HomeMy WebLinkAbout1646 Brumbaugh
In Re: Dennis P. Brumbaugh, : File Docket: 13-029
Respondent : X-ref: Order No. 1646
: Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/15/14
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 Dennis P. Brumbaugh, a public official/public employee in his capacity as the
Chairman and Member of the Board of Supervisors for Woodbury Township, Blair County,
violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), 1104(a) and 1104(d) 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 and/or an
immediate family member is associated; when he directed and/or authorized an immediate
family member and/or a business with which an immediate family member is associated,
namely Brumbaugh Transmission Service, to perform repair services and/or provide
automobile replacement parts for Township vehicles; when he authorized repair work to be
completed by Brumbaugh Transmission Service in excess of $500.00 absent an open and
public process; and when he failed to file Statement of Financial Interests forms with the
Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
II.FINDINGS:
1. Dennis Brumbaugh served as an elected Supervisor for Woodbury Township, Blair
County, from January 7, 2002, to December 31, 2013.
a. Brumbaugh served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors during
calendar year 2011.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 2
b. Brumbaugh served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from January 3,
2012, to December 31, 2013.
2. A three-Member Board of Supervisors governs Woodbury Township (hereafter
“Township”).
a. The Supervisors hold one legislative meeting per month on the first
Thursday of the month.
b. Special meetings are held as necessary.
3. Voting at Board meetings occurs in a verbal aye/nay group fashion after a motion is
made and seconded.
a. All objections and/or abstentions are noted in the minutes.
b. The Board votes at the next meeting of the Board to approve the minutes of
the prior legislative/special meetings for accuracy.
4. The Supervisors are not provided anymeeting packets or other meeting related
documents prior to the legislative meetings.
a. Information received by the Township which is deemed necessary for review
by the Board is provided to Members as it arrives at the Township by being
placed in Members’ designated mail slots at the Township building.
5. A bill list is presented to the Board of Supervisors at each legislative meeting for
approval.
a. The bill lists are not presented to the Supervisors for review prior to the
legislative meetings.
6. The bill lists represent the bills received by the Township since the prior legislative
meeting, and which have not yet been paid/approved for payment.
a. At times bills are approved for payment between legislative meetings.
1. Bills approved between legislative meetings are deemed “approved”
when a payment check is issued by the Township.
2. A payment check requires the signature of at least two (2)
Supervisors.
3. Bills paid between legislative meetings are not identified on the bill
lists for approval.
7. Signature authority over the Township financial accounts rests with the Supervisors
and the Secretary/Treasurer.
a. Checks issued from the Township’s financial accounts require the signature
of at least three authorized signatories.
1. The Township maintains a checking account at First National Bank
and Pennsylvania Local Government Investment Trust (“PLGIT”).
b. Township accounts require live signatures of authorized signatories.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 3
1. Facsimile stamps are not utilized to sign Township checks.
8. It is the Roadmaster’s responsibility to obtain quotes or sealed bids related to the
maintenance of Township vehicles and/or the purchase of vehicle parts.
a. The Roadmaster uses his discretion and the Second Class Township Code
to determine whether quotes or sealed bids (obtained through a competitive
bidding process) are required for any given expenditure.
b. The Supervisors have instructed the Roadmaster to always obtain quotes or
sealed bids, even if not required per applicable provisions of the Second
Class Township Code.
9. The Supervisors are involved in deciding where Township vehicles are maintained
and/or vehicle parts are purchased after quotes or sealed bids (obtained through a
competitive bidding process) are presented to the Supervisors by the Roadmaster
at a public meeting.
a. Quotes of approximately $75.00 or less are not provided to the Supervisors
at a public meeting for review.
1. The Roadmaster independently decides where the Township vehicles
are maintained and/or vehicle parts are purchased when quotes of
approximately $75.00 or less are received.
aa. When costs associated with a repair are expected to be
$75.00 or less, the Roadmaster may consult with a Supervisor
prior to deciding where the Township vehicles are maintained
and/or vehicle parts are purchased.
bb. The Roadmaster is not required to consult with the Supervisor
for expenditures less than $75.00.
b. Sealed bids (obtained through a competitive bidding process) are always
provided to the Supervisors at a public meeting for review.
1. The Roadmaster does not make any independent decisions regarding
vehicle maintenance when sealed bids (obtained through a
competitive bidding process) are obtained/required.
10. Gary Brumbaugh is Dennis Brumbaugh’s (Respondent’s) brother.
11. Gary Brumbaugh owns and operates Brumbaugh Transmission Service (“BTS”).
a. BTS is a vehicle maintenance business located within the geographical
boundaries of Woodbury Township, Blair County.
1. BTS operates from an address of 3062 Royer Mountain Road,
Williamsburg, PA 16693.
b. BTS is not incorporated within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, nor does
BTS operate under a fictitious name registration.
12. Gary Brumbaugh has been the sole owner of BTS since the creation of the
business approximately seventeen years ago.
a. Gary Brumbaugh has employed individuals at BTS over the years.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 4
b. Dennis Brumbaugh has never been an employee of BTS or associated with
BTS in any capacity.
13. BTS has provided vehicle maintenance services for Woodbury Township since
approximately July 2000.
a. Dennis Brumbaugh was not a Supervisor at the time the Township initially
began utilizing BTS for vehicle maintenance services.
14. The Township continued to utilize BTS for vehicle maintenance services following
Brumbaugh’s election to the Board of Supervisors in November 2001.
a. BTS has provided various vehicle maintenance services for the Township on
several occasions while Brumbaugh has served as a Supervisor.
b. Brumbaugh publicly expressed the belief that the Township should utilize the
services of those businesses located within the geographical boundaries of
the Township.
1. BTS is located within the geographical boundaries of the Township.
15. At the November 1, 2010, Supervisor legislative meeting, Township Roadmaster
Joseph Lansberry informed the Supervisors that he obtained three quotes related to
the purchase of car batteries for Township vehicles.
a. Lansberry obtained quotes (per battery) from BTS, National Automotive
Parts Association (“NAPA”), and Sam’s Club as follows: BTS - $93.00; NAPA
- $85.00; Sam’s Club - $75.00.
b. The minutes document that the Supervisors (including Brumbaugh) voted
unanimously in favor of purchasing the car batteries from Sam’s Club.
c. With the exception of the November 1, 2010, meeting, Township meeting
minutes do not record any discussions involving BTS from January 2002
through the present.
16. Lansberry and Supervisor Young believe the November 1, 2010, meeting minutes
are inaccurate regarding the vote/approval to purchase car batteries from Sam’s
Club.
a. Lansberry and Young believe that the Supervisors (including Brumbaugh)
actually voted to purchase car batteries from BTS, not Sam’s Club.
1. Brumbaugh does not dispute the minutes.
b. Lansberry and Young believe the decision was made to purchase car
batteries from BTS due to BTS selling Interstate car batteries, whereas
NAPA and Sam’s Club sell their own label of car batteries.
1. Lansberry and Young believe a discussion was held whereby the
opinion of the Supervisors was that Interstate car batteries are of a
higher quality.
17. A BTS invoice dated November 30, 2010, in the amount of $209.00 reflects that two
Interstate car batteries were purchased from BTS by the Township.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 5
a. The invoice identified that each battery cost $93.00.
1. The batteries were purchased at the exact price quoted by Lansberry
at the November 1, 2010, meeting.
b. The purchase of two wiper blades at $11.50 each was also identified on the
invoice.
c. Batteries (2 x $93.00 = $186.00) + wiper blades (2 x $11.50 = $23.00) =
$209.00.
18. On or about August 2011, Lansberry telephoned Brumbaugh to inform him of
transmission-type problems the 2000 Ford F550 Township truck was experiencing.
a. The vehicle stopped operating while Lansberry was traveling from one
location to another within the Township.
b. Brumbaugh directed Lansberry to have the vehicle towed to BTS.
1. Brumbaugh did not suggest or identify any other automotive repair
shops.
19. Brumbaugh subsequently arranged for Supervisor Jerry Young and himself to meet
with Gary Brumbaugh at BTS in order to discuss the transmission-type problems
the Township truck was experiencing.
a. Brumbaugh arranged the meeting by telephoning Young to meet him at BTS.
b. During the meeting, Brumbaugh and Young agreed that Gary
Brumbaugh/BTS would perform the transmission/oil pan repairs to the
Township vehicle.
c. Brumbaugh maintains that both he and Young knew that the Ford F550’s
transmission was previously worked upon at two different facilities, including
a Ford dealership, and they both knew that Gary Brumbaugh had a
reputation for being innovative with respect to correcting mechanical
problems.
20. Additional times that BTS performed services for the Township, while Brumbaugh
served as a Supervisor, occurred at the sole discretion of the Roadmaster.
a. The Roadmaster utilized BTS for repairs related to transmission fluid
flushes, speed sensors, and wiper blade replacement, without consulting or
seeking approval of the Supervisors (including Brumbaugh).
1. The repairs ranged in cost from $23.00 to $185.00.
b. The Roadmaster utilized BTS for these repairs due to BTS being
conveniently located near the Township building.
1. BTS is located approximately six miles (approximately a nine minute
drive) from the Township building/garage.
21. From January 2008 through the present, BTS submitted six invoices to the
Township totaling $4,468.22 for work BTS performed on Township vehicles.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 6
22. Brumbaugh did not direct \[and was not\] otherwise involved in obtaining quotes from
BTS for the repairs to Township vehicles, except as noted above.
23. From March 1, 2010, to March 8, 2012, Brumbaugh voted to approve five of the six
BTS invoices submitted to the Township for payment, totaling $767.80.
a. A BTS invoice of $3,700.42 was paid between meetings and therefore did
not appear on a bill list for approval.
1. By serving as a Township signatory, Brumbaugh “approved” the
invoice for payment.
2. The BTS invoice for $3,700.42 was in relation to the repair of the
Township truck that Brumbaugh/Young approved/directed BTS to
perform after meeting with Gary Brumbaugh.
24. Six Township checks, totaling $4,468.22, were issued from either the Township’s
First National Bank fund \[account number redacted\] or the PLGIT fund \[account
number redacted\] to BTS, during the time frame of March 2010 to the present while
Brumbaugh served as a Supervisor.
a. Brumbaugh signed four of the six checks issued to BTS totaling $4,307.42.
25. Gary Brumbaugh maintained a business checking account at First National Bank for
BTS business purposes.
26. From March 1, 2010, to March 8, 2012, the Township issued payments totaling
$4,468.22 to BTS; said payments were deposited into the BTS business account
maintained at First National Bank.
a. All the Township checks issued to BTS were endorsed with a stamp noting
“For Deposit Only, Brumbaugh Transmission Services, Gary A. Brumbaugh,
\[account number redacted\].”
27. On November 20, 2013, and April 30, 2014, Gary Brumbaugh was interviewed by
representative\[(s)\] of the Commission’s Investigative Division, during which he
averred in part:
a. BTS realizes a profit based on labor and part charges.
1. BTS charged approximately $65.00 an hour for labor in 2010 and
2011.
2. BTS adds approximately 30% to the costs of parts.
b. Approximately one to two and a half hours (1-2 ½ hours) of labor are
charged when completing a transmission flush.
c. Approximately one to two hours (1-2 hours) of labor are charged when
completing the installation of a speed sensor.
d. Approximately fifteen hours of labor were charged when rebuilding the
transmission of the 2000 Ford F550 Township truck.
e. Gary Brumbaugh is not familiar with a “slan sensor” and believes that the
$48.00 charge on the BTS invoice dated July 16, 2010, related to the labor
to install a speed sensor, not a “slan sensor.”
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 7
28. Of the $4,468.22 paid to BTS by the Township, $1,335.00 related to labor charges,
and $3,133.22 related to costs for parts.
29. Brumbaugh, a member of his immediate family, namely his brother, Gary
Brumbaugh, and/or a business with which Gary Brumbaugh is associated, namely
BTS, realized a private pecuniary benefit when Brumbaugh utilized his position as
Supervisor for Woodbury Township to participate in discussions and actions of the
Board of Supervisors that resulted in the Township utilizing the services of Gary
Brumbaugh’s business, BTS, and when Brumbaugh participated in votes to approve
payment to BTS as documented on Township bill list\[(s)\], and when he signed
Township checks issued to BTS as an authorized signatory.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO BRUMBAUGH’S FAILURE TO FILE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FORMS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011 AND 2012 IN ASSOCIATION WITH HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
30. Brumbaugh, in his official capacity as Supervisor for Woodbury Township, was
required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 annually containing
information for the prior calendar year.
a. Woodbury Township Supervisors have annually been provided with blank
Statement of Financial Interests forms from the State Ethics Commission to
complete and file with the Township.
31. On October 24, 2013, a Statement of Financial Interests Compliance Review was
completed for Woodbury Township.
a. During the review it was determined that Brumbaugh failed to file Statement
of Financial Interests forms for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2012 in association with his public position as a Supervisor for Woodbury
Township.
32. On or about January 16, 2014, Statement of Financial Interests forms for
Brumbaugh regarding calendar years 2008 through 2012 were provided by/through
Brumbaugh’s legal counsel, R. Thomas Forr, Jr.
a. The statements were not deficient.
b. Brumbaugh maintains that he completed the forms once he was notified of
his failure to do so, on his own initiative, before providing the same to
Attorney Forr for submission through the Commission.
33. As such, Brumbaugh failed to timely file Statement of Financial Interests forms for
calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, in his capacity as a Township
Supervisor.
34. On May 19, 2014, Brumbaugh was interviewed by State Ethics Commission
Investigators during which he averred in part:
a. He informed the Township employees that if possible, businesses located
within the geographical region of the Township should be utilized for any
services needed.
b. He does not recall directing Roadmaster Joseph Lansberry to purchase
Interstate car batteries from BTS.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 8
c. After receiving a telephone call from Lansberry that the Township truck was
experiencing transmission-like problems, he directed Lansberry to have the
Township truck towed to a field close to the location of BTS.
1. He arranged for his brother to review the condition of the Township
truck along with him and Supervisor Jerry Young.
2. He and Young decided that BTS should perform the repairs to the
Township truck.
3. No businesses other than BTS were considered to perform the
repairs to the Township truck (Ford 550).
4. Brumbaugh had knowledge that the transmission repairs had been
done on two separate occasions by other entities and still needed to
be corrected.
d. He does not recall selecting BTS to be used by the Township for any
services other than the Ford 550 truck repair.
e. He acknowledged that he did not review the bill lists closely to determine if
payments to BTS were identified prior to voting to approve them.
f. He may have signed Township checks that were issued to BTS.
g. He did not familiarize himself with the Ethics Act during his tenure as a
Supervisor.
h. He failed to file his Statement of Financial Interests forms timely due to
procrastination.
III.DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Woodbury Township (“Township”), Blair County, from January
7, 2002, to December 31, 2013, Respondent Dennis P. Brumbaugh, hereinafter also
referred to as “Respondent,” “Respondent Brumbaugh,” and “Brumbaugh,” 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 Brumbaugh violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(f), 1104(a) and
1104(d) 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 and/or an immediate family member is associated; (2) when he directed and/or
authorized an immediate family member and/or a business with which an immediate family
member is associated, namely “Brumbaugh Transmission Service” (“BTS”), to perform
repair services and/or provide automobile replacement parts for Township vehicles; (3)
when he authorized repair work to be completed by BTS in excess of $500.00 absent an
open and public process; and (4) when he failed to file Statement of Financial Interests
forms with the Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
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
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 9
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.
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
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 10
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.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official/public employee
must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that
he holds the position and the year after he leaves it.
Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides that no public official shall be allowed to
take the oath of office, or enter or continue upon his duties, nor shall he receive
compensation from public funds, unless he has filed an SFI as required by the Ethics Act.
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 Brumbaugh served as an elected Township Supervisor from January 7,
2002, to December 31, 2013. Brumbaugh served as Vice Chairman of the Township
Board of Supervisors (“Board”) during calendar year 2011 and as Chairman of the Board
from January 3, 2012, to December 31, 2013.
The Board consists of three Members. Signature authority over the Township
financial accounts rests with the Supervisors and the Secretary/Treasurer. Checks issued
from the Township’s financial accounts require live signatures of at least three authorized
signatories.
The Supervisors hold one legislative meeting per month on the first Thursday of the
month. Bill lists are presented to the Board for approval at legislative meetings.
Additionally, some bills are deemed approved between legislative meetings as the result of
the issuance of a Township payment check signed by at least two (2) Supervisors. Bills
paid between legislative meetings are not identified on the bill lists presented to the Board
at legislative meetings for approval.
The Township Roadmaster is responsible for obtaining quotes or sealed bids
related to the maintenance of Township vehicles and/or the purchase of vehicle parts.
Sealed bids (obtained through a competitive bidding process) are always provided to the
Supervisors at a public meeting for review. The Roadmaster does not make any
independent decisions regarding vehicle maintenance when sealed bids are
obtained/required. When quotes of approximately $75.00 or less are received, the
Roadmaster independently decides where the Township vehicles are to be maintained
and/or vehicle parts are to be purchased.
Respondent’s brother, Gary Brumbaugh, owns and operates BTS, which is a vehicle
maintenance business located within the Township. Respondent has never been an
employee of BTS or associated with BTS in any capacity.
BTS has provided vehicle maintenance services for the Township since
approximately July 2000. The Township continued to utilize BTS for vehicle maintenance
services following Respondent’s election to the Board in November 2001.
In November 2010 the Township purchased from BTS two Interstate car batteries at
a cost of $93.00 each and two wiper blades at a cost of $11.50 each. The BTS invoice
documenting the purchase in the total amount of $209.00 is dated November 30, 2010.
The purchase of the batteries was discussed by the Board at its November 1, 2010,
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 11
legislative meeting. Township Roadmaster Joseph Lansberry (“Lansberry”) informed the
Supervisors that he had obtained three quotes related to the purchase of car batteries for
Township vehicles. The quote from BTS was higher than the other two quotes, which were
from National Automotive Parts Association and Sam’s Club. The minutes document that
the Supervisors (including Respondent) voted unanimously in favor of purchasing the car
batteries from Sam’s Club. However, Lansberry and Supervisor Jerry Young (“Young”)
believe the November 1, 2010, meeting minutes are inaccurate regarding the
vote/approval to purchase car batteries from Sam’s Club. Lansberry and Young believe
that the Supervisors (including Respondent) actually voted to purchase car batteries from
BTS, not Sam’s Club, due to BTS selling Interstate car batteries. Respondent does not
dispute the minutes.
With the exception of the November 1, 2010, Board meeting, Township meeting
minutes do not record any discussions involving BTS from January 2002 through the
present.
On or about August 2011, Lansberry telephoned Respondent to inform him of
transmission-type problems the 2000 Ford F550 Township truck was experiencing. The
vehicle stopped operating while Lansberry was traveling from one location to another
within the Township. Respondent directed Lansberry to have the vehicle towed to BTS.
Respondent did not suggest or identify any other automotive repair shops.
Respondent subsequently arranged for Young and himself to meet with Gary
Brumbaugh at BTS in order to discuss the transmission-type problems the Township truck
was experiencing. Respondent arranged the meeting by telephoning Young to meet him at
BTS. During the meeting, Respondent and Young agreed that Gary Brumbaugh/BTS
would perform the transmission/oil pan repairs to the Township vehicle.
Respondent maintains that both he and Young knew that the Ford F550’s
transmission was previously worked upon at two different facilities, including a Ford
dealership, and they both knew that Gary Brumbaugh had a reputation for being innovative
with respect to correcting mechanical problems.
Respondent did not direct and was not otherwise involved in obtaining quotes from
BTS for the repairs to Township vehicles, except as noted above. Additional times that
BTS performed services for the Township while Respondent served as a Supervisor
occurred at the sole discretion of the Roadmaster.
From January 2008 through the present, BTS submitted six invoices to the
Township totaling $4,468.22 for work BTS performed on Township vehicles. From March
1, 2010, to March 8, 2012, Respondent voted to approve five of the six BTS invoices
submitted to the Township for payment, totaling $767.80. Additionally, as a Township
signatory, Respondent “approved” for payment a BTS invoice in the amount of $3,700.42
which was paid between meetings and therefore did not appear on a bill list for approval.
The BTS invoice for $3,700.42 was in relation to the repair of the Township truck that
Respondent/Young approved/directed BTS to perform after meeting with Gary Brumbaugh.
Six Township checks, totaling $4,468.22, were issued to BTS and deposited into the
BTS business account during the time frame of March 2010 to the present while
Respondent served as a Supervisor. Respondent signed four of the six checks issued to
BTS totaling $4,307.42.
Per Gary Brumbaugh, BTS realizes a profit based on labor and part charges. BTS
adds approximately 30% to the costs of parts. Of the $4,468.22 paid to BTS by the
Township, $1,335.00 related to labor charges, and $3,133.22 related to costs for parts.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 12
The parties have stipulated that Respondent, Gary Brumbaugh, and/or BTS realized
a private pecuniary benefit when Respondent utilized his position as Township Supervisor
to participate in discussions and actions of the Board that resulted in the Township utilizing
the services of BTS, and when Respondent participated in votes to approve payment to
BTS as documented on Township bill list(s), and when he signed Township checks issued
to BTS as an authorized signatory.
In his capacity as a Township Supervisor, Respondent failed to timely file SFI forms
with the Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. On or about
January 16, 2014, Respondent submitted SFI forms for calendar years 2008 through 2012.
The parties have stipulated that such forms were not deficient.
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 when, in his
capacity as a Township Supervisor, Dennis
Brumbaugh participated in discussions and
actions of the Board of Supervisors, which
resulted in the Township utilizing the
services of his brother, Gary Brumbaugh,
and/or a business with which Gary
Brumbaugh is associated, namely
Brumbaugh Transmission Service (BTS),
and when Dennis Brumbaugh participated in
votes to approve payment to BTS, and when
he signed Township checks issued to BTS
as an authorized signatory, all of which led
to a private pecuniary benefit to Gary
Brumbaugh and/or BTS.
b. That as part of a negotiated settlement
agreement, no violation of Section 1103(f)
occurred when Brumbaugh authorized repair
work to be completed by BTS in excess of
$500.00, absent an open and public
process.
c. That a violation of Section 1104(a) occurred
when Brumbaugh failed to timely file
Statement of Financial Interests forms with
the Township for calendar years 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011 and 2012.
4. Brumbaugh agrees to make payment in the amount of
$1,250.00 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.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 13
5. To the extent he has not already done so, Brumbaugh agrees
to file complete and accurate Statements of Financial Interests
with Woodbury Township through the Pennsylvania State
Ethics Commission, for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
and 2012 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
6. Brumbaugh agrees to not accept any reimbursement,
compensation or other payment from Woodbury Township
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 1-2.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that a violation of
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when, in his capacity as
a Township Supervisor, Respondent participated in discussions and actions of the Board
which resulted in the Township utilizing the services of his brother, Gary Brumbaugh,
and/or a business with which Gary Brumbaugh is associated, BTS, and when Respondent
participated in votes to approve payment to BTS, and when he signed Township checks
issued to BTS as an authorized signatory, all of which led to a private pecuniary benefit to
Gary Brumbaugh and/or BTS.
Respondent used the authority of his public office when he participated in directing
the 2011 transmission/oil pan repairs for the 2000 Ford F550 Township truck to be
performed by BTS. Specifically, Respondent directed Lansberry to have the vehicle towed
to BTS. Respondent subsequently arranged for Young and himself to meet with Gary
Brumbaugh at BTS in order to discuss the transmission-type problems the Township truck
was experiencing. Respondent, together with Young, agreed that Gary Brumbaugh/BTS
would perform the transmission/oil pan repairs to the Township vehicle.
From January 2008 through the present, BTS submitted six invoices to the
Township totaling $4,468.22 for work BTS performed on Township vehicles. Respondent
used the authority of his public office when, from March 1, 2010, to March 8, 2012, he
voted to approve five of the six BTS invoices submitted to the Township for payment,
totaling $767.80. Additionally, Respondent used the authority of his public office when, as
a Township signatory, he “approved” for payment a BTS invoice in the amount of
$3,700.42 which was paid between meetings and therefore did not appear on a bill list for
approval. The BTS invoice for $3,700.42 was in relation to the aforesaid repair of the
Township truck that Respondent/Young approved/directed BTS to perform after meeting
with Gary Brumbaugh.
Six Township checks, totaling $4,468.22, were issued to BTS and deposited into the
BTS business account during the time frame of March 2010 to the present while
Respondent served as a Supervisor. Respondent used the authority of his public office
when he signed four of the six checks issued to BTS totaling $4,307.42.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 14
The parties have stipulated that Respondent, Gary Brumbaugh, and/or BTS realized
a private pecuniary benefit when Respondent utilized his position as Township Supervisor
to participate in discussions and actions of the Board that resulted in the Township utilizing
the services of BTS, and when Respondent participated in votes to approve payment to
BTS as documented on Township bill list(s), and when he signed Township checks issued
to BTS as an authorized signatory. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and Consent
Agreement of the parties, the parties are in agreement that such private pecuniary benefit
was not de minimis.
Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§ 1103(a), occurred when, in his capacity as a Township Supervisor, Respondent
participated in discussions and actions of the Board which resulted in the Township
utilizing the services of his brother, Gary Brumbaugh, and/or a business with which Gary
Brumbaugh is associated, BTS, and when Respondent participated in votes to approve
payment to BTS, and when he signed Township checks issued to BTS as an authorized
signatory, all of which led to a private pecuniary benefit to Gary Brumbaugh and/or BTS.
As part of their negotiated settlement agreement, the parties have recommended a
finding that no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred
as to the allegation that Respondent authorized repair work to be completed by BTS in
excess of $500.00 absent an open and public process. We agree that there was no
violation of Section 1103(f) in that the degree of family relationship involved in this case
(brother) is not encompassed within Section 1103(f).
Therefore, we hold that no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§ 1103(f), occurred as to the allegation that Respondent authorized repair work to be
completed by BTS in excess of $500.00 absent an open and public process, in that the
degree of family relationship involved in this case (brother) is not encompassed within
Section 1103(f).
We agree with the parties and we hold that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the
Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Respondent failed to timely file SFI forms
with the Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $1,250.00 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.
Respondent has also agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid
in settlement of this matter. To the extent he has not already done so, Respondent has
agreed to file complete and accurate SFIs with the Township, through this Commission, for
calendar years 2008 through 2012 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter.
It appears that the Investigative Division in the exercise of its prosecutorial
discretion has elected to non pros the portion of the allegations pertaining to Section
1104(d) of the Ethics Act.
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. However, given that Respondent has
already filed SFIs for calendar years 2008 through 2012, and the parties are in agreement
that those forms are not deficient (Fact Findings 32-32a), we shall accept those filings as
sufficient for calendar years 2008 through 2012.
Brumbaugh, 13-029
Page 15
Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Respondent Brumbaugh is
directed to make payment in the amount of $1,250.00 payable to the Commonwealth of
th
Pennsylvania and 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, Respondent Brumbaugh is directed to
not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Township
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 Supervisor for Woodbury Township (“Township”), Blair County, from January
7, 2002, to December 31, 2013, Respondent Dennis P. Brumbaugh (“Brumbaugh”)
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. Brumbaugh violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when,
in his capacity as a Township Supervisor, he participated in discussions and
actions of the Township Board of Supervisors, which resulted in the Township
utilizing the services of his brother, Gary Brumbaugh, and/or a business with which
Gary Brumbaugh is associated, namely “Brumbaugh Transmission Service” (“BTS”),
and when he participated in votes to approve payment to BTS, and when he signed
Township checks issued to BTS as an authorized signatory, all of which led to a
private pecuniary benefit to Gary Brumbaugh and/or BTS.
3. No violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred as
to the allegation that Brumbaugh authorized repair work to be completed by BTS in
excess of $500.00 absent an open and public process, in that the degree of family
relationship involved in this case (brother) is not encompassed within Section
1103(f).
4. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Brumbaugh failed to timely file Statement of Financial Interests forms with the
Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
In Re: Dennis P. Brumbaugh, : File Docket: 13-029
Respondent : Date Decided: 9/30/14
: Date Mailed: 10/15/14
ORDER NO. 1646
1. As a Supervisor for Woodbury Township (“Township”), Blair County, Dennis P.
Brumbaugh (“Brumbaugh”) violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act (“Ethics Act”), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when, in his capacity as a
Township Supervisor, he participated in discussions and actions of the Township
Board of Supervisors, which resulted in the Township utilizing the services of his
brother, Gary Brumbaugh, and/or a business with which Gary Brumbaugh is
associated, namely “Brumbaugh Transmission Service” (“BTS”), and when he
participated in votes to approve payment to BTS, and when he signed Township
checks issued to BTS as an authorized signatory, all of which led to a private
pecuniary benefit to Gary Brumbaugh and/or BTS.
2. No violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), occurred as
to the allegation that Brumbaugh authorized repair work to be completed by BTS in
excess of $500.00 absent an open and public process, in that the degree of family
relationship involved in this case (brother) is not encompassed within Section
1103(f).
3. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred
when Brumbaugh failed to timely file Statement of Financial Interests forms with the
Township for calendar years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Brumbaugh is directed to make payment
in the amount of $1,250.00 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.
5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Brumbaugh is directed to not accept any
reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Township representing a
full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter.
6. Compliance with paragraphs 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