HomeMy WebLinkAbout1698 KeeferSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
309 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In Re: Thomas S. Keefer,
Respondent
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
14 -007
Order No. 1698
10/19/16
10/27/16
Before: Nicholas A. Colafella, Chair
Mark R. Corrigan, Vice Chair
Roger Nick
Melanie DePalma
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 she ., 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 held. The record is
complete.
L ALLEGATIONS:
That Thomas S. Keefer, a public officiallpublic employee in his capacity as a
Supervisor for Bullskin Township, Fayette County, violated Section 1103(a) of the State
Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he utilized the authority of his office as a Township
Supervisor o hire andlor engage the Township Solicitor to provide legal representation to
himself (Keefer) in a matter before the State Ethics Commission; and when he voted to
authorize payment from Township /public funds to pay invoices from the Solicitor in regard
to the representation before the State Ethics Commission,
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
1. Upon review of a complaint alleaina that Thomas S. Keefer violated provisions of
the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry on April 7, 2014.
2. On June 5, 2014, a letter was forwarded to Thomas S. Keefer by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission, informing him that a complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7010 1060 0000 3361 7003.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Thomas S. Keefer, with a
delivery date of June 5, 2014.
P.O. BOX 1 1470, HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 • 717- 783 -1610 • 1- 800 - 932 -0936 • www.ethics.state.pa.us
Keefer, 14 -007
p gel
3. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was mailed to the Respondent on
December 2, 2014.
4. Thomas S. Keefer has served as a Supervisor for Bullskin Township, Fayette
County, from January 2, 2006, through the present.
a. Keefer has served as the Chairman of the Township Board of Supervisors
since January 6, 2014.
b. Keefer served as the Vice - Chairman of the Township Board of Supervisors
from January 2, 2006, to January 6, 2014.
C. Keefer has been employed as a full -time Roadmaster for the Township
during his entire tenure as a Supervisor.
5. Bullskin Township (hereafter also referred to as the "Township ") is a Second Class
Township governed by a three (3) Member Board of Supervisors.
a. The Township holds one (1) regularly scheduled legislative meeting per
month on the last Wednesday of each month.
1. The Township does not hold regularly scheduled agenda /workshop
meetings.
b. The Township holds special meetings as necessary.
6. Bullskin Township Supervisors receive $2,500.00 gross annually, which is paid
quarterly for services rendered in their elected Supervisor /public official capacity.
a. The Supervisors need not be present at every meeting to receive their
Supervisor salary.
7. Voting at Township meetings occurs in group "aye /nay" fashion after a motion is
made and properly seconded.
a. Any abstentions or objections made during the vote are specifically noted in
the official meeting minutes.
b. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at the subsequent
meeting of the Township.
8. The Township Supervisors receive a meeting packet for review prior to each
regularly scheduled legislative meeting.
a. The meeting packets are prepared by the Township Clerk and are placed in
each individual Supervisor's mailbox located in the Township office.
1. The meeting packets are prepared and made available to the
Supervisors no later than the day of the legislative meeting.
9. The meeting packet consists of the upcoming meeting agenda, a written copy of the
prior month s meeting minutes, and a listing of all bills received by the Township
since the last Township meeting, which have not yet been paid.
a. Normal recurring bills (etc , electric, hydrant fees, payroll, etc.) are paid prior
to the monthly Township meetings and are not listed on the register of bills
presented for approval.
Keefer, 14 -007
aP
1. The actual vote undertaken by the Supervisors at each legislative
meeting to approve the bills includes after - the -fact approval of any
payment checks issued prior to the date of the last Township meeting.
L The register of bills maintained by the Township in the actual Township
minute books documents all bills approved for payment at each legislative
meeting.
C. The register of bills details the check date, the payee, a brief description of
the payment, the check number, and the check amount.
10. The Township Clerk is responsible for drafting the Township checks to be issued.
a. Checks issued from the Township General Fund are generated via computer.
b. The majority of General Fund checks are signed by authorized Township
signatories the night of the legislative meeting, after the vote to approve the
payment of the bills.
1. General Fund checks are signed on the day after the meeting if they
were not otherwise generated before the scheduled meeting.
2. Checks issued throughout the month for recurring bills are signed as
needed to avoid late fees.
11. Signature authority over Township accounts is maintained by all three (3)
Supervisors.
a. Township- issued checks require the signatures of any two (2) of the three (3)
Township Supervisors.
b. Signatures on Township checks must be live signatures.
Facsimile stamps are not utilized by the Township.
12. Article XI, Section 1101 of the Second Class Township Code provides for the
appointment of a Solicitor by the Board of Supervisors.
a. Section 1101 also provides that the Board of Supervisors determines the
compensation of the Solicitor.
13. The Township Board of Supervisors officially appoints or re- appoints a Township
Solicitor at its annual re- organization meeting.
a. The appointed Solicitor routinely attends all Township legislative meetings.
14. Since at least January 2, 1996, the Township Board of Supervisors has consistently
approved a monthly retainer fee for legal services provided by the appointed
Solicitor.
a. The retainer fee covers professional services such as consultations, advice,
attendance at meetings, telephone calls, etc., related to Township legal
concerns.
15. The Township also makes payment to the appointed Solicitor for professional
services performed beyond those covered by the established monthly retainer, on
an as- needed basis.
Keefer, 14 -007
15-a—ge 4
a. The hourly rate covers additional professional services such as Township
litigation, preparation of Resolutions, legal research, etc., otherwise not
accounted for through the retainer fee.
b. The approved hourly rate is not consistently documented in the Township re-
organization meeting minutes.
16. Donald J. McCue is an attorney licensed to practice law within the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
a. McCue is self - employed in his capacity as an attorney with Donald McCue
Law Firm P.C.
McCue was previously a partner in the law firm of McCue & Husband.
b. McCue's attorney's license number is 10020.
C. McCue's attorney's license was issued on March 20, 1972.
McCue remains a Member of the Bar in good standing.
17. McCue has consistently served as the appointed Township Solicitor from January 3,
2005, through the present.
a. McCue has received a set monthly retainer of $350.00 as the Township
Solicitor since his initial appointment.
1. This amount was approved by the Board of Supervisors.
b. McCue has received additional payment on a per hour basis for professional
services performed beyond the scope of the monthly retainer fee.
McCue's monthly Solicitor billings do not indicate the hourly rate
charged, or time expended on a specific matter.
18. McCue submits a monthly invoice to the Township seeking payment of his approved
monthly retainer.
a. At varying times, McCue may submit additional invoices to the Township
requesting payment for professional services performed beyond those
covered within the scope of his approved monthly retainer.
b. McCue is issued one check from the Township General Fund Account
representing payment for his monthly retainer as well as any additional
professional services performed on behalf of the Township during the
applicable billing period.
19. Any legal services provided by McCue to the Township are done with the knowledge
and consent of the Board of Supervisors.
a. McCue cannot initiate any legal services without Board approval.
20. On April 5, 2012, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received
signed, sworn complaints alleging that Keefer, as well as Township Supervisors
William Geary and Walter Wiltrout, violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act
93 of 1998).
Keefer, 14 -007
P g-5
a. Part of the allegations contained within the complaint(s) was that Keefer,
along with the other Members of the Board of Supervisors, set a monthly
vehicle allowance for Members of the Township Board of Supervisors and for
themselves as Road masterslemployees of the Township, which was in
opposition to what was set by the Board of Auditors for the Township.
b. Upon review of the complaint(s), the Investigative Division initiated a
preliminary inquiry on April 12, 2012.
21. On June 6, 2012, a letter was forwarded to Thomas Keefer by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission, informing him that a complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. This matter was docketed by the Commission as Keefer: 12 -019.
22. McCue first asserted legal representation of Keefer in relation to the alleged
violations of the Ethics Act docketed as Keefer: 12-019, to the State Ethics
Commission's Executive Director by correspondence from McCue dated June 15,
2012, nine (9) days after the Notice of Investigation was sent to Keefer.
a. McCue identified that McCue & Husband Law Firm was the Solicitor for the
Bullskin Township Supervisors.
b. McCue acknowledged the receipt of letters dated June 6, 2012, that
identified various allegations of wrongdoing in connection with action of
Keefer as a Township Supervisor.
C. McCue noted in the correspondence his office's desire to respond to the
letters on behalf of the Bullskin Township Supervisors.
23, The Notice Letter referenced by McCue was not addressed to McCue and/or
McCue's office as the Township Solicitor.
a. The June 6, 2012, Notice of Investigation issued to Keefer by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission was addressed to
Keefer s personal residence.
b. The Notice Letter was delivered and provided to McCue personally by
Keefer.
C. McCue would not have initiated correspondence to the State Ethics
Commission on Keefer's behalf absent direction from Keefer as a Supervisor
to respond to the State Ethics Commission's letter of June 6, 2012.
24. Keefer, together with the other two Township Supervisors, authorized McCue to
legally represent the Township Supervisors collectively in response to the
allegations set forth by the State Ethics Commission. (See, Answer of Respondent
Thomas S. Keefer to Investigative Complaint/Findings Report, Paragrap s 7, 27 b,
a. McCue had not agreed to represent Keefer in a pro bono capacity.
25. At all times between at least June 15, 2012, and March 17, 2014, McCue provided
legal representation for Keefer in all matters relating to allegations of wrongdoing
levied against Keefer by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
docketed as Keefer: 12 -019.
Keefer, 14 -007
P gem
a. McCue's last representation of Keefer in the matter of Keefer: 12 -019,
occurred via correspondence dated March 17, 2014, issued to N�lcCue on
Keefer's behalf, from the State Ethics Commission's Executive Director,
Robert Caruso.
1. The March 17, 2014, correspondence from Executive Director Caruso
acknowledged Keefer's full compliance with instructions set forth in
State Ethics Commission Order No. 1626.
b. McCue continued to serve as the appointed Solicitor for the Township while
simultaneously representing Keefer in Keefer: 12 -019, from ,tune 15, 2012,
through March 17, 2014.
26. In addition to asserting legal representation of Keefer and the remaining Township
Supervisors as Respondents to Ethics Act allegations filed against them, McCue .
provided legal representation for two (2) Township employees and one (1) former
Township public official during the course of the investigation(s).
a. McCue represented and participated in interviews conducted of then -
Township Clerk Jeffrey Wadsworth, Township Road Crew employee Larry
Rhodes, and former Township Auditor Norma Brown.
b. McCue charged fees to the Township for his representation of Wadsworth,
Rhodes, and Brown, as the Township Solicitor.
27. Bullskin Township maintains its General Fund Account with The Scottsdale Bank &
Trust Company.
a. The account number associated with the Township's account is [account
number redacted].
28. McCue's billings for July 20, 2012, April 19, 2013, and August 5, 2013, were
included on Township bill lists which were presented to Keefer and the remainin
Township Supervisors for approval at the regularly scheduled legislative meeting(s�
of the Township Board of Supervisors.
29. The following chart confirms payments made by the Township to McCue, which
included McCue's legal representation of Keefer in the matter of Keefer: 12 -019.
Meeting
Supervisors
Township
Check
Bill List
P� ayee,
Date
Present
GF Check
Amount'
Description
No.
0712512012
William Geary
15246
$2,345.00
Retainer &
McCue & Husband
Scott Keefer
Extra
Law Firm
05/29/2013
William Geary
15865
$7,395.00
Extra 1
McCue & Husband
Scott Keefer
Retainer
Law Firm
08/28/2013
William Geary
16099
$4,407.60
Retainer
McCue & Husband
Walter Wiltrout
Extra
Law Firm
Scott Keefer
Total
$14,147.60
*Note: Charges for monthly retainer and/or additional services
above and beyond State Ethics
Commission investigation are incivaea in cnecK amount.
Keefer 14 -007
age
a. The billings submitted by McCue to the Township forpayment included legal
services provided to Keefer and the other Supervisors in relation to the
Ethics Commission investigations docketed as: Keefer: 12 -019; Geary 12-
017; Wiltrout: 12 -018.
b. Keefer's Answer to the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report states: "The
chart confirms that the Township Supervisors approved Attorney McCue's
legal representation of Messrs. Keefer, Geary and Wiltrout for each of the
Invoices submitted as part of collective representation of the Township
Citizens and the Township Supervisors and Roadmasters in connection with
the State Ethics Commission Investigation." (Answer of Respondent
Thomas S. Keefer to Investigative Complaint/Findings Report, Paragraph
30. Keefer participated in all three (3) votes to approve bill lists which included
payments to McCue /McCue's firm for Keefer's legal representation in the matter of
Keefer: 12 -019 as documented below:
Meeting
Keefer's
Final
Check
Check
Check
Payee
Signatories
Date
Action 1
Vote
No.
Date
Amount*
Vote
07/25/12
2"d Motion
2 -0
15246
07/25/12
$2,345.00
McCue &
Geary 1
Voted to
Husband Law
Wiltrout
Approve
Firm
05/29/13
2nd Motion
2 -0
15865
05/29/13
$7,395.00
McCue &
Geary 1
Voted to
Husband Law
Wiltrout
Approve
Firm
08/28/13
Motion
3 -0
16099
08/28/13
$4,407.60
McCue &
Geary 1
Voted to
Husband Law
Wiltrout
Approve
Firm
*Note: Charges for monthly retainer and/or additional services
above and beyond State Ethics
commission invesugation are incwaeu in urieur< arrrumit.
a. Keefer voted affirmatively to approve all three (3) bill lists which included
payment to McCue for billings to the Township for legal services rendered by
McCue on Keefer's behalf in the matter of Keefer: 12 -019.
b. Keefer did not sign any of the checks issued to Solicitor McCuelMcCue &
Husband law firm regarding invoices /billings associated with McCue's
representation of Keefer before the State Ethics Commission.
C.
Keefer's Answer to the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report states:
"Admitted that Mr. Keefer voted to approve payment of the bills for the
benefit of all three (3) Township SupervisorslRoadmasters as well as
Citizens of Bullskin Township for legal representation in the collective
investigation." (Answer of Respondent Thomas S. Keefer to Investigative
Comglaint/Findinas Report, Paraqraph 33.
31. McCue/McCue & Husband maintains, or had maintained in 2012 and 2013, an
account at PNC Bank under Account Number [account number redacted].
a. Check numbers 15246 and 15865 were endorsed with a "For Deposit Only
McCue & Husband Law Firm" stamp.
Keefer, 14 -007
P g 8
Check numbers 15246 and 15865 posted as debits to the Township's
General Fund Account on July 30, 2012, and June 17, 2013,
respectively.
b. Check number 16099 was deposited to the McCue & Husband general
operating account.
Check number 16099, dated 8128113, posted as a debit to the
Township's General Fund Account on September 9, 2013.
32. McCue's billings dated July 20, 2012, April 19, 2013, and August 5, 2013, detailed
specific professional services rendered, including services performed by McCue for
Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout as Township Supervisors and the fees associated with
those services. (See, Answer of Respondent Thomas S. Keefer to Investigative
Complaint/Findings Report, at Paragraph 35.)
a. The July 20, 2012, billing presented to the Township detailed a total of
$1,995.00 due for services rendered.
Of the $1;995.00 in fees submitted to the Township for payment,
approximately $495.00` was documented as pertaining to:
"Investigation by State Ethics Commission."
* [sic] [Cf., Fact Finding 46 a.]
b. The April 19, 2013, billing presented to the Township detailed a total of
$5,830.00 due for services rendered.
1. All of the $5,830.00 in fees submitted to the Township for payment
were related to: "State Ethics Commission Investigation."
aa. The fees submitted to the Township included $930.00 in fees
related to McCue's service as the Township Solicitor
representing Township witnesses in Interviews conducted
during the investigation.
C. The August 5, 2013, billing detailed a total of $2,455.60 due for services
rendered and mailing reimbursement.
All of the $2,455.60 in fees submitted to the Township for pa meat
were related to McCue's collective representation of Keefer, Geary,
and Wiltrout in connection with the State Ethics Commission
investigation. (See, Answer of Respondent Thomas S. Keefer to
lnvesti. ive Complaint/Findings Report, Paragraph 35 c 1, 2.)
33. McCue provided representation to Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout with regard to the
State Ethics Commission investigation as follows.
a. McCue represented Keefer in relation to the Commission investigation which
culminated with State Ethics Commission Order No. 1626, finding Keefer in
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
b. McCue represented Geary in relation to the Commission investigation which
culminated with State Ethics Commission Order No. 1624, finding Geary in
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
Keefer, 14-007
age
C. McCue represented Wiltrout in relation to the Commission investigation
which culminated with State Ethics Commission Order No. 1626, finding
Wiltrout in violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
34. McCue acknowledged his representation of Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout at taxpayer
expense in an article titled, "Bullskin Solicitor defends Supervisors," published
March 19, 2014, on TribLive.
a. The article documented a statement by McCue that Keefer, Geary, and
Wiltrout agreed to settle the case before the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission rather than burden taxpayers with more legal fees to fight the
case.
1. McCue was specifically quoted as stating the following:
"I told (Supervisors) I felt we could win it in Commonwealth Court, but
they did not want to spend any more taxpayers' money on legal fees."
35. The amount charged by McCue for representation of Township personnel other
than the Township Supervisors totaled $930.00, and the amount charged for
representation of Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the Ethics Act
investigations totaled at least $7,830.00.
36. By way of correspondence dated September 24, 2014, Keefer was provided the
opportunity to participate in an interview with representatives of the Investigative
Division regarding the allegation most recently levied against him.
a. The correspondence was sent via Certified Mail and was signed for by
Keefer at Keefer's residential address.
1. The correspondence identified the Investigative Division's interest in
interviewing Keefer in relation to the current allegation.
2. The correspondence identified November 7, 2014, as the date by
which any such interview was required to be completed.
3. The correspondence identified Keefer's right to be represented by
legal counsel at any such interview.
4. The correspondence requested that Keefer forward the document to
his legal counsel if any such counsel had been obtained.
aa. No legal representative had formally entered his/her
appearance with the Commission on Keefer's behalf at that
time.
37. A response on Keefer's behalf dated October 6, 2014, was received at the
Pittsburgh Regional Office of the State Ethics Commission on October 8, 2014.
a. The correspondence was computer generated on Builskin Township Board
of Supervisors letterhead.
b. The correspondence identified an opinion that the allegations against Keefer
were without merit.
C. The correspondence requested that the allegations be dismissed.
d. The correspondence documented Keefer's declination to be interviewed.
Keefer, 14 -007
aTge-1 0
B. Testimony
38. Brian D. Jacisin is employed as the Deputy Executive Director and Director of
Investigations for the State Ethics Commission.
a. ID 2 consists of a Consent Agreement dated October 15, 2013, between
Keefer and the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission in re:
Thomas Keefer, Docket No. 12 -019.
1. The Consent Agreement at ID 2 was a formal agreement between the
Investigative Division and Keefer for resolution of the prior State
Ethics Commission case against Keefer under Docket No. 12 -019.
b. ID 5 consists of Order No. 1626, issued February 12, 2014, by the State
Ethics Commission, which approved the Consent Agreement between
Keefer and the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission under
Docket No. 12 -019.
C. Keefer complied with Order No. 1626, which directed him, inter alia, to make
payment in the amount of $3,000.00 to the Township per the Consent
Agreement of the parties.
d. On March 28, 2014, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Thomas S.
Keefer had violated the Ethics Act. (ID 9).
e. ID 21 consists of a notice letter dated November 4, 2014, that was forwarded
to Keefer, advising him of the general status of an investigation commenced
by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission into allegations
that Keefer had violated the Ethics Act.
f. ID 24 consists of the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report filed against
Keefer on December 2, 2014, under Docket No. 14 -007.
39. Jeffrey Hann ( "Hann ") served as a Township Auditor from 2010 to 2015.
a. Hann testified that he was concerned as to whether the Township
Supervisors had used Township funds to pay McCue for representing them
in the prior proceedings before the State Ethics Commission.
b. Hann testified that he filed a Right -to -Know request with the Township
because of his concerns and that among the Township records, he saw three
invoices from the McCue & Husband Law Firm which were directed to the
Township Supervisors.
C. ID 27, ID 28, and ID 29 consist of invoices from the McCue & Husband Law
Firm dated April 19, 2013, July 20, 2012, and August 5, 2013, respectively.
d. Each of the invoices identified as ID 27, ID 28, and ID 29 was directed to
"Bullskin Township Supervisors" and not to any individual Township
Supervisor.
40. Connie L. McKlveen has been employed as an office clerk for the Township
Supervisors since January 2, 2013.
a. ID 30, ID 31, and ID 32 consist of minutes of regular monthly meetings of the
Township Board of Supervisors on July 25, 2012, May 29, 2013, and August
Keefer, 14-007
age 1
28, 2013, respectively.
b. ID 33, ID 35, and ID 37 consist of Township check registers indicating
Township checks that were issued for the following respective periods: (1)
July 1, 2012, through
2013 July 3, 20 August 28 2013. 03, through May 31, 2013;
and (3) Aug , g g
C. ID 34, ID 36, and ID 38 consist of copies of three checks dated July 25,
2012, May 29, 2013, and August 28, 2013, respectively, that were drawn on
the Township General Fund Account and issued to McCue & Husband Law
Firm.
41. Respondent Thomas S. Keefer ( "Keefer ") has served as a Township Supervisorfor
approximately eleven years.
a. Keefer testified that the legal bills associated with McCue's representation of
him throughout the prior State Ethics Commission proceedings which began
in 2012 were the Township's legal bills and not his own.
b. Keefer testified that he entered into a Consent Agreement with the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission in order to save the
Township money.
C. Documents
42. ID 2 consists of a Consent Agreement dated October 15, 2013, between Keefer and
the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission in re: Thomas Keefer,
Docket No. 12 -019.
a. The Consent Agreement was signed by: (1) Thomas Keefer, as Respondent;
(2) Donald J. McCue, Esquire, as Counsel for Respondent; and 3) Brian D.
Jacisin, on behalf of Robert P. Caruso, Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission.
The Consent Agreement included, inter alia, a recommendation that the
State Ethics Commission find: "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 Keefer's use of authority of his office as a Member of the Board of
Supervisors to set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Board of
Supervisors, in their capacity as employees of the Township,: including
himself as Roadmaster." Consent Agreement, at paragraph 3(a), ID 2, page
2.
43. 1D 5 consists of Order No. 1626, issued February 12, 2014, by the State Ethics
Commission, which approved the Consent Agreement between Keefer and the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission in re: Thomas Keefer, Docket
No. 12 -019.
Based upon the particular Stipulated Findings and Consent Agreement of the
parties, the State Ethics Commission held that Keefer violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his use of
authority of his office as a Member of the Township Board of Supervisors to
set a monthly vehicle allowance for Members of the Township Board of
Supervisors in their capacity as employees of the Township, which included
him as roadmaster.
Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Keefer was directed, inter alia, to
make payment in the amount of $3,000.00, payable to Bullskin Towns ip.
Keefer, 14007
Fa--g-e—1 2
44. ID 24 consists of the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report filed against Keefer on
December 2, 2014, under Docket No. 14 -007.
45. ID 27 consists of an invoice dated April 19, 2013, in the amount of $5,830.00,
issued by McCue & Husband Law Firm to the Bullskin Township Supervisors for
professional services rendered between July 17, 2012, and March 26, 2013, with
regard to "State Ethics Commission Investigation."
46. ID 28 consists of an invoice dated July 20, 2012, in the amount of $1,995.00, issued
by McCue & Husband Law Firm to the Bullskin Township Supervisors for
professional services rendered in various matters between April 2012 and .Tune
2012.
a. The invoice includes a fee in the amount of $475.00 for professional services
rendered pertaining to "Investigation by State Ethics Commission."
47. ID 29 consists of an invoice dated August 5, 2013, in the amount of $2,455.60,
issued by McCue & Husband Law Firm to the Bullskin Township Supervisors for: (1)
professional services rendered between April 9, 2013, and June 28, 2013, with
regard to "State Ethics Commission Investigation "; and (2) reimbursement of mailing
costs in the amount of $5.60 related to such professional services.
48. ID 34 consists of a copy of check number 15246, drawn on the Township General
Fund Account in the amount of $2,345.00.
Check number 15246, dated July 25, 2012, is payable to McCue & Husband
Law Firm and bears the signatures of William H. Geary and Walter D.
Wiltrout.
49. ID 36 consists of a copy of check number 15865, drawn on the Township General
Fund Account in the amount of $7,395.00.
a. Check number 15865, dated May 29, 2013, is payable to McCue & Husband
Law Firm and bears the signatures of William H. Geary and Walter D.
Wiltrout.
50. ID 38 consists of a copy of check number 16099, drawn on the Township General
Fund Account in the amount of $4,407.60.
Check number 16099, dated August 28, 2013, is payable to McCue &
Husband Law Firm and bears the signatures of William H. Geary and Walter
D. Wiltrout.
Ill. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Bullskin Township ( "Township "), Fayette County, from January
2, 2006, through the present, Respondent Thomas S. Keefer, also referred to hereinafter
as Respondent, Respondent Keefer, and Keefer, 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 sew.
The allegations as set forth in the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report are that
Keefer violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized the authority of his office
as a Township Supervisor to hire and/or engage the Township Solicitor to provide legal
representation to himself (Keefer) in a matter before the State Ethics Commission, and
when he voted to authorize payment from Township /public funds to pay invoices from the
Township Solicitor in regard to the representation before the State Ethics Commission.
Keefer, 14 -007
page�3
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public officiallpublic 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 employyee 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 officelemployment 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.
We shall now summarize the relevant facts.
The Township is governed by a three - Member Board of Supervisors ( "Board ").
Keefer has served as a Township Supervisor from January 2, 2006, through the present.
Keefer has been employed as a full -time roadmaster for the Township during his entire
tenure as a Supervisor.
All three Supervisors maintain signature authority over Township accounts.
Township- issued checks require the signatures of any two of the Supervisors.
Pursuant to the Second Class Township Code, the Board appoints a Township
Solicitor at the Board's annual reorganization meeting. Since at least January 2,1996, the
Board has consistently approved a monthly retainer fee for legal services provided by the
Township Solicitor. The retainer fee covers professional services such as consultations,
advice, attendance at meetings, and telephone calls related to Township legal concerns.
The Township also makes payment to the Township Solicitor at an hourly rate for
professional services performed beyond those covered by the approved monthly retainer
fee. The hourly rate covers additional professional services such as Township litigation,
preparation of resolutions, and legal research.
Keefer, 14 -007
T5agM 4
Donald J. McCue ( "McCue" is an attorney licensed to practice law within the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. McCue is currently self-employed with his own law firm.
McCue was previously a partner in McCue & Husband Law Firm ( "McCue & Husband ").
McCue has served as the appointed Township Solicitor from January 3, 2005,
through the ppresent. Any legal services that McCue provides to the Township are
performed with the knowledge and consent of the Board, and he cannot initiate any legal
services without approval by the Board.
Since his initial appointment as the Township Solicitor, McCue has received a set
monthly retainer fee in the amount of $350.00 as approved by the Board. McCue receives
additional payment at an hourly rate for professional services performed beyond those
covered by the monthly retainer fee. McCue submits a monthly invoice to the Township
seeking payment of his monthly retainer fee, and he may submit additional invoices to the
Township requesting payment for professional services not covered by the monthly retainer
fee. McCue is issued one check from the Township General Fund Account that represents
payment for his monthly retainer fee and any additional professional services performed on
behalf of the Township during the applicable billing period.
On April 5, 2012, the Investigative Division received signed, sworn complaints
alleging that Keefer and the other two Township Supervisors, William Geary ( "Geary") and
Walter Wiltrout ( "Wiltrout ", violated the Ethics Act. The allegations, hereinafter referred to
as "the 2012 Allegations, included, in pertinent part, that the Supervisors set a monthly
vehicle allowance for the Supervisors and for themselves as roadmasters /employees of the
Township which was in opposition to what was set by the Township Board of Auditors,
specifically, reimbursement at the standard IRS rate for documented mileage. On April 12,
2012, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry as to the complaints against
Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout. The Investigative Division docketed the matter involvin the
complaint against Keefer as Keefer: 12 -019, hereinafter referred to as "Case 12- 019."
On June 6, 2012, the Investigative Division forwarded a letter ( "Notice Letter ") to
Keefer, informing him that a complaint against him was received and that a full
investigation was being commenced. The Notice Letter was addressed to Keefer's
personal residence and not to McCue or McCue's office as the Township Solicitor. Keefer
personally delivered the Notice Letter to McCue.
Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout authorized McCue to re resent the Supervisors as a
group in response to the 2012 Allegations. McCue lead not agreed to provide
representation in a pro bono capacity.
McCue first asserted legal representation of Keefer in relation to Case 12 -019 by a
letter dated June 15, 2012, to the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.
McCue identified McCue & Husband as the Township Solicitor, and he acknowledged the
receipt of letters dated June 6, 2012, that identified various allegations of wrongdoing in
connection with Keefer's action as a Supervisor. McCue noted his office's desire to
respond to the letters on behalf of the Supervisors. McCue would not have initiated
correspondence to the State Ethics Commission on Keefer's behalf absent direction from
Keefer as a Supervisor to respond to the Notice Letter.
We take administrative notice that by Interlocutory Order issued on June 10, 2013,
the Chair of the State Ethics Commission granted a motion for consolidation of the cases
involving Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the 2012 Allegations. We further take
administrative notice that by Interlocutory Order issued October 4, 2013, the Hearing,
Officer for the consolidated cases denied a "Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Respondents'
"Motion to Disqualify Counsel ") filed by the Investigative Division. The Motion to Disqualify
Motion asserted, inter alia, that there was a potential conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 of
the Rules of Pro�ional Conduct resulting from McCue's representation of all
Respondents in the consolidated cases as welt as the Township and several Township
Keefer, 14 -007
Page 5
rep resentativeslemployees. In denying the Motion to Disqualify Counsel, the Hearing
Officer concluded, in pertinent part, that the State Ethics Commission lacks jurisdiction to
determine violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and that the interests of McCue's
clients under the Rules of Professional Conduct do not fall within the statutory jurisdiction
of the State Ethics Commission.
On February 12, 2014, this Commission issued Order No. 1626, which approved a
Consent Agreement between Keefer and the Investigative Division in Case 12 -019. As
part of the Consent Agreement, Keefer admitted to a violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act. We held that based upon the particular Stipulated Findings and Consent
Agreement of the parties, Keefer violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his
use of authority of his office as a Member of the Board to set a monthly vehicle allowance
for Members of the Board in their capacity as employees of the Township, which included
him as roadmaster. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Keefer was directed, inter
aria, to make payment in the amount of $3,000.00, payable to the Township.
At all times between at least June 15, 2012, and March 17, 2014, McCue provided
legal representation for Keefer in all matters relating to Case 12 -019. McCue continued to
serve as the appointed Township Solicitor while simultaneously representing Keefer in
Case 12 -019. McCue last represented Keefer in Case 12 -019 in relation to
correspondence dated March 17, 2014, issued to McCue on Keefer's behalf by the
Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission. The aforesaid correspondence
acknowledged Keefer's full compliance with the directives set forth in Order No. 1626.
In addition to asserting legal representation of Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout as
Respondents to the 2012 Allegations, McCue provided legal representation for two
Township employees and one former Township public official during the course of the
investigations into the 2012 Allegations. Specifically, McCue provided legal representation
for and participated in interviews conducted of then - Township Clerk Jeffrey Wadsworth
( "Wadsworth "), Township Road Crew employee Larry Rhodes ( "Rhodes "), and former
Township Auditor Norma Brown ( "Brown'). McCue charged fees to the Township for
providing legal representation for Wadsworth, Rhodes, and Brown as the Township
Solicitor.
McCue & Husband invoices dated July 20, 2012, April 19, 2013, and August 5,
2013, that were submitted to the Townshir� included fees for professional services
rendered by McCue to Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the investigations into the
2012 Allegations. Each of the aforesaid invoices was directed to the "Bullskin Township
Supervisors" and not to any individual Supervisor. The July 20, 2012, invoice included
$475.00 in fees due for services pertaining to the investigations. The April 19, 2013,
invoice detailed a total of $5,830.00 in fees due for services pertaining to the
investigations, including $930.00 in fees related to McCue's provision of legal
representation for Wadsworth, Rhodes, and Brown. The August 5, 2013, invoice detailed a
total of $2,455.60 in fees due for services and mailing reimbursement pertaining to the
investigations. The three aforesaid invoices charged the Township fees totaling $8,760.60
for services pertaining to the investigations. After a deduction for the $930.00 in fees
related to McCue's provision of legal representation for Wadsworth, Rhodes, and Brown,
the Township was charged at least $7,830.00 in fees for McCue's representation of Keefer,
Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the investigations into the 2012 Allegations.
The McCue & Husband invoices dated July 20, 2012, April 19, 2013, and August 5,
2013, were included on bill lists that were presented to the Board for approval at regularly
scheduled legislative meetings. On July 25, 2012, May 29, 2013, and August 28, 2013,
Keefer participated in votes by the Board to approve bill lists which included payments to
McCue & Husband for the legal services provided to Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation
to the investigations into the 2012 Allegations as well as payments for unrelated legal
services and the monthly retainer fee. Keefer did not sign any of the Township checks
Keefer, 14007
��6
issued to McCue & Husband that were associated with payment of the fees charged for
McCue's representation of Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the 2012 Allegations.
McCue acknowledged his representation of Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout at taxpayer
expense in an article titled, "Bullskin Solicitor defends Supervisors," published March 19,
2014, on TribLive. The article documented a statement by McCue that Keefer, Geary, and
Wiltrout agreed to settle the case before the State Ethics Commission rather than burden
taxpayers with more Ie al fees to fight the case. McCue was specifically quoted as stating
that "I told (Supervisors) I felt we could win it in Commonwealth Court, but they did not want
to spend any more taxpayers' money on legal fees."
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we note that the parties have filed
closing statements /briefs in this matter.
The Investigative Division makes the following arguments in its Closing Statement
and Brief: Keefer used the authority of his public office when he voted to approve bill lists
that included invoices from the Township Solicitor for providing legal representation to him
in relation to the 2012 Allegations; the expenses related to such representation were
personal and not the responsibility of the Township; Keefer realized a private pecuniary
benefit in that he did not have to personally pay the Township Solicitor for the legal
representation that was provided to him; in various cases, this Commission has found a
violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act where a public official used the authority of
his or her office to pay for private legal expenses; and this Commission should order
Keefer to pay restitution in the amount of $2,610.00, representing one -third of the
$7,830.00 in Township funds paid to the Township Solicitor for providing legal
representation to Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout in relation to the investigations into the 2012
Allegations, plus a treble penalty in the amount of $7,830.00.
Keefer makes the following arguments in his brief: the Supervisors properly utilized
the Township Solicitor to defend them in connection with the 2012 Allegations because the
Supervisors decisions and actions in setting a monthly vehicle allowance for themselves
as Township roadmasters were suppported by case law, the Second Class Township Code,
and opinions from the Township Solicitor and the Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors; the Supervisors determined that it was in the best interests of the
Township citizens for the Supervisors to accept a negotiated settlement with the
Investigative Division with respect to the 2012 Allegations rather than continue to ex end
taxpayer money in connection with further proceedings before the State Ethics
Commission and an appeal to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; there is no
evidence that the Supervisors were "consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit" for
themselves see, Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011)),
and to the contrary, their actions were taken for the benefit of the Townshp citizens and
were in strict compliance with Pennsylvania law; there is no evidence at any financial
compensation flowing directly to the Supervisors as a result of their decisions and actions;
and this matter should be dismissed with prejudice, with costs, fees, and expenses
assessed against the State Ethics Commission.
Having summarized the relevant facts and arguments of the parties, we preliminarily
note that at the hearing in this matter, Keefer made a Motion to Dismiss based on the
doctrines of res 'udicata and collateral estoppel. Specifically, Keefer asserted that in the
Interlocutory Omer issued October 4, 2013, denying the Motion to Disqualify Counsel filed
in the prior proceedings involving the 2012 Allegations, the Hearing Officer concluded that
it was not a conflict of interest for Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout to be represented by McCue,
as the Township Solicitor, in those proceedings. Contrary to Keefer's assertion, in denying
the Motion to Disqualify Counsel, the Hearing Officer did not address, much less decide,
the issue of whether it would be a conflict of interest under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act for Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout to be represented yb/il c ue, as the Township Solicitor,
a_I_Township expense, in the prior proceedings. Rather, the Hearing Officer concluded, in
pertinent part, that this Commission does not have the statutory jurisdiction to address
Keefer, 14 -007
—ag-e-1 7
conflicts of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to McCue's
conduct as an attorney. Accordingly, we deny Keefer's otion to Dismiss.
We must now determine whether the actions of Keefer violated Section 1103(a) of
the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process requires that we not
depart from the allegations. Penns vs. Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must be based upon clear and convincing proof. 65
Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). Clear and convincing proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of
the precise facts in issue. "' In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91
(19 8) (Citation omitted).
Keefer's prior case involving the 2012 Allegations included, in pertinent part, the
allegation that he and the other two Supervisors set a monthly vehicle allowance for the
Supervisors and for themselves as roadmasters /employees of the Township which was in
opposition to what was set by the Towns Board of Auditors, specifically, reimbursement
at the standard IRS rate for documented hip mileage. Keefer chose to enter into a Consent
Agreement with the Investigative Division, through which Keefer: (1) admitted that he
violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his use of authority of his office as a
Member of the Township Board of Supervisors to set a month/ vehicle allowance for
Members of the Township Board of Supervisors in their capacity as employees of the
Township, which included him as roadmaster; and (2) agreed to make payment in the
amount of $3,000.00 to the Township. This Commission approved the Consent Agreement
of the parties in Order No. 1626.
With regard to the current allegations, Keefer used the authority of his office as a
Supervisor when he, along with Geary and Wiltrout, authorized McCue to represent the
Supervisors as a group in response to the 2012 Allegations. Keefer further used the
authority of his office as a Supervisor when, on July 25, 2012, May. 29, 2013, and August
28, 2013, he participated in votes b the Board to approve bill lists which included
payments to McCue & Husband for the legal services provided to Keefer, Geary, and
Wiltrout in relation to the investigations into the 2012 Allegations. The Township paid a
total amount of at least $7,830.00 for McCue's representation of Keefer, Geary, and
Wiltrout in relation to the investigations into the 2012 Allegations.
We reject Keefer's argument that he properly utilized the Township Solicitor to
represent him at Township expense with regard to the 2012 Allegations. By entering into
the Consent Agreement, Keefer admitted that as a result of using the authority of his office
as a Supervisor, he received compensation that he was not entitled to receive. As a
consequence of Keefer's entering into the Consent Agreement, the necessary conclusion
is that the Township Solicitor's representation of Keefer was personal in nature. Such
representation did not pertain to defending Keefer's conduct in carrying out his official
duties as a Supervisor but rather to defending Keefer's conduct that was an admitted
violation of the Ethics Act. Therefore, Keefer was not entitled to a publicly funded defense
against the 2012 Allegations. Cf., R.H. v. State Ethics Commission, 673 A.2d 1004 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1 996); Roofner's App eaf, 81 Pa. Super. 482 (1923).
We hold that Keefer violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), when he utilized the authority of his office as a Township Supervisor to hire and/or
engage the Township Solicitor to provide legal representation to himself in a matter before
the State Ethics Commission in which he admitted to a violation of the Ethics Act, and
when he voted to authorize payment from To wnshiplpublicfunds to pay invoices from the
Township Solicitor in regard to such representation before the State Ethics Commission.
Cf., Huhn, Order 1054; Cz�zyk, Order 1053; Pekarski, Order 1052; Servis, Order 1051.
Section 11 07(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to order restitution in
instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation
of the Ethics Act.
Keefer, 14 -007
Fa -e-18
We determine that restitution is warranted in the amount of $2,610.00, representing
one -third of the total amount of $7,830.00 in Township funds paid to the Township Solicitor
for providing legal services to Keefer, Geary, and Wiltrout as a group in relation to the
investigations into the 2012 Allegations. Cf., Haaf, Order 914; Sanders, Order 786;
Borland, Order 785. We shall not impose a #reble penalty.
Accordingly, Keefer is ordered to make payment of restitution in the amount of
$2,610.00 pa Ple to Bullskin Township and forwarded to this Commission by no later than
the thirtieth ( 0 } day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Keefer is further directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid
restitution.
Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Supervisor for Bullskin Township ( "Township" ), F=County, from January 2, 2006, through the present Respondent Thomas S. ( "Keefer ") has been a
public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa. C.S. § 1'101 et se q.
2. Keefer violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1103(a), when he
utilized the authority of his office as a Township Supervisor to hire and/or engage
the Township Solicitor to provide legal representation to himself in a matter before
the State Ethics Commission in which he admitted to a violation of the Ethics Act,
and when he voted to authorize payment from Township /public funds to pay
invoices from the Township Solicitor in regard to such representation before the
State Ethics Commission.
In Re: Thomas S. Keefer, File Docket: 14 -007
Respondent Date Decided: 10/19/16
Date Mailed: 10127116
C- 01 A., M ki Cs]W [• '�:3
Thomas S. Keefer ( "Keefer "), as a Supervisor for Bullskin Township "Township "),
Fayette County, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he utilized the authority of his office as a Township
Supervisor to hire and/or engage the Township Solicitor to provide legal
representation to himself in a matter before the State Ethics Commission in which
he admitted to a violation of the Ethics Act, and when he voted to authorize
payment from Townshiplpublic funds to pay invoices from the Township Solicitor in
regard to such representation before the State Ethics Commission.
Keefer is ordered to make payment of restitution in the amount of $2,610.00
payable to Bullskin Township and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 ) day after the mailing date of this
Order.
3. Keefer is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other
payment from the Township representing a full or partial reimbursement of the
aforesaid restitution.
Non - compliance with paragraph 2 or 3 of this Order will result in the institution of an
order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
a
Nicholas A . Colafella, Chair