: Title I Services
Title I is a federally funded supplemental education program that provides financial
assistance to school districts to improve educational opportunities for educationally
deprived children. LL was utilized by the School District to provide Title I services to the
School District beginning with the 2009-2010 school year.
Between August 3, 2010, and August 5, 2010, Spangler, in her capacity as
Executive Director of LL, engaged in contract discussions with McGee via email with
regard to the School District continuing to use LL to provide Title I education services
during the 2010-2011 school year.
During Spangler’s tenure as a School Director, the School District entered into
seven contracts with LL totaling $46, 279.96 to provide Title I funded education, as
detailed in Fact Finding 50. Spangler signed all seven contracts as a representative of LL.
Anderson signed all seven contracts as a representative of the School District. The Board
did not review the contracts that the School District entered into with LL prior to contract
execution. The Board formally voted to utilize LL as a Title I funded education provider for
the 2011-2012 school year. Spangler abstained from the vote.
The School District issued twelve payments to LL representing payment of twenty-
two LL invoices totaling $35,227.90 for Title I services. Spangler abstained from/did not
participate in the Board’s vote to approve monthly bills which included payment to LL on
twenty of twenty-two occasions in relation to Title I services.
Board meeting minutes record Spangler as voting to approve the bill list at the June
21, 2010, Board meeting, at which District check number 54021, in the amount of
$2,376.00, was approved to LL. Spangler asserts that the School District’s records are
erroneous in that regard as she maintains that she never voted to approve a payment to
Spangler, 12-007
Page 26
LL. The remaining Board Members voted unanimously in favor of issuing payment to LL.
Re: ESL Services
During Spangler’s tenure as a School Director, LL and the School District entered
into three contracts totaling $42,171.84 for LL to provide ESL instruction services, as
detailed in Fact Finding 61. Spangler signed all three of the contracts as a representative
of LL, and Anderson signed all three of the contracts as a representative of the School
District.
For both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, the ESL contracts were
negotiated by School District administrative staff and Spangler. The Board was informed
by School District staff, during workshop sessions, of the contracts with LL. The Board did
not formally review the contracts prior to contract execution. The Board did not vote to
approve the contracts.
For the 2011-2012 school year, the LL Education Director and Spangler contacted
Anderson via email on July 22, 2011, about the School District contracting with LL to
provide ESL services. Anderson replied to Spangler’s email that same day indicating that
she (Anderson) was ready to sign a contract for the ESL. Spangler replied to Anderson’s
email later that same day indicating that the contract would be provided to Anderson. No
other contractors/vendors were considered by the School District for the 2011-2012 ESL
contract. The Board formally voted to utilize LL as an ESL provider for the 2011-2012
school year. Spangler abstained from the vote.
Twelve School District payments were issued to LL in association with twelve LL
invoices totaling $42,301.62, in relation to LL providing ESL services for the School District
from 2009 through 2012. Spangler abstained from/did not participate in the Board vote to
approve bill lists on which eleven of the twelve School District checks issued to LL related
to ESL were documented. Board meeting minutes reflect that Spangler voted to approve
the bill list at the Board’s June 21, 2010, meeting at which School District check #54021
was approved. Spangler asserts that the School District’s records are erroneous in that
regard as she maintains that she never voted to approve a payment to LL. The remaining
Board Members voted unanimously in favor of issuing payment to LL.
Re: AEDY Program Services
Beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, the School District provided AEDY
program services “on-site” (at School District facilities) utilizing LL. McGee became aware
that LL could provide on-site AEDY programming during a conversation with Spangler.
McGee solicited a proposal from LL in relation to the on-site AEDY program. Proposals
were not solicited from other potential bidders.
At the December 6, 2010, Board meeting, the Board voted to approve the utilization
of LL for on-site AEDY programming. Spangler abstained from the vote.
On or about March 16, 2011, LL provided to the School District a contract related to
pilot AEDY programming/services for the 2010-2011 school year. Spangler signed the
contract as a representative of LL, and Anderson signed the contract as a representative
of the School District. LL invoiced the School District in the amount of $16,474.27 for
services related to the pilot AEDY program.
LL continued to provide AEDY programming for the School District during the 2011-
2012 school year. The contract for the 2011-2012 school year was not publicly bid.
Quotes were not solicited from any vendors other than LL. The Board did not vote to
approve LL as the School District’s provider of AEDY programming/services for the 2011-
2012 school year. The Board was advised by the Superintendent during a workshop
Spangler, 12-007
Page 27
session prior to August 9, 2011, that the School District was contracting with LL for the
AEDY programming/services.
On or about August 9, 2011, LL provided to the School District a contract related to
AEDY programming/services during the 2011-2012 school year. Spangler signed the
contract as a representative of LL, and Anderson signed the contract as a representative
of the School District. The contract was not formally reviewed or approved by the Board
prior to contract execution.
Five School District payments (totaling $65,303.51) in relation to LL providing AEDY
programming during the 2010-2011 through 2011-2012 school years were documented on
bill lists for Board approval during Spangler’s tenure as a School Director. Spangler
abstained from all five Board votes to approve those bill lists.
Re: PMSC Member
Prior to August 21, 2009, the School District Superintendent selected the LL to
provide one full-time PMSC member to the School District for educational services during
the 2009-2010 school year. School District administrators were aware that LL could
provide these services through interaction with Spangler. The decision to utilize LL to
provide the PMSC member was not approved by the Board via a vote at a public meeting.
The Board was informed by the School District Superintendent and administrative staff of
the intent to utilize LL to provide the PMSC member. No formal written contract was
entered into between the LL and the School District in regards to LL supplying a PMSC
member to the School District.
On or about August 21, 2009, the District received LL invoice #9234 in the amount
of $6,500.00 for the PMSC member. On September 14, 2009, the Board approved the
issuance of School District check #52290 dated September 14, 2009, to be issued to the
LL to pay for the PMSC member and for additional services. Spangler abstained from the
vote related to the payment of LL invoice #9234.
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 Spangler, as
Executive Director of Learning Lamp, Inc.,
participating in discussions with Westmont
Hilltop School District administrators, which led
to contracts and/or agreements for services to
be provided by Learning Lamp, Inc. to Westmont
Hilltop School District, at a time when Spangler
was also serving as a Member of the Board of
Directors of the Westmont Hilltop School District.
b. That no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(f) occurred when Learning Lamp, Inc.,
entered into contracts for services in excess of
Spangler, 12-007
Page 28
$500.00 with the Westmont Hilltop School
District, as it appears that an open and public
process was followed, in comport with the ruling
in the matter Kistler v. State Ethics Commission,
610 Pa. 516 (Pa. 2011).
4. Spangler agrees to make payment in the amount of $3,000.00
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. Spangler agrees to not accept any reimbursement,
compensation or other payment from Westmont Hilltop School
District 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.
We accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding of a violation of Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act. The Consent Agreement reflects the agreement of the parties
that the elements of use of authority of office for a prohibited private pecuniary benefit
have been established.
Without adopting any particular reasoning of the parties, we hold that a violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in relation to actions by
Spangler which led to contracts and/or agreements for services to be provided by LL—a
business with which Spangler is associated as Executive Director—to the School District,
while Spangler was serving as a School Director for the School District.
We also accept the parties’ recommendation for a finding of no violation of Section
1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Per the Stipulated Findings, the Board’s
approval of payment of invoices from LL occurred before any payments were made to LL
and resulted in the agreements between LL and the School District becoming legally
binding and enforceable contracts. The invoices of LL were part of the Board agenda,
which the parties have stipulated provided prior public notice. The invoices of LL were
also part of the Board minutes, which the parties have stipulated provided subsequent
public disclosure.
Therefore, based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f),
occurred when LL entered into contracts for services in excess of $500.00 with the School
District, as it appears that an open and public process was followed, in comport with the
ruling in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011).
Spangler, 12-007
Page 29
As part of the Consent Agreement, Spangler has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $3,000.00 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.
Spangler has further agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the School District 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, Respondent Spangler is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,000.00
payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission by no
th
later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Respondent Spangler is directed to not
accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the School District
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 Westmont Hilltop School District (“School District”) Board of
Directors from December 3, 2007, until August 13, 2012, Respondent Leah
Spangler (“Spangler”) has been a public officialsubject to the provisions of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred in
relation to actions by Spangler which led to contracts and/or agreements for
services to be provided by Learning Lamp, Inc. (“LL”)—a business with which
Spangler is associated as Executive Director—to the School District, while Spangler
was serving as a School Director for the School District.
3. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when
LL entered into contracts for services in excess of $500.00 with the School District,
as it appears that an open and public process was followed, in comport with the
ruling in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011).
In Re: Leah Spangler, : File Docket: 12-007
Respondent : Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/14/14
ORDER NO. 1645
1. As a Member of the Westmont Hilltop School District (“School District”) Board of
Directors, Leah Spangler (“Spangler”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to actions
by Spangler which led to contracts and/or agreements for services to be provided
by Learning Lamp, Inc. (“LL”)—a business with which Spangler is associated as
Executive Director—to the School District, while Spangler was serving as a School
Director for the School District.
2. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the parties, no
violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred when
LL entered into contracts for services in excess of $500.00 with the School District,
as it appears that an open and public process was followed, in comport with the
ruling in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011).
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Spangler is directed to make payment in
the amount of $3,000.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the
th
thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Spangler is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the School District
representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this
matter.
5. Compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 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