Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1701 Dick7a SN STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 309 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Kevin Dick, File Docket: 15 -034 Respondent X -ref: Order No. 1701 Date Decided: 10/19/16 Date Mailed: 10/28/16 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 se ., 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. ALLEGATIONS: That Kevin Dick, a public officiallpublic employee in his capacity as a Councilman for Pitcairn Borough, Allegheny County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), 1104(d), and 1105(b)(3)j of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he utilized the authority of his public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council including but not limited to: Respondent authorizing the construction of a new Borough building which would require the Borough's acquisition of certain real estatelreal property owned by Respondent and/or members of Respondent's immediate family; arranging and participating in an appraisal of real estate/real property owned by Respondent and/or Respondent's brother, at the expense of the Borough; authorizing the Borough Solicitor to negotiate a purchase /sale agreement with Respondent's brother for the purchase of real estate/real property by the Borough; serving as a signatory on a Borough check tendered at the time of closing of the Borough's purchase of his brother's real estate/real property; and voting to ratify the Borough's purchase of his brother's property which resulted in a pecuniary benefit to Respondent and /or a member(s) of his immediate family when the Borough ultimately purchased real estate/real property owned by the Respondent and/or a member(s) of Respondent's immediate family. Also, Respondent violated the State Ethics Act when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013, and when he failed to list any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions upon [his] Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar year 2014. P.O. BOX 1 1470, HARRISBURG, PA 17 108-1470 • 717 -783 -1610 • 1- 800 -932 -0936 • www.ethics.state.pa.us Dick, 15 -034 age 2 II. FINDINGS: 1. Kevin Dick served as a Member of Pitcairn Borough [Council] from January 2012 through December 2015. a. Dick served as the Council President from July 2014 to January 2015. b_ Dick had previously served as a Member of Borough Council from January 2006 through December 2009. 2. Pitcairn Borough (hereafter "Borough ") is a borough located in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. a. The population of the Borough was 3,689 as of the 2010 census. 3. The Borough is governed by a seven- Member Council (hereafter, "Council ") and Mayor. a. Council holds regular monthly meetings at the Borough Building on the first (agenda) and second (business) Monday of each month. 1. The business meeting serves as the regular voting meeting. 2. Typically during the summer months, Council only meets once a month and combines the agendas and business meetings. 3. Council holds executive sessions on an as- needed basis. b. Councilmembers receive a monthly salary of $50.00 for their service on Council. 4. Annette Dietz, Borough Manager, audio records Council meetings to assist in generating the meeting minutes. a. The prior month's minutes are included in a meeting packet that is distributed to Council by the Borough Manager. b. Council approves the prior month's meeting minutes at the next regular voting meeting of Council. C. The audio recordings are not maintained after Council's approval of the meeting minutes. 5. Voting at Council meetings occurs either via a roll call or group aye /nay vote depending on the issue at hand. a. The Council President typically calls for, but does not make, a motion to take action on a matter. 1. The Council President may participate in any vote of Council. 6. The Borough Manager is responsible for creating the meeting agenda and compiling a pre - meeting packet for each Councilmember. a. The pre - meeting packet consists of an agenda, the prior month's meeting minutes, correspondences, finance reports, and bill listing. Dick, 15 -034 age 3 b. The pre - meeting packet is delivered to each Councilmember by the Borough police the Friday before the regular meeting of Council. 7. Signature authority over Borough accounts is maintained by the Council President, Vice President, and the Borough Manager. a. Borough checks require the live signature of any two authorized signatories. b. The respective invoice /support documentation accompanies each Borough check to be issued, at the time of signing. 1. it is common practice for the Borough Finance Department to generate checks on various days and have multiple checks signed on the same day by the available authorized signatories. C. Council, as a group, does not regularly review issued checks or the respective invoices /support documentation. 8. Dick was an authorized signatory while serving as Council President in 2014, and remained a signatory after January 2015, primarily due to his availability during normal business hours, as a business owner within the Borough. a. Following Dick's tenure as Council President, Dietz would first attempt to obtain the signature of the President or Vice President before contacting Dick. 9. The Borough's municipal offices and police department are located at 582 6th Street, Pitcairn, PA 15140, in a building (hereafter, "Borough Building ") that was constructed over one hundred years ago. a. The Borough Building is not located within the Borough's main business district which is centered infaround Broadway Boulevard. 1. The Borough Building is located in a separate section of town that is approximately .3 miles from the 500 block of Broadway Boulevard. b. The Borough Building (6'h Street building) is in poor condition. 10. As early as May 2007, Borough officials discussed updating the Borough's Comprehensive Plan (also referred to herein as "Plan "). a. The Borough's first comprehensive plan to address the Borough's vision and initiatives for the future was completed in 1964. b. Council recognized that the 1964 Comprehensive Plan did not reflect the current state of the Borough and its current initiatives. 1. Following the decline of the steel industry in the 1980's, many communities in western Pennsylvania faced changes in tax base and population decline. C. Council established a Comprehensive Plan Task Force Committee to guide development of a new Plan. 1. The Task Force consulted with various boards including: the Planning Commission, County department/agencies and officials, surrounding municipalities, business groups, environmental and civic groups, as well as Federal /State /and regional organizations. Dick, 15 -034 Page 4 d. The development of the updated Plan included three advertised public hearings that were held on April 1st, April 8 , and May 6tn of 2008. e. The updated Plan was completed on or about February 19, 2009, for review by the Planning Commission and later by Council. f. The Planning Commission approved the updated Plan on February 20, 2009. g. Council adopted the updated Plan on March 24, 2009. 11. Dick served as a Councilmember throughout the development, review, and adoption of the updated Plan. a. Dick voted affirmatively in adopting the updated Plan. 12. Chapter VII- Infrastructure & Community Facilities of the updated Plan called forthe construction of a new Borough Building. a. The updated Plan referenced the one hundred thirteen (113) year old existing Borough Building as inadequate for the planning period and that future maintenance and major improvements would be cost prohibitive, therefore, the Plan proposed that the Borough office be moved to the Borough's business district. 13. The updated Plan suggested two options for the location of a new Borough Building: a. Addition of a second floor to the existing Borough's Park Building; or b. Construction of a new facility in the open lot directly south of Brinton Avenue, near the ball field parking lot. 1. Construction of a building in the open lot suggested in the Plan would have occurred adjacent to the site of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Pro ei t [reference to the 'Property" is identified in Fact Finding 15 as referring to the property located at 583 Broadway Boulevard]. 2. Those properties are 583 Broadway Boulevard (owner Daniel Dick), 577579 (owner Debra Coreno), 601 Broadway Boulevard (owner Steven Paul Heckman), and 605 -607 Broadway Boulevard {owner Michael A. and Joyce M. Jacob). C. The Updated Plan also recommended that the Police Station be placed within the new Borough Building. 14. Council was interested in moving the Borough offices at the time the updated Plan was approved, but there were insufficient funds to pursue such a project in 200912010. a. No immediate action was taken in regards to any of the recommendations within the updated Plan, due to a lack of funding. 15. In or about 2010, Kevin Dick became aware that real estate was for sale located at 583 Broadway Boulevard (hereafter, "Property") which was owned by Walter and Katherine Forrest. a. The Forrests owned the Property since approximately 1992. Dick, 15 -034 'age 5 b. K. Forrest became the sole owner of the Property following the death of W. Forrest in the summer of 2012. G. K. Forrest placed the Promo ert for sale by owner shortly after the passing of W. Forrest in July 2012. 1. The Forrests did not utilize the Property as a residence. 16. K. Forrest maintains that several years prior to his death, W. Forrest informed her that the Borough and/or a developer may be interested in purchasing the Pro ert . a. W. Forrest was a Planning Commission Member for a neighboring municipality (Monroeville Borough). 17. Kathy Forrest maintains that sometime between July and October 2012, she placed a "For Sale" sign at the Propeay and was subsequently contacted by Dick about his interest in purchasing it. a. Forrest was aware that Dick was a Borough Councilmember and owner of a business located in the Borough. b. Forrest was not approached by Borough officials about the Borough's interest in possibly acquiring the Property prior to Dick expressing his personal interest in it. C. Dick asserts that K. Forrest initially contacted him in regards to the potential sale of the Pro pert . 18. Forrest and Dick had multiple conversations in negotiating the sale of the Pro ert , which ultimately resulted in Forrest agreeing to accept Dick's $8,000.00 cash o er. a. K. Forrest maintains that while negotiating the sale, she inquired with Dick whether the Borough was interested in purchasing the Property. b. K. Forrest maintains that Dick informed her that a potential Borough purchase of the Proertt would not occur in the foreseeable future; however, Dick did not deny that the Borough may have an interest in purchasing the Property_. 1. The updated Plan suggested the construction of a new Borough Municipal Building in an open lot adjacent to the site of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Property. 2. At the time of Council's approval of the updated Plan, the Borough lacked the funds to construct a new Borough Municipal Building. 3. In 2012 Council had no immediate plans to purchase any of the property necessary to implement the Plan. 19. Forrest's daughter, Stacie, drafted a Seller's Agreement, dated November 9, 2012, memorializing the sale of the Property, from Forrest to Dick with the following payment method: $4,000 down payment and $4,000 at the time of closing. a. Dick and Forrest signed the Seller's Agreement at Forrest's residence in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, on or about November 9, 2012. Dick, 15 -034 Trage 6 b. On November 9, 2012, Dick made payment to Forrest by check for the initial payment of $4,000.00. C. Dick made the secondlfinal payment to Forrest by way of personal /business check in the amount of $4,000. 20. On or by November 21, 2012, Dick arranged to close on the Property, utilizing the Abstracting Company of Independent Settlement Engines title agent Cynthia Bankosh. a. Dick scheduled the closing for the Pro pert to beat his business the morning of December 6, 2012. 21. On or about a week prior to the closing, Dick discussed the purchase of the Pro ert with family members including his wife, Cynthia, and brother, Daniel Dick. a. D. Dick expressed interest in the garages at the Pro ert to use for his auto glass business. b. Dick offered to convey the Property to D. Dick for the same purchase amount Dick had negotiated with Forrest. 1. D. Dick agreed to Dick's offer. 22. On or about the closing date (December 6, 2012) Dick informed Bankosh that D. Dick would be the actual buyer of the Propert . a. Bankosh generated an Addendum to Sales Agreement, dated December 6, 2012, assigning Dick's right, title and interest in the Pro pert to a sales agreement between Forrest and D. Dick. 23. At the closing, Kevin Dick informed Forrest that his brother, Daniel Dick, would be the buyer of the Property. 24. At the closing, D. Dick and Forrest signed the appropriate closing documentation that was provided by Bankosh, including the Addendum to Sales Agreement and Settlement Statement. a. The Settlement Statement lists the amount to be paid to the seller (Forrest) and amount owed by the borrower (D. Dick). 25. The Proert rd's Deed was recorded on December 11, 2012, with the Allegheny County Department of Real Estate. a. The Deed reflects the transfer of ownership for the Prop between Forrest and D. Dick for the sale amount of $8,000. b. The Deed was signed by D. Dick and Forrest, witnessed by Bankosh. 26. D. Dick remitted personal check #2973, dated January 4, 2013, in the amount of $6,000.00 to Kevin Dick for the purchase of the Property. a. The check was endorsed by Kevin Dick and negotiated at S &T Bank on January 4, 2013. b. Kevin Dick maintains that D. Dick paid the balance owed for the sale of the Pro pert to him via cash payment, shortly after the sale. Dick, 15 -034 }sage 7 G. D. Dick utilized the.Property as a rental unit and for his auto glass business. 27. In or about October 2013, Council pursued a Bond, not to exceed $6.5 million, to perform capital projects, specifically for the repair of Center Avenue. a. The Borough had insufficient funds to pursue movin the Borough offices until it secured a bond for capital improvement projects in the fall of 2013. b. Council adopted Ordinance 997 at the October 22, 2013, meeting which read: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOROUGH OF PITCAIRN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, AUTHORIZING THE INCURRING OF NONELECTORAL DEBT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR (1) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS INCLUDING REPLACING CERTAIN BOROUGH BRIDGES AND IMPROVING CERTAIN BOROUGH STREETS; AND CERTAIN OTHER CAPTIAL [sic] PROJECTS OF THE BOROUGH AND (2) PAYING THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, BYTHE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED [6,500,0001; FINDING A SALE BY NEGOTIATION TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE BOROUGH; PROVIDING FOR MATURITIES, INTEREST RATES AND REDEMPTION FEATURES; COVENANTING TO PAY DEBT SERVICE; PLEDGING FULL FAITH, CREDIT AND TAXING POWER FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE BONDS; APPOINTING A PAYING AGENT, REGISTRAR AND SINKING FUND DEPOSITORY; ESTABLISHING A SINKING FUND; APPROPRIATING THE BOND PROCEEDS; ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL; RATIFYING PRIOR ADVERTISEMENT AND DIRECTING FURTHER ADVERTISEMENT; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF EXPENSES; RATIFYING THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE OPENING OF A CLEARING FUND; ADOPTING A FORM OF BOND; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT; AND REPEALING INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES. c. Dick was present at the meeting and voted affirmatively in the unanimous vote to adopt the Ordinance. 28. Throughout 2013 and 2014, Council discussed and pursued multiple capital projects that would be financed through the Bond. a. Two lists of projects were developed including bridge replacements, paving programs, street repairs, and relocating the Borough Building. b. The project to move the Borough offices was one of the lowest priorities on the list 29. In 2014, Council discussed repairs to the Borough Municipal Building and/or possible locations to move the Borough offices, after numerous other higher priority capital projects financed through the Bond had either begun or were completed. 30. On or by February 2014, Council had requested roof repair estimates for the Borough Building from the Borough Engineer, the EADS Group. a. The estimates provided by the EADS Group were costly, leading Council to seriously consider the option of moving the Borough offices to a new location. 31. At the April 7, 2014, regular meeting of Council, repairs to the Borough Building in addition to the issues with the buildings roof were discussed. a. Kevin Dick was present for the meeting and participated in the discussions concerning repairing the Borough Building's roof. b. Dick conveyed no particular position as to whether the Borough should repair the roof, or consider the other option of relocating the Borough offices. Dick, 15 -034 Page 8 32. Council unanimously appointed Kevin Dick Council President at its July 14, 2014, meeting. a. Councilman John Prucnal resigned from the Council President position creating the vacancy. 33. Between 2013 and September 2014, D. Dick was contacted /made aware of at least two individuals who were interested in purchasing the Property. a. The interested individuals made verbal offers to purchase the Property, but did not submit any written offers. b. D. Dick rejected each offer without any sales agreements being placed on the Property. C. D. Dick had not been advertising the Property for sale but would entertain offers. 34. Daniel Dick has maintained that prior to September 2014, Kevin Dick recommended that D. Dick delay sale of the Property due to the Borough's interest in purchasing it, in order to construct the new Borough Building. a. Kevin Dick did not inform D. Dick of a potential timeframe of when the Borough might seek to purchase the Property. b. Kevin Dick did not disclose to his brother the amount the Borough would be willing to expend in buying the Property. C. D. Dick was informed of the Borough's potential purchase after having already rejected offers to purchase the Property. 1. None of the offers for the Property were formalized into sales agreements. d. Prior to September 2014, the Borough had not determined to purchase the Property, a potential time for purchase of the Property, nor the amount the Borough might be willing to expend for such purchase. 35. A dispute between Kevin Dick and D. Dick culminated with Kevin Dick filing a landlord /tenant complaint against D. Dick with Magisterial District Judge Jeffrey L. Herbst, on September 10, 2014. a. D. Dick had been a tenant at Kevin Dick's 416 Agatha Drive property since at least 2013. b. The complaint alleged that D. Dick owed Kevin Dick a total of $5,760.00 in unpaid rent. 1. The complaint listed the monthly rent as $640.00. 36. On September 24, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., a hearing was held before He in response to Kevin Dick's complaint of September 10, 2014. a. The hearing resulted in a default judgment against D. Dick in the amount of $6,599.10. Dick, 15 -034 i a e9 1. The judgment registered a $189.10 filing fee and rent in arrears of $6,410.00. b. The judgment was entered in the County Court of Common Pleas by Dick on or around November 6, 2014. C, D. Dick did not satisfy the judgment at that time. 37. On or by September 23, 2014, at the request of Council, the Borough Engineers (The EADS Group) prepared a site plan layout and floor plan for a potential addition to the Borough -owned Park Building, located at 557 Broadway Boulevard. a. The addition was in consideration of relocating the Borough Offices to the Park Building. 1. The Park Building is used as the Borough's special event/social hall. 2. The Park Buildingg is adjacent to the four Broadway Boulevard properties, where tale updated Plan had suggested the construction of a Borough Building. b. Additional plans for the Park Building were prepared on or by November 24, 2014. 38. On or by the fall of 2014, Council explored the possibility of constructing a new Borough Building on Broadway Boulevard after confirming that repairs to the existing Borough Building, or an addition to the Park Building, were cost prohibitive. a. Council debated construction of a building adjacent to the existing Park Building, thereby creating a municipal complex with the fire department and baseball fields located in the same area. 39. At the October 6, 2014, Council meeting, Kevin Dick announced that Council was considering an addition to the Park Building and relocation of the Borough Building. a. Later in the meeting, private citizen Tom Dick (Dick's brother) discussed the F 0ppossibility of constructing a new Borough Building by constructing an addition the Fire Hall and leasing the land. 1. Tom Dick is affiliated with Pitcairn Volunteer Fire Station #229. b. Tom Dick also suggested an addition to the Park Building, and razing the four houses located to the left of the Park Building (the four Broadway Boulevard properties). C. Councilman Jack Bova interjected in the discussion, noted that money from the municipal bond had been saved to be used for capital projects, and suggested that the Borough invest in the improvement of the Park Building and its surrounding area. d. Relocation of the Borough Building was also discussed during the October 13, 2014, Council meeting. 40. On or by November 2014, Kevin Dick took part in Council discussions to arrange for appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Pro pert owned by D. Dick. Dick, 15 -034 7a--g—e 10 a. Council planned to use the appraisals as a baseline for future negotiations with the property owners. b. Council agreed for Dick, as Council President, to arrange the appraisals. 41. On or about November 10, 2014, Kevin Dick contacted the Pittsburgh based appraisal company Barone & Sons, Inc. to schedule appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Pro pert owned by D. Dick. a. Kevin Dick was the Borough point -of- contact for Barone & Sons. 1. The Barone & Sons order forms listed client contact information as Dick's cell phone and a private (non- Borough) email address. b. The appraisal was assigned to Al Barone, who subsequently contacted Kevin Dick to schedule the appraisals for the morning of November 13, 2014. 42. On the morning of November 13, 2014, Barone met Councilman Ray Crothers and Kevin Dick to conduct the appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. a. Barone performed exterior inspections for the Property and adjacent properties 577 -579 and 605 -607 Broadway Boulevard. b. Barone has stated that Kevin Dick made no effort to influence his appraisial of the Property. 43. The a praisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties were provided to the Borough on or about November 20, 2014. a. Barone & Sons routinely submit appraisals by mail, fax, or email. b. The delivery method of the appraisals could not be determined. 44. The appraisal reports documented the following information for the four Broadway Boulevard properties: 45. The appraisal for the PropeAy Property reported information regarding the interior as having been provided from an unidentified Borough official who described the interior as being In poor condition, as listed below: Comments on the improvements: Based on an exterior inspection only and information regarding the interior of dwelling provided by a borough official the subject appears to be an older single family dwelling converted to two family use in poor condition. External obsolescence was considered for mixed land use and heavy traffic flow Tong Broadway. Appraisal is made subject to the following: This appraisal is made based on an exterior inspection and information regarding the interior of dwelling provided by a borough official. If physical features of the interior of property are not as assumed than the estimated market value will require adjustment accordingly. a. The unidentified Borough official noted in the report was determined to be Borough Building Inspector Lucas Parks. rarse,_ I.A ue 583 Broadwa Blvd. D, Dick 20 000 605 -607 Broa wa R v Mich ae o ce acob 45 000 60 Broa wa B v .* Pau ec man $2,-).000 577 -579 roa w MArin P. De ra CF7 0 000 45. The appraisal for the PropeAy Property reported information regarding the interior as having been provided from an unidentified Borough official who described the interior as being In poor condition, as listed below: Comments on the improvements: Based on an exterior inspection only and information regarding the interior of dwelling provided by a borough official the subject appears to be an older single family dwelling converted to two family use in poor condition. External obsolescence was considered for mixed land use and heavy traffic flow Tong Broadway. Appraisal is made subject to the following: This appraisal is made based on an exterior inspection and information regarding the interior of dwelling provided by a borough official. If physical features of the interior of property are not as assumed than the estimated market value will require adjustment accordingly. a. The unidentified Borough official noted in the report was determined to be Borough Building Inspector Lucas Parks. Dick, 15 -034 P-a—ge 11 b. Parks had specific knowledge of the Property's interior condition, due to his Borough position as Building; lnspector. 46. Barone & Sons forwarded four invoices to Kevin Dick for the respective appraisals, totaling $1,500. a. Invoice #14113567, dated November 20, 2014, billed the total amount of $400 to Dick for the appraisals of the Property. 1. The invoices were sent to Dick's attention, who then forwarded the invoices to the Borough for payment. 47. The Borough issued Barone & Sons check #16068, dated December 30, 2014, in the amount of $1,500.00 as payment for the appraisals performed. a. $400.00 of the $1,500.00 amount was attributable to the appraisal performed at the Property (invoice #14113567). b. Check #16068 was reflected on the monthly bill listing approved at the December 18, 2014, Council meeting. 1. The bill listing'was unanimously approved by Council, with Dick voting affirmatively on the action. C. The check was signed by Dietz and Councilman John Prucnal as authorized Borough signatories. 48. By January 2014 [sic], Council directed Solicitor Craig Alexander to arrange meetings with the four Broadway Boulevard property owners to explain the Borough's interest in buying their properties in order to construct a new Borough Building. a. Kevin Dick was not involved with the contact or scheduling of the meetings with the property owners. 49. Alexander mailed fetters, dated January 7, 2015, to the four property owners indicating the Borough's interest in constructing a Borough Building and that one of the sites under consideration was the respective property owner. a. The letter invited the property owners to an executive session to be held at the Borough Building on January 12, 2015 (immediately prior to the regularly scheduled January Council meeting). b. Each property owner was scheduled at a separate time, as listed below: C. The meeting was to discuss values of the respective properties and the possibility of entering into sales agreements for the same. d. The letters were signed by Alexander and copied to Dietz. 50. On or by the January 12, 2015, meetings, Dietz provided the appraisals to each Council Member. rc► ert n_eo Daniel DICK a = 583 broadwav Blvd. m '. 5:00 m j c h i e aco 605 -607 roa wa v 5:20 m Debra oreno 577-579 Broadway Blvd. 5:40 pm Leven ec man 601 Broadway Blvd. 6:00 m C. The meeting was to discuss values of the respective properties and the possibility of entering into sales agreements for the same. d. The letters were signed by Alexander and copied to Dietz. 50. On or by the January 12, 2015, meetings, Dietz provided the appraisals to each Council Member. Dick, 15034 -Wage 12 51. In preparation for the purchase /sales negotiations, Alexander added $4,000.00 to each appraised value as the Borough's initial purchase offer. a. Alexander added the amount due to the fact that each property owner would have been entitled by law to $4,000.00 should the Borough pursue the property through eminent domain. See, 26 Pa. C.S. § 710(a). 52. Dietz researched outstanding electric /cable /garbage bills, as well as delinquent taxes, for all owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties] prior to the January 12, 2015, meetings. a. Dietz researched D. Dick's outstanding electric /cable /garbage bills and delinquent taxes immediately prior to the 5:00 p.m. meeting with D. Dick. b. Dietz confirmed that D. Dick had an outstanding balance of at least $7,029.45 concerning multiple accounts he held with the Borough. 53. On January 12, 2015, at approximately 5:00 p.m., D. Dick met with Council, the Mayor (Betty Stevick), the Solicitor (Alexander }, and the Borough Manager (Dietz) in the Borough Manager's office to discuss the Borough's interest in purchasing the Pro pert . a. Kevin Dick was not present during the meeting but remained in the hallway outside of the office until the meeting was completed. 54. During the meeting, the Borough representatives expressed their desire to D. Dick concerning purchase of the Propert . a. D. Dick was receptive to selling the Property to the Borough, but no agreement as to the final sale price was reached during the meeting. b. The Borough representatives offered to include forgiveness of D. Dick's unpaid electric /cable /garbage bills ($8,816.00) and delinquent taxes f$3,217.00) amounting to approximately $12,033.00 of total orgiveness /credit. C. The Borough representatives provided a copy of the 583 Broadway Boulevard appraisal to D. Dick during the meeting. 1. The Borough representatives used the $20,000.00 appraisal for the Properly Prope!ly as a baseline for negotiations with D. Dick. 55. The meeting adjourned between D. Dick and the Borough representatives with a tentative sale price for the Property of $25,000.00 [plus] an additional forgiveness of D. Dick's unpaid electric cable garbage bills and delinquent taxes totaling approximately $12,033.00. a. D. Dick was receptive to the offer, but no sales agreement was finalized during the meeting. 56. Kevin Dick attended the meetings with the remaining Broadway Boulevard property owners following the meeting held with his brother, D. Dick. a. There were no sales agreements reached at the conclusion of the meetings with any of the property owners. Dick, 15 -034 Page 13 57. Council unanimously accepted Kevin Dick's resignation as Council President at the January 12, 2015, regular Council meeting that immediately followed the meetings with the Broadway Boulevard property owners. a. Kevin Dick resigned for personal reasons that were unrelated to the Borough's interests in purchasing D. Dick's Pro erk . b. Councilman Jack Bova was appointed Council President following Dick's resignation from the position. 58. Between the January and February 2015 Council meetings, Kevin Dick informed Bova that he had a judgment against D. Dick. a. No other Councilmembers were aware of the judgment during the negotiation period with D. Dick. 1. Councilman Ray Crothers learned of the judgment on or about the time of closing, after having reviewed the closing documentation. b. Bova contacted Alexander about the judggment, who informed Bova that the Judgment was a non -issue with Kevin nick voting on matters pertaining to the Pro ert . C. Bova and Kevin Dick discussed and agreed that Kevin Dick should continue to vote on matters pertaining to acquiring the Pro pert . d. Bova and Kevin Dick did not discuss the matter with Council. 59. Dietz and Alexander were in contact with Bankosh to perform title searches on the four Broadway Boulevard properties with the expectation of purchasing /closing on the properties. a. Kevin Dick had recommended Bankosh to the Borough. b. Kevin Dick was not involved in contacting Bankosh in relation to the title searches. 60. On or about January 15, 2015, Bankosh forwarded a letter to Dietz indicating D. Dick had unpaid County taxes from 2013, in the amount of $164.09, and 2014, in the amount of $190.88. a. The correspondence indicates the following were required for closing: • Written payoff for judgments by Borough; • Written payoff for judgments by HIBU Inc.; • Written payoff for judgments by Gateway School District; • Written payoff for judgments by Kevin Dick; and • Written payoff for judgments by CAB Vending LLC. 61. Negotiations continued after the January 15, 2015, meeting between Borough officials and the four Broadway Boulevard property owners. a. The primary negotiators for the Borough were Alexander and Dietz. 1. Councilmembers were not involved in the negotiations following the January 12, 2015, meetings. Dick, 15 -034 Tag-e 14 aa. Kevin Dick was not involved in negotiations between the Borough and the property owners after attending the January 12, 2015, meetings with property owners Coreno, Heckman, and Jacob. 62. Council Members were updated about the negotiations by Alexander and Dietz via email and during subsequent Council meetings. a. On February 2, 2015, at 3:32 p.m., Alexander emailed Dietz and Council, including Kevin Dick, draft sales agreements for the four Broadway Boulevard properties. b. The email listed the proposed offers with the respective property owners [as follows]: 63. At the February 2, 2015, Council meeting, Bova announced that over the past several meetings Council considered numerous ideas for a new Borough Building, including an addition to the Park Building, but after review the plan was cost prohibitive. a. Council took no official action at the meeting to acquire the four Broadway Boulevard properties. b. Dick was not present at the meeting. 64. On or by the February 9, 2015, Borough meeting, Council was in agreement to authorize Alexander to move forward in finalizing arrangements for the Borough to acquire the four Broadway Boulevard properties. a. At the meeting Prucnal motioned, seconded by Kevin Dick, to authorize Alexander to finalize arrangements to urchase the four houses on Broadway Boulevard next to the Park Building. 1. The motion carried unanimously with Kevin Dick voting affirmatively. b. Dick did not seek advice from the Solicitor at the time of the motion whether he should vote on the motion since one of the properties was owned by his brother. C. After the motion, Bova commented that the Borough was negotiating with the property owners to demolish the structures in order to construct a new Borough Building. 65. The Borough received a subsequent letter from Banlosh dated February 17, 2015, providing Title Reports for the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which listed several judgments against the Property owned by D. Dick. a. The letter indicated that written payoffs for all judgments must be obtained so that they may be paid in full and satisfied as of record. b. The letter requested sales agreements for each property, along with contact information for each seller, in order to contact them regarding the required written payoffs. Heckman --$-350- 0 Jacob 85 000 pic 24 000 us waiver o outstay: �n e ectrc c ar es areno 95,000 *I ave not gotten them to commit to this num umber yet. They are still at $100k. 63. At the February 2, 2015, Council meeting, Bova announced that over the past several meetings Council considered numerous ideas for a new Borough Building, including an addition to the Park Building, but after review the plan was cost prohibitive. a. Council took no official action at the meeting to acquire the four Broadway Boulevard properties. b. Dick was not present at the meeting. 64. On or by the February 9, 2015, Borough meeting, Council was in agreement to authorize Alexander to move forward in finalizing arrangements for the Borough to acquire the four Broadway Boulevard properties. a. At the meeting Prucnal motioned, seconded by Kevin Dick, to authorize Alexander to finalize arrangements to urchase the four houses on Broadway Boulevard next to the Park Building. 1. The motion carried unanimously with Kevin Dick voting affirmatively. b. Dick did not seek advice from the Solicitor at the time of the motion whether he should vote on the motion since one of the properties was owned by his brother. C. After the motion, Bova commented that the Borough was negotiating with the property owners to demolish the structures in order to construct a new Borough Building. 65. The Borough received a subsequent letter from Banlosh dated February 17, 2015, providing Title Reports for the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which listed several judgments against the Property owned by D. Dick. a. The letter indicated that written payoffs for all judgments must be obtained so that they may be paid in full and satisfied as of record. b. The letter requested sales agreements for each property, along with contact information for each seller, in order to contact them regarding the required written payoffs. Dick, 15 -034 Page 15 G. The title report reflected D. Dick had unpaid child support, which was to be paid in full at the time of closing. 66. On March 18, 2015, at 2:15 p.m., Alexander emailed Dietz a blank copy of the Sales Agreement for the Property owned by D. Dick. a. The Sales Agreement reflected the Borough's offer to purchase the Pro ert for the sum of $24,000.00, with $1,000.00 earnest money due at signing of the Agreement. 1. The balance of $23,000.00 was due upon delivery of the Deed. b. The Sales Agreement reflected the Borough was to waive, and mark zero, any outstanding electric charges and delinquencies at 583 Broadway Boulevard, 911 Jewel Way, 1328 Avenue, and 400 Second Street, all properties owned by D. Dick. 1. D. Dick maintained separate accounts for each of the properties. 67. The Sales Agreement, dated March 20, 2015, was presented to, and executed by, D. Dick at the Borough Manager's Office. a. The Agreement documented the sale of the property to the Borough in the amount of $24,000.00 with a $1,000.00 earnest money deposit. b. The Sales Agreement was signed by Bova and Dietz on behalf of the Borough. C. Kevin Dick did not participate in the negotiation of the sales agreement for his brother's Pro ert . 68. Dietz issued D. Dick Borough check #16344, in the amount of $1,000.00, as [earnest] money for the Property at the time of signing the Sales Agreement (March 20, 2015). a. The check was mistakenly dated December 31, 2014, due to human error from being inputted incorrectly in the Borough's QuickBooks program. The check was generated on or about March 20, 2015. b. The check was signed by Bova and Dietz as authorized Borough signatories. C. The check was negotiated March 23, 2015. 69. Borough check #16344 was not listed on any monthly bill listing approved by Council. a. The February 9, 2015, Council motion authorized Alexander to finalize arrangements on the four Broadway Boulevard properties. 1. The February 9, 2015, motion was the vehicle utilized to authorize the money in earnest checks to be issued without requiring a separate vote by Council to authorize the issuance of separate./individual checks. b. Kevin Dick seconded the motion and voted [in favor of] the February 9, 2015, motion. Dick, 15 -034 F e 16 70. On or about March 23, 2015, in accordance with the Sales Agreement, the Borough eliminated the total amount of $9,026.32 in unpaid charges from multiple accounts under the name of D. Dick and D & D Enterprises, Inc. a. On or about October 18, 2007, D & D Enterprises, Inc. was created by D. Dick's brother, Duane Dick. 1. Department of State - Corporations Bureau records list D. Dick as the company's Vice President. 71. The closing for the Prop occurred on May 15, 2015, at the Borough Manager's Office. a. D. Dick, Dietz, and Bankosh were present during the closing. b. D. Dick signed the appropriate closing documentation as the Seller. C. Dietz signed the appropriate closing documentation as the Borrower. 72. Dietz issued Bankosh Borough check #16502, dated May 15, 2015, in the amount of $25,327.00 for the closing of sale for the Pro pert . a. The check was signed by Kevin Dick and Dietz as authorized Borough signatories. 1. Kevin Dick signed the check since neither the Council President nor the Vice President was available. aa. Dick maintained signature authority over Borough checks after he resigned as Council President, due to his availability. 2. Kevin Dick was not present at the Borough office for the closing. b. Bankosh was issued the settlement check in order to satisfy the liens /judgments against D. Dick, 73. Bankosh distributed checks to the appropriate individuals /entities to satisfy liens, judgments, etc., as filed. a. Bankosh personally furnished Kevin Dick with check #24497, in the amount of $6,599.10 through her business account. 1. This amount represented satisfaction of the judgment/lien held by Dick against D. Dick. b. Bankosh personally furnished D. Dick with check #24496, in the amount of $1,541.46 through her business account. 1. This represented proceeds from the sale of the property after all judgments /liens, not otherwise forgiven, were satisfied. 74. Bankosh obtained Kevin Dick's signature for the ,Judgment Satisfaction document at the time she provided Dick with check #24497. a. Bankosh filed the Satisfaction document with the County on behalf of Kevin Dick. Dick, 15 -034 image 17 b. Allegheny County Court records reflect the Satisfaction was filed on or by July 27, 2015, 75. Allegheny County Department of Real Estate recorded the Deed for the Pro ert , Document No. 2015. 14025, on May 20, 2015. a. The Deed documented the sale of the Property from D. Dick to the Borough. 76, The Borough finalized sales agreements with all four Broadway Boulevard property owners between March and July 2015. a. The negotiations were primarily done by Alexander with Dietz's assistance. b. Each property was acquired at an amount above the Appraised value and County Fair Market Value, (with exception of the Pro ert) as reflected in the chart below: :orena r ►ic 583 eckman aco 6C *$25k cash, $8816 waived cable TV and other bills ** * *[Cf., Fact Finding 70.1 C. The Property was purchased by the Borough for less than the $35,000 Fair Market Value assessed by Allegheny County. 77. Two of the four Broadway Boulevard property owners had outstanding cable/electric /garbage balances zeroed at the time of closing, in addition to D. Dick. a. Property owners Coreno and Jacob paid their outstanding balances from the proceeds received from the sale of their property to the Borough at the time of closing. b. D. Dick's debt was not paid from the funds received from the Borough, but rather was forgiven at the time of closing by the Borough, in addition to the negotiated purchase price. 1. Alexander wrote the debt relief into the Sales Agreement between D. Dick and the Borough. 78. At Council's August 10, 2015, regular meeting, Alexander announced that an Executive Session was held before the meeting to discuss real estate, personnel and possible litigation. a_ Alexander reported that the Tribune Review published an article that Council had not ratified the acquisitions of two of the Broadway Boulevard properties. 1. The July 22, 2015, Tribune Review article `Intended Demolition of Homes Draws Questions in Pitcairn' questioned if Council's purchase of the Broadway Boulevard properties violated the Sunshine Act, due to a lack of a public vote for the acquisitions. Dick, 15 -034 age 18 b. Alexander declared that he disagreed with the article, in that Council voted to authorize him to negotiate for the purchase of the properties from the owners during the February 2015 meeting. C. Alexander suggested a motion to ratify the sales agreements and acquisitions of 601 and 583 Broadway Boulevard, to approve the safes agreements for 605 -607 and 577 -579 Broadway Boulevard, and to proceed with closing and demolition. 79. Following Alexander's comments, Councilman Crothers motioned, seconded by Councilwoman Lorraine Myers, to ratify the sales agreements and acquisitions of 601 and 583 Broadway Boulevard; to approve the sales agreements for 605 -607 and 577 -579 Broadway Boulevard; and to proceed with closing and demolition. a. A roll call vote carried the motion unanimously. b. Kevin Dick presided over the meeting as the acting President and voted affirmatively on the motion. 1. Dick acted as the Council President during the meeting since President Jack Bova and Vice President John Prucnal were absent due to vacation. 80. Kevin Dick failed to publicly disclose his familial relationship with D. Dick at the time Borough officials were actively negotiating with D. Dick to acquire D. Dick's Pro pert . a. During the negotiations Borough representatives were fully aware of Dick's familial relationship with D. Dick. 81. Dick pursued a judgment against D. Dick at a time Council was considering the acquisition of the Pro ert . a. Council was unaware that the acquisition of the Prop would result in the satisfaction of any judgments /liens. b. Kevin Dick did not ppublicly announce or inform Council that he had filed a udgment against D. Dick during any point of the negotiations for the �ro ert . 1. Kevin Dick informed Bova in a private conversation about the judgment. 82. Kevin Dick actively participated in Council discussions and actions regarding the purchase of the properties, which included a property owned by D. Dick, a member of his immediate family. a. Kevin Dick arranged and was present for the appraisal of the Pro ert , which would be the basis of the Borough's purchase price offer. b. Kevin Dick voted affirmatively at the February 2015 meeting to authorize the Solicitor to make arrangements to finalize sales agreements with the Broadway Boulevard property owners. C. Kevin Dick signed Borough check #16502, in the amount of $25,327.00, representing payment to acquire the Propel. Dick, 15 -034 Tage 19 d. Kevin Dick voted affirmatively at the August 2015 meeting to ratify the sales agreement and acquisition of the Property_ and 601 Broadway Boulevard. 83. Kevin Dick provided a voluntary interview with representatives from the Investigative Division on December 17, 2015, providing the following statements: a. Most of the tenants utilizing Dick's rental properties have a family relation; b. Dick claimed to have received the Borough Comprehensive Plan but had not read the report in detail, nor did Dick have any specific recollection of the Plan suggesting the Borough construct a new Borough office south of Brinton Avenue on Broadway Boulevard. C. Dick learned the Property was for sale from a local business owner. d. Dick did not recall Forrest inquiring whether the Borough had interest in purchasing the Property. e. Dick's wife was unreceptive to Dick's purchase of the Pro ert , which factored in to Dick offering the Property to his brother, D. Dick, to purchase. f. D. Dick had expressed interest in the two -car garage located on the Property, which also factored in to Dick asking D. Dick to purchase the Pro ert . g. Dick had no knowledge that the Borough was, or would be, interested in purchasingg the Pro ert at the time Dick arranged the closing in 20'12 E D. Dick and Forrest. h. Council began exploring other capital projects after it was determined there would be remaining funds available from the 2013 Capital Projects Bond; those projects included several options to move the Borough offices before concentrating on constructing a new building on Broadway Boulevard. L Dick was supportive of constructing a new Borough office on Broadway Boulevard where the four respective properties stood or at a minimum have the Borough acquire the properties for blight removal. j. Dick had no discussion with D. Dick about Council's pursuit to acquire his P�ropert , nor did he inform D. Dick to forego selling the Property_ due to the Borough's interest in its possible acquisition. k. In 2014 Dick was seeking to evict D. Dick due to over a years' worth of unpaid rent, which resulted in Dick filing a judgment against D. Dick for the unpaid rent after unsuccessful attempts to remove D. Dick from his 416 Agatha Street property. I. Alexander recommended the Borough have appraisals done of the Broadway Boulevard properties prior to negotiating with the property owners, but that Dick contacted p and arranged the a raisals of the Broadway Boulevard properties since no Borough official took the initiative to make such arrangements. m. Dick denied providing the appraiser access to the Pro pert �r, information as to the interior [of the dwelling at] the Pro ert , nor inform the property owners that appraisals were taking place. Dick, 15 -034 a--ge 20 n. Dick chose to not attend the January 12, 2015, meeting between Borough officials and D. Dick, so that Dick would not influence any of the negotiations for the Property between the Borough and D. Dick. o. Alexander informed Dick that it was permissible for him to attend the January 12, 2015, meeting with D. Dick, but Dick did not attend due to his contentious relationship with D. Dick. P. Dick was present and participated in Council discussion directly after the January 12, 2015, meetings, but Dick did not recall specifics about the discussion. q. Dick was present during Council discussions involving debt relief to D. Dick as part of the negotiation for the Pro ert . r. Dick claimed that Alexander kept Council abreast of the negotiations with the property owners, however, Dick did not attempt to influence Alexander about the negotiations with D. Dick and the Pro pert S. Dick voted affirmatively on Council's February 9, 2015, motion and did not consider any possible conflict -of- interest for his action. 1. Dick furthermore acknowledged that he now understands that he should have abstained from the vote. t. Dick claimed signing numerous Borough checks in May 2015, including check #16502. 1. At the time Dick signed the checks, Dick asked Alexander, who was present, whether he should sign check #16502 and that Alexander told him it was permissible. u. At some point during the Borough's negotiation process with the property owners, Dick informed Alexander about the judgment he had against D. Dick and that Alexander did not advise him to abstain from any actions pertaining to the Borough's acquisition of the Pro ert . V. Dick presided over the August 10, 2015, Council meeting as President since the President and Vice President were on vacation. During the meeting Alexander raised the topics of concerns about the Borough's process in acquiring the Broadway Boulevard properties, to which Alexander suggested Council vote to approve the safes of each property. 2. Dick was unaware of the motion, but admitted he voted affirmatively on the action without thought of a potential conflict -of- interest. 3. Dick did not seek an opinion as to whether he should vote on the matter, nor was he advised to abstain from the vote. W. Dick was embarrassed about his udgment against D. Dick, therefore he (Dick) did not inform Council about the judgment. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS PERTAIN TO THE ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS. Dick, 15 -034 ai�ge 21 84. Section 1104(a) of the State Ethics Act sets forth that each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year with the Commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such position and of the year after he leaves such position. a. Dick was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") for calendar years 2011 through 2014 as a Councilmember of Pitcairn Borough. 85. On August 31, 2015, a Statement of Financial Interests compliance review was conducted at the Pitcairn Borough Municipal Building. a. No SFIs for Dick were located at the Borough Building for calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. 86. Block 8 [of the SFI form] requires the disclosure of any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth or]1 any of its agencies or political subdivisions[; such disclosure was required in Block 8 of SFIs] filed for calendar year 2014. a. Block 8 on Dick's 2014 calendar year SFI, dated May 1, 2014, was blank. b. Kevin Dick did not own any reportable real estate interest to list on the SFI for 2014; however, he did not check the "None " box in Section 8 of the form as required to file a complete form. 87. Section 1104(d) of the State Ethics Act sets forth 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 helshe has filed a Statement of Financial Interests as required by the Act. a. Dick received compensation totaling $2,400.00 from public monies of the Boron h through his position as a Councilmember during 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2115, as detailed below: 88. On January 8, 2016, Kevin Dick filed amended SFIs for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. a. There were no deficiencies present on Dick's amended SFIs for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Dick, 15 -034 age 22 Ill. DISCUSSION: As a Councilman for Pitcairn Borough ( "Borough "J, Allegheny County, from January 2006 through December 2009 and from January 012 through December 2015, Respondent Kevin Dick, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Dick," and "Dick," 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 Respondent Dick violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), 1104(d), and 1105(b)(3) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Borough Councilman: (1) Utilized the authority of his public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council including but not limited to: (a) authorizing the construction of a new Borough building which would require the Borough's acquisition of certain real estatelreal property owned by Respondent and/or members of Respondents immediate family; (b) arranging and participating in an appraisal of real estatelreal property owned by Respondent and/or Respondent's brother, at the expense of the Borough; (c) authorizing the Borough Solicitor to negotiate a purchase /sale agreement with Respondent's brother for the purchase of real estatelreal property by the Borough; (d) servin g as a signatory on a Borough check tendered at the time of closing of the Borough's purchase of his brother's real estatelreal property; and (e) voting to ratify the Borough's purchase of his brother's property which resulted in a pecuniary benefit to Respondent and/or a member(s) of his immediate family when the Borough ultimately purchased real estatelreal property owned by the Respondent and/or a member(s) of Respondent's immediate family; and (2) Failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013, and when he failed to list any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions upon an SR filed for calendar year 2014. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. --No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family Dick, 15 -034 'age 23 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 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public officiallpublic 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 a Statement of Financial Interests as required by the Ethics Act. Section 1105(b)(3) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the Statement of Financial Interests any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to or purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions, or which was the subject of any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth or any of its agencies or political subdivisions. 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 served as a Member of Borough Council ( "Council ") from January 2006 through December 2009 and from January 2012 through December 2015. Respondent served as Council President from July 2014 to January 2015. Council consists of seven Members. Councilmembers receive a monthly salary of $50.00 for their service on Council. Signature authority over Borough accounts is maintained by the Council President and Vice President and by Borough Manager Annette Dietz ( "Dietz "). Borough checks require the live signature of any two authorized signatories. Respondent was an authorized signatory for Borough accounts while serving as Council President in 2014, and he remained a signatory after January 2015 primarily due to his availability during normal business hours. On March 24, 2009, Council approved an updated Comprehensive Plan which called for replacing the Borough office building ( "Borough Building ") either through the addition of a second floor to the Borough -owned "Park Building, located at 557 Broadway Boulevard or the construction of a new facility adjacent to what are collectively referred to herein as 'the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Respondent voted affirmatively to adopt the updated Comprehensive Plan. Dick, 15 -034 rage 24 The four Broadway Boulevard properties included the following (1) 583 Broadway Boulevard, which in 2009 was owned by Walter and Katherine Forrest; 2) 577 -579 Broadway Boulevard, owned b Debra Coreno; (3) 601 Broadway Boulevard, owned by Steven Paul Heckman; and (4� 605 -607 Broadway Boulevard, owned by Michael A. & Joyce M. Jacob. No immediate action was taken as to any of the recommendations within the updated Comprehensive Plan, due to a lack of funding. In November 2012, Respondent entered into an aggreement to purchase the proerty located at 583 Broadway Boulevard, also referred to herein as the "Property,' for $8,000.00. Prior to the scheduled closing date, Respondent's brother, Daniel Dlck ( "D. Dick"), expressed interest in the garages at the Pro ert . Respondent offered to convey the P�ropertt to D. Dick for the same purchase amount Respondent had negotiated with the seller, and D. Dick agreed to Res ondent's offer. On December 6, 2012, the Pro a was sold to D. Dick for the amount of 8,000.00. Per the Stipulated Findings, Resppondent paid m the sale price to the seller and was later reimbursed (at least part } by D. Dick. . Approximately ten months later, on October 22, 2013, Council approved an Ordinance authorizing the Borough to incur debt through a bond for capital improvement pro'ects. Respondent participated in the unanimous vote of Council to adopt the aforesaid Ordinance. In or by February 2014, Council had requested roof repair estimates for the Borough Building from the Borough Engineer. The estimates were costly, leading Council to seriously consider the option of moving the Borough offices to a new location. At the April 7, 2014, regular meeting of Council, Council discussed repairs to the Borough Building in addition to issues with the building's roof. Respondent participated in the discussions concerning repairing the Borough Building's roof but conveyed no particular position as to whether the Borough should repair the roof or consider the other option of relocating the Borough offices. On July 14, 2014, Respondent was appointed Council President. [n September 2014 Respondent filed a landlord /tenant complaint against D. Dick for unpaid rent. Respondent secured a default judgment against D. Dick in the amount of $6,599.10, which included unpaid rent of $6,410.00 and a $189.10 filing fee. Respondent's judgment against D. Dick was recorded on or about November 6, 2014. D. Dick did not satisfy the judgment at that time. D. Dick has maintained that prior to September 2014, Respondent recommended that D. Dick delay sale of the Property due to the Borough's interest in purchasing it, in order to construct the new Borough Building. D. Dick was informed of the Borough's potential purchase after having already rejected informal offers from others interested in purchasing the Pro pert . By the fall of 2014, after confirming that repairs to the existing Borough Building or an addition to the Park Building were cost prohibitive, Council explored the possibility of constructing a new Borough Building on Broadway Boulevard. At the October 6, 2014, Council meeting, Respondent announced that Council was considering an addition to the Park Building and relocation of the Borough Building. Private citizen Tom Dick (Respondent's brother) discussed various optiorns including razing the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Councilman Jack Bova ( "Bova ") suggested that the Borough invest in the improvement of the Park Building and its surrounding area. Relocation of the Borough Building was also discussed during the October 13, 2014, Council meeting. Dick, 15 -034 aT�ge 25 In or by November 2014, Respondent took part in Council discussions to arrange for appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Council planned to use the appraisals as a baseline for future negotiations with the propert y owners. Council agreed for Respondent, as Council President, to arrange the appraisals. On or about November 10, 2014, Respondent contacted an appraisal company named "Barone & Sons, Inc." to schedule appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Respondent was the Borough's point-of-contact for Barone & Sons, Inc. On November 13, 2014, the appraiser met Respondent and Councilman Ray Crothers to conduct the appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. The appraiser has stated that Respondent made no effort to influence his appraisal of the Pro The appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties were provided to the Borough on or about November 20, 2014. Of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, the Pror)ertv received the lowest appraised value, specifically, $20,000. The appraisal for the Pro ert was based upon an exterior inspection and information provided by the Borough Building Inspector that the interior of the dwelling at the Property was in poor condition. Barone & Sons forwarded to Respondent four invoices totaling $1,500 for the appraisals of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Of the total amount charged, $400 was for the appraisal of the Property. Respondent forwarded the invoices to the Borou gh for payment. The Borough issued #16068 to pay for all four appraisals, including the appraisal performed at the Propert y. At the December 18, 2014, Council meeting, Respondent participated in the unanimous vote of Council approving the bill listing that included Check 916068. At Council's direction, Solicitor Craig Alexander ( "Alexander ") arranged meetings with the four Broadway Boulevard property owners to explain the Borough's interest in purchasing their properties. Alexander invited the property owners to separate meetings at the Borough Building to be held on January 12, 2015, prior to the regularly scheduled January Council meeting. In preparation for negotiations with the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, Alexander added $4,000.00 to each appraised value as the Borough's initial Ns/her offer due to the fact that each property owner would be entitled to that amount if his/her property would be acquired through eminent domain. Prior to the January 12, 2015, meetings with the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, Dietz researched outstanding electric /cable /garbage bills, as well as delinquent taxes, for the said property owners. Dietz confirmed that D. Dick had an outstanding balance on multiple accounts held with the Borough. On January 12, 2015, at approximately 5:00 p.m., D. Dick met with Council, the Mayor (Betty Stevick), Alexander, and Dietz in the Borough Manager's office to discuss the Borough's interest in purchasing the Pro ert . Respondent was not present during the meeting but remained in the hallway outsi e o the office until the meeting was completed. During the meeting, the Borough representatives expressed to D. Dick their desire to purchase the Property. The Borough representatives provided a copy of the 583 Broadway Boulevard appraisal to D. Dick during the meeting. The Borough representatives used the $20,000.00 appraisal for the Promo erty as a baseline for negotiations with D. Dick. The meeting between D. Dick and the Borough representatives adjourned with a tentative sale price for the Propp!jy Property of $25,000.00 lus an additional forgiveness of D. Dick's unpaid electric /cable garbage bills ($8,816.0) and delinquent taxes ($3,217.00). D. Dick was receptive to the offer, but no sales agreement was finalized during the meeting. Dick, 15 -434 7a- ge 26 Respondent attended the meetings with the remaining Broadway Boulevard property owners. There were no safes agreements reached at the conclusion of such meetings. At the January 12, 2015, regular Council meeting, which immediately followed the meetings with the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, Respondent resigned as Council President for reasons unrelated to the Borough's interests in purchasing the Pro ert . Bova was appointed Council President following Respondent's resignation from the position. After attending the January 12, 2015, meetings with property owners Coreno, Heckman, and Jacob, Respondent was not involved in negotiations between the Borough and the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Respondent did not participate in the negotiation of the sales agreement for his brother's Pro ert . Respondent failed to publicly disclose his familial relationship with D. Dick at the time Borough officials were actively negotiating with D. Dick to acquire the Property. However, Borough representatives were fully aware of Respondent's familial relationship with D. Dick during such negotiations. Between the January and February 2015 Council meetings, Respondent informed Bova in a private conversation that Respondent had a judgment against D. Dick. During the negotiations for the Borough's purchase of the Promo ert , no other Councilmembers were aware of the judgment, and Respondent did not publicly announce or inform Council that he had filed a judgment against D. Dick. Bova contacted Alexander about the aforesaid judgment. Alexander informed Bova that the judgment was a non -issue with Respondent voting on matters pertaining to the Property. Bova and Respondent discussed and agreed that Respondent should continue to vote on matters pertaining to acquiring the Property. Bova and Respondent did not discuss the matter with Council. At Respondent's recommendation, the Borough used title agent Cynthia Bankosh ( "Bankosh ") to perform title searches for the four Broadway Boulevard properties. On or about January 15 2015 Bankosh forwarded a letter to Dietz indicating the judgment payoffs that were required for closing on the Pro pert , including Respondent's judgment against D. Dick. On February 2, 2015, at 3:32 p.m., Alexander emailed Dietz and Council, including Respondent, draft sales agreements for the four Broadway Boulevard properties, including the Property. The proposed offer to D. Dick was $24,000 plus waiver of outstanding electric charges. At the February 9, 2015, Borough Council meeting, Council Member Prucnal made a motion, seconded by Respondent, to authorize Alexander to finalize arrangements to purchase the four Broadway Boulevard properties. The motion carried unanimously with Respondent voting affirmatively. Subsequently, the Borough received a letter from Bankosh dated February 17, 2015, providing Title Reports for the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which listed several Judgments against the Property owned by D. Dick. The letter indicated that written payoffs for all judgments must be obtained so thatthey could be paid in full and satisfied of record. On March 20, 2015, D. Dick, Bova and Dietz signed a sales agreement for the Borough to purchase the Pro ert owned by D. Dick for the sum of $24,000.00 plus waiver by the Borough of any outstanding electric charges and delinquencies at various properties owned by D. Dick, including the Pro ert .Dietz issued D. Dick Borough check #16344, in the amount of $1,000.00, as earnest money far the transaction. Borough check #16344 was not listed on any monthly bill listing approved by Council. Council's February 9, 2015 action authorizing Alexander to finalize arrangements on the four Broadway Boulevard] Dick, 15 -034 al�ge 27 properties was the vehicle utilized to authorize earnest money checks to be issued without a separate vote by Council. On or about March 23, 2015, in accordance with the sales agreement, the Borough eliminated the total amount of $9,026.32 in unpaid charges from accounts under the name of D. Dick and a business for which D. Dick is recorded as being Vice President. D. Dick was the only propert y owner who received debt relief as part of the Borough's purchase of the four Broadway Boulevard properties. Two of the other owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties paid their outstanding cable /electric /garbage balances at the time of the closing from the proceeds received from the sale of their respective properties to the Borough. The closing for the Property occurred on May 15, 2015, at the Borough Manager's Office. Respondent was not present at the closing. Respondent signed, as one of two authorized Borough signatories, Borough check #16502 dated May 15, 2015, in the amount of $25,327.00, which was issued to Bankosh for the closing of sale for the Property. Respondent signed the check because neither the President nor Vice President of ouncil was available. From the sale proceeds, Respondent received $6,599.10 in satisfaction of his judgment/lien against D. Dick. The parties have stipulated that the Promo ert was purchased by the Borough for less than the $35,000 Fair Market Value assessed by Allegheny County. During Council's August 10, 2015, regular meeting, at Alexander's suggestion and with Respondent's participation in the vote, Council unanimously voted to ratify the sales agreements and acquisitions of 601 and 583 Broadway Boulevard; to approve the sales agreements for 605 -607 and 577 -579 Broadway Boulevard; and to proceed with closing and demolition. The parties have stipulated that: (1) Respondent actively participated in Council discussions and actions regarding the purchase of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Property owned by Respondent's brother, D. Dick; (2) Respondent arranged and was present for the appraisal of the Pro ert ,which formed the basis for the Borough's purchase price offer for the Pro ert ; 3 Respondent voted affirmatively at the February 2015 Council meeting to authorize the Solicitor to make arrangements to finalize sales agreements with the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties; (4) Respondent signed, as an authorized Borough signatory, Borough check #16502 in the amount of $25,327.00, representing the Borough's payment to acquire the Property; and (5) Respondent voted affirmatively at the August 2015 meeting to ratify the sales agreement and acquisition of the Pro ert by the Borough. With regard to Respondent's SFIs, in his capacity as a Borough Council Member, Respondent was required to file SFIs for calendar years 2011 through 2014. On August 31, 2015, an SFI compliance reviewwas conducted atthe Borough Municipal Building No SFIs for Respondent were located at the Borough Building for calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Additionally, Block 8 of Respondent's 2014 calendar year SFI had not been completed and was blank. Although Respondent did not own any reportable real estate interest to list on the SFI for calendar year 2014, he did not check the box labeled "None" in Block 8 of the form as required. Respondent received compensation in the amount of $600.00 per year, totaling during0201F2, 2013, monies of 2015 a detailed n through ct position as Council Member On January 8, 2016, Respondent filed amended SFIs for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The parties have stipulated that there were no deficiencies present on Respondent's amended SFIs for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Dick, 15 -034 al�ge 28 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: 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. 9_1103(a) occurred when Kevin Dick, as a member of Pitcairn Borough Council, participated in discussions and actions of Council which culminated in the Borough's purchase of real estate, including real property owned by a member of his immediate family, thus resulting in a pecuniary benefit to himself and/or a member(s) of his immediate family. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred when as a Member of Pitcairn Borough Council, Kevin Dick failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. C, That a violation of Section 1105(b)(3) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1105(b)(3) occurred when Kevin Dick failed to list any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions upon Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar year 2014. Kevin Dick did not own any reportable real estate interest to list on the Statement of Financial Interests for 2014; however, he did not check the "None " box in Section 8 of the form as required to file a complete form. That in light of the violations outlined above, specifically paragra hs 3(b) and 3(c), pursuant to Section] 1104(d of the Public Official and Employee to ee Ethics Et 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(d), Kevin Dick hereby remits the compensation he received from public funds, for those calendar years in which he failed to file and/or filed deficient Statement[s] of Financial Interests. 4. Dick agrees to make payment in the amount of $2,400.00 in settlement of this matter payable to The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and forwarded[to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Dick, 15 -034 F�age 29 Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. a. Respondent acknowledges that a violation of 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a) has occurred; however, the parties further note that Respondent was acting under the advisement of the then -- Borough Solicitor. 5. On or about January 6, 2016, Dick filed complete and accurate Statements of Financial Interests with Pitcairn Borough, through the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. 6. Dick agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Pitcairn Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 2 -3. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), occurred when Respondent, as a Member of Borough Council, participated in discussions and actions of Council which culminated in the Boroughs purchase of real estate, including real roperty owned by a member of his immediate family, thus resulting in a pecuniary benefirto himself and/or a member(s) of his immediate family. Respondent used the authority of his public office when he took or participated in official actions as a Borough Council Member with respect to the Borough s purchase of the Property_ In particular, the parties have stipulated that: (1) Respondent actively participated in Council discussions and actions regarding the purchase of the four Broadway Boulevard properties, which included the Property owned by Respondent's brother, D. Dick; (2) Respondent arranged and was present for the appraisal of the Property, which formed the basis for the Borough's purchase price offer for the Property; 3) espondent voted affirmatively at the February 2015 Council meeting to authorize the olicitor to make arrangements to finalize sales agreements with the owners of the four Broadway Boulevard properties• (4 Respondent signed, as an authorized Borough signatory, Borough check #16502 in the amount of $25,327.00, representing the Borough's payment to acquire the Property; and (5) Respondent voted affirmatively at the August 2015 meeting to ratify the sales agreement and acquisition of the Property by the Borough. The aforesaid actions clearly resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to Respondent's brother, D. Dick, Although the parties have stipulated that the Property was sold for less than the Fair Market Value assessed by Allegheny County, it was sold for more than the actual appraised value, and we need look no further than the significant debt relief that D. Dick uniquely received as part of his transaction to conclude that the elements for a violation of Section 1103(a) have been established. Based upon the aforesaid, we need Dick, 15 -034 F6 3 0 not address whether other pecuniary benefit(s) received as a result of the sale of the Pro ert to the Borough would further support the finding of a violation of Section 1103(x). Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1103(a),. occurred when Respondent Dick, as a Member of Borough Council, jparticipated in discussions and actions of Council which culminated in the Borou h's ppurchase of real estate, including real property owned by a member of his immediatelamily,.thus resulting in a pecuniary benefit to himself and/or a member(s) of his immediate family. 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 Dick failed to file Is with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. We further agree with the parties, and we hold, that a violation of Section 1105(b)(3) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(3), occurred when Dick failed to complete and lefft blank Block 8 of his SFl filed for calendar year 2014 by failing to check the box labeled "None" in Block 8 of the form to indicate that he had no reportable direct or indirect interest in real estate. In light of the violations outlined above and pursuant to Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(d), Respondent has agreed to remit the compensation in the total amount of $2,400.00 that he received from public funds for those calendar years in which he failed to file and /or filed deficient SFIs. Specifically, Respondent has agyreed to make payment in the amount of $2,400.00 in settlement e his Commission thh ter pp thirty to days Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and forwarded of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Respondent has agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. The parties have noted that on or about January 6, 2016, Respondent filed complete and accurate SFIs with the Borough, through this Commission, for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Respondent Dick is directed to make payment in the amount of $2,400.00 payable to The Commonwealth of 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 Dick is further directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 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 Councilman for Pitcairn Borough ( "Borough "), Allegheny County, from January 2006 through December 2009 and from January 2012 through December 2015, Respondent Kevin Dick ( "Dick ") has been a public official subject to the provisions Dick, 15 -034 Page 31 of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et se . 2. Dick violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he, as a Member of Borough Council, participated in discussions and actions of Council which culminated in the Borough's urchase of real estate, including i real property owned by a member of his immediate family, thus resulting m a pecunary benefit to himself and/or a member(s) of his immediate family. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Dick failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. A violation of Section 1105(b)(3) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(3), occurred when Dick failed to complete and left blank Block 8 of his Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar year 2014 by failing to check the box labeled "None" in Block 8 of the form to indicate that he had no reportable direct or indirect interest in real estate. In Re: Kevin Dick, File Docket: 15 -034 Respondent : Date Decided: 10119116 Date Mailed: 10/28/16 ORDER NO. 1701 1. As a Councilman for Pitcairn Borough ( "Borough "), Allegheny County, Kevin Dick ( "Dick ") violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he, as a Member of Borough Council, participated in discussions and actions of Council which culminated in the Borough's purchase of real estate, including real property owned by a member of his immediate family, thus resulting in a pecuniary benefit to himself and/or a member(s) of his immediate family. 2. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. � 1104(a), occurred when Dick failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with the Borough for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013. 3. A violation of Section 1105(b)(3) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(3), occurred when Dick failed to complete and left blank Block 8 of his Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar year 2014 by failing to check the box labeled "None" in Block 8 of the form to indicate that he had no reportable direct or indirect interest in real estate. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Dick is directed to make payment in the amount of $2,400.00 payable to The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and fo,t� rded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 ) day after the mailing date of this Order. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Dick is further directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 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, s as A. Colafena, Chair