Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1712 ThorntonSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 309 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Kenneth E. Thornton, Respondent Before: File Docket: 15 -046 X -ref: Order No. 1712 Date Decided: 3128117 Date Mailed: 417117 Mark R. Corrigan, Vice Chair Roger Nick Marla Feeley Melanie DePalma This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation rega I rding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethic Act ), 65 Pa.C.S. § 101 et se q., 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. I. ALLEGATIONS: That Kenneth E. Thornton, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Member and Chairman of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(8) and (9) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he utilized the authority of his public office for a private pecuniary benefit by participating in discussions and actions of the Authority Board of Directors, Including but not limited to directing, influencing, voting, and serving as the Authority signatory on checks, resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Technical College, an educational institution where Thornton was pursuing a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, under the guise that the classes were directly related to his duties as an Authority Board Member; and when he filed deficient Statementis] of Financial Interests for calendar years 2013 and 2014 when he flailed to disclose his office, directorship or employment [with], and his financial interest in, Beyond the Mark, a business entity engaged for profit. H. FINDINGS: A. Pleadings 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Kenneth E. Thornton violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998). 2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on October 27, 2015. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. P.O. BOX 1 1470, HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 • 717- 783 -1610 • 1- 800 -932 -0936 • www.ethics.state.pa.us Thornton, 15 -046 age a. The Commission, through the Executive Director, initiated a full investigation on December 22, 2015. 4. On December 22, 2015, a letter was forwarded to Kenneth Thornton, 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. 7011 0470 0002 7996 6625. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Kenneth Thornton, with a delivery date of December 28, 2015. C. A copy of the Notice of Investigation and the Domestic Return Receipt are attached to the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report. 5. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Kenneth Thornton, c/o Robert J. Taylor, Esquire, at least every ninety days in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Act advising him of the general status of the investigation. 6. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Reportwas mailed to the Respondent on June 15, 2016. a. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was issued within 176 days of the initiation of a full investigation. 7. Kenneth E. Thornton ( "Respondent ") served as a Board Member of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa ( "Authority ") from January 25, 2012, until October 6, 2015. a. Thornton previously served -as a Board Member for the Authority from January 1987 through 2002. b. Thornton was re- appointed to the Board in order to fill a vacancy upon the resignation of Board Member Dan Casoli on January 25, 2012. C. During his most recent tenure on the Board, Thornton served in the following Officer positions: Assistant Secretary/Treasurer (2012). 2. Treasurer (2013). 3. Chairman (2014 and 2015). d. Thornton's service on the Board concluded on October 6, 2015, upon tendering his letter of resignation to the Board. 1. Thornton resigned from the Board with approximately one year left in his term. 8. The Authority is governed by a five (5) Member Board. a. On the 4th Wednesday of the month the Board holds one regularly scheduled meeting. b. Special meetings are held as necessary. Thornton, 15-046 a G. Workshop meetings were not held prior to 2016. 9. Voting at Authority meetings occurs in roll call fashion after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. Abstentions and/or dissenting votes are to be specifically documented in the meeting minutes. 1. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each subsequent meeting of the Board. b. Authority Officer Manager, Denise McCoy ( "McCoy "), creates the meeting minutes based on her handwritten notes. 1. The Authority Board meetings are not audio or video recorded. 10. On the Friday, before an Authority Board meeting, the Board receives a meeting packet for review in preparation of the upcoming meeting. a. The meeting packet includes draft meeting minutes from the prior month and the bill list of those expenditures to be approved at the upcoming meeting. 11. The Board conducts a separate and specific vote to approve the bill list, as presented, at each legislative meeting. a. The bill list documents the following information: 1. Check dates; 2. Check numbers; 3. The payee of each check; 4. A description of the goods /service(s) to be paid by each check; and 5. The amount of each check. b. The bill list details all bills received by the Authority since the last legislative meeting. 12. The majority of the Authority checks to be issued, as identified on the bill list, are brought to the meeting for signature following approval. a. Attached to each Authority check is a corresponding purchase order and/or invoice, informing the Board of the details associated with the Authority payment. 13. An Authority purchase order is completed by an Authority Department Head, whenever a purchase needs to be made by the Authority. a. The purchase order is subsequently submitted to the Authority Manager for review. b. The Authority Manager indicates his /her authorization of a purchase by signing the purchase order. C. The purchase is made following the Authority Manager's authorization. Thornton, 15 -046 ague d. Although a purchase is authorized, payment is not issued until the Board approves the bill list identifying the payment of the purchase. 14. If a service or other expenditure is to be paid, the invoice for same is to be attached to the check. a. Even if an invoice is received, a purchase order is still completed by Authority personnel 15. Signature authority over Authority financial accounts is maintained by the entire Board. a. Authority checks require the live signature of any two (2) of the five (5) authorized signatories. 1. Signature stamps are not utilized by the Authority. b. The majority of the Authority checks are signed during Board meetings. 1. On occasion, checks are signed between meetings. C. As a Board Member, Thornton had signature authority over the Authority financial accounts during the time period of August 22, 2012, through October 6, 2015. 16. Thornton attended Carlow University located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, from 1995 through 1999, completing a B.S. in Business Administration and an M.S. in Professional Leadership, with a specialty in Training and Development. 17. From 2005 through 2010, Thornton enrolled in online classes through Capella University to pursue a Ph.D. in Organization and Management, with a specialty in Executive Leadership. a. Thornton did not complete his degree at Capella University. b. Thornton was not a Member of the Authority at the time he pursued his Ph.D. in Organization and Management, with a specialty in Executive Leadership, through Capella University. 18. On August 7,.2014, Thornton completed and submitted an application to Indiana Institute of Technology (also referred to herein as "Indiana Tech') as a candidate for consideration for enrollment in online classes commencing October of 2014. a. Thornton indicated within his application that his academic preference was to obtain his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. 1. The Global Leadership, Organizational Management program was similar to the one that Thornton pursued during his enrollment at Capella University between 2005 and 2010. b. Thornton further indicated within his application that a source of financial aid he anticipated utilizing for his education was "deferment employee (sic) asst. (invoice student directly)." 1. Thornton did not identify the employer [he anticipated using for deferment] payment assistance. Thornton, 15 -048 age 2. Thornton has not been employed since 1999, having retired from USAIR Airlines, Inc. 19. Thornton was required to submit a current resume and an original essay with his application to Indiana Institute of Technology. a. The following criteria had to be met regarding the original essay: 1. The essay needed to be "about 500 words addressing your interest in the program and intended goals." 2. The essay "should express a coherent position and demonstrate your written communication and critical thinking skills." 20. Thornton generated a six (6) page essay titled "Candidate's Program Interest and Intended Goals" and submitted same with his application. a. Thornton advised the following within his essay as to why he wanted to pursue a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management: 9 believe that the Ph.D. Global Leadership program can prepare me to meet the futuristic challenges at the next level, while fulfillingg my personal goals of becoming a university /college Adjunct faculty member, establishing a consulting practice, and authoring new knowledge.' b. Thornton did not detail anywhere in his six (6) page essay that pursuing his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational MManagement would benefit him as a public official, specifically as Chairman of the Authority, or that same would be of benefit to the Authority in general. Thornton made no mention of his public position with the Authority in his essay. 2. Thornton indicated in his application essay that obtaining a Ph.D. would help him fulfill "personal goals." 21. On or about August 29, 2014, Thornton received correspondence from Dr. Kenneth E. Rauch, Director -Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Associate Professor of Business, Indiana Institute of Technology advising that Thornton was accepted as a student at the- Indiana Institute of Technology to pursue his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. 22. The following is a course description of the Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management program, as offered by Indiana Institute of Technology: "The Indiana Tech PH.D. in Global Leadership program offers you an opportunity to advance your ability t lead in today's multifaceted environment and to conduct cross cultural research to examine interrelationships between culture and organizational leadership. Administered online, the program is flexible and accommodates diverse working professionals across the world. The online learning methods require students to progress independently, but not alone. Our faculty and support staff are committed to providing an educational environment that is personal and cooperative. Thornton, 15-046 P ge — Professionals who earn a PH.D. in Global Leadership from Indiana Tech will be ready to lead, research, and advance those organizations." 23. On September 9, 2014, Thornton faxed to Indiana Institute of Technology a completed "Payment Options Form" which identified the payment option, "Deferment for Employer Assistance" that would be utilized by Thornton to pay for the classes. 24. Thornton did not seek pre -a prova[ or notify the Authority Board that he intended to have the Authority 100% fund his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management, prior to submitting the Indiana Institute of Technology "Payment Options Form" in September of 2014. 25. On or about September 9, 2014, Thornton provided McCoy with an Indiana Institute of Technology `Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" to complete. a. The purpose of the form is to document that the student's employer has authorized the student's education to be paid for by his/her employer. b. The form was completed in the following manner: 1. Thornton's present employer was identified as "(Board Member) Water ater Authority of Aliquippa." 2. It was identified that Thornton's tuition bills were to be directly issued to: Name of Company: Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa Address of Company: 160 Hopewell Avenue Aliquippa, PA 15001 Attention: Terrance McConnell, General Manager 3. It was identified that the Authority would pay for one (1) course during the 201412015 academic year. 26. McCoy provided the Indiana Institute of Technology "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" dated September 9, 2014, to Terry McConnell ( "McConnell "), General Manager, for review and signature. a. McConnell signed the form based on Thornton's statement to him that he (Thornton) intended to obtain education paid for by the Authority that would benefit the Authority. b. McConnell was of the belief that his signing the form did not signify a final decision on the matter, but rather that the matter would progress to the Board for final approval /authorization. 27. Thornton began taking online classes towards his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management in approximately October 2014. a. The first class Thornton enrolled in was RES 7000 — Introduction to Research Methods. b. The following is a description of the class: Thornton, 15 -046 age "This course emphasizes basic principles and techniques employed in social and behavior science research methods. More specifically, students will review a variety of research methods and will be introduced to the basics of research design. This course will discuss sampling techniques, descriptive, inferential statistics, and basics of testing hypothesis. Students will practice formulating research questions and hypotheses; and interpreting and critiquing statistical results found in peer - reviewed empirical studies." 28. On or about November 5, 2014, Thornton received his first invoice from Indiana Institute of Technology via US Postal Mail. a. The invoice was dated November 5, 2014, and addressed to the following: Kenneth E Thornton [address redacted] b. The invoice was related to "CPS Tuition RES 7000 DOL 22" course work. C. The invoice was in the amount of $2,205.00. d. The invoice indicated the following: "Payment due January 27, 2015 for deferment students only." 29. Towards the conclusion of the November 25, 2014, Authority meeting. Thornton advised the Board of his intent to have the Authority pay for his education stating that such would benefit the Authority in general, and Thornton as Chairman of the Authority. a. Thornton's request to have the Authority pay for his education was not on the agenda for the November 25, 2014, meeting. 30. The Board trusted Thornton to select the education Thornton believed would be of benefit to the Authority. 31. The November 25, 2014, Authority meeting minutes confirm that Thornton's request to have his education paid for by the Authority was approved via a 5-0 vote. a. A motion made by Gilliam and seconded by West was recorded as passing unanimously. b. Thornton was recorded as being present at the meeting. 32. It has been a practice of the Authority Board to have the Authority pay for education related to the specific duties and responsibilities of the Board an employees of the Authority. a. Education paid for by the Authority was specific to the duties and responsibilities of the Authority, namely providing potable water, and was provided by entities such as the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, American Water Works Association, etc. b. Education paid by the Authority, specific to office /technology skills, was provided by entities such as: Community College of Allegheny County, Community College of Beaver County, etc. Thornton, 15 -046 aagge 8 33. Thornton submitted five (5) Indiana Institute of Technology invoices totaling $11,025.00 to [the] Authority for payment during the time period of December 2014 through August 2015, as detailed below: Dated Addressed To For Course Amount November Kenneth hornton 2014/2015 Invoice- 7000 2,205.00 5, 2014 address redacted PhD Fall Term 2 payment amount of $2,205.00. I ech via anuary 22, Kenneth E. I hornton 2014/2015 Invoice- RES 2,205.0 2015 address redacted PhD Spring Term 1 7011 Apri ennet Thornton 2014/2015 Invoice- RE 2,205.00 2015 address redacted PhD Spring Term 2 7011 June 2, Kenneth E. I hornton 2014/2015 Invoice- LD 7003 $2,295.00 2015 [address redacted] PhD Summer Term 1 Jul 20, ennet Thornton 2014/2015-Invoice- 7005 2,205.00 2015 [address redacted] PhD Summer Term 2 Total: $11,1025.00 34. A purchase order was completed by McCoy for each of the five (5) invoices Thornton provided to her (McCoy). a. The payments identified on the purchase orders were authorized by either McConnell or McCoy, through their signature [on] the purchase orders. 35. Thornton voted to approve four (4) of the five (5) Authority checks issued to Indiana Institute of Technology, as payment for class es/co u rsewo rk towards his Ph.D. in Global Leadership. Meeting Date RelevancV of Minutes anuary 8, 2015 The Boar d (including Thornton appprove the bill list via a 5 -0 vote t at identified payment to Indiana amount of $2,205.00. ech via Authority check #5650 in the April 22, 2015 The Board including ornton identified to Indiana approved the HIF fist via a 4 -0 vote that Authority check #6036 in the payment amount of $2,205.00. I ech via May 27, 20 he Board (including T ornton identified to Indiana list via a 3 -0 vote t approve t e it at via Authority check #6'166 in the payment amount of $2,205.00. ech July 22, 2015 The Boar inclu ing hornton approve the i list via a 4-0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check #6797 in the amount of $2,205.00. August 26, 2015 The Board not inc u ing ornton who was absent approve the i list via a 4 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana ech via Authority check #7077 in the amount of $2,205.00. a. Thornton was absent from the August 26, 2015, meeting when the Board voted to approve the fifth and final check to Indiana Institute of Technology. b. Thornton approved $8,820.00 worth of Authority payments to Indiana Institute of Technology, as identified on Authority bill lists, spanning the time frame of January 2015 through August 2015. 36. Thornton signed three (3) of the five (5) Authority checks thatwere issued to Indiana Institute of Technology, as detailed below. Thornton, 15 -046 a9_ Check Check Check Signed by No. Date Amount 5650 5650 1-6-15 2, 05.00 Thornton and William Methods behavior science research methods. More Battisti 6036 4-1-15 2,205.00 6sep West and Ais a research methods and will be introduced to Gilliam 6166 5- T- 5 2,205. Thornton and Patricia will discuss sampling techniques, Grimes 6797 7 -2 -15 $2,205.00 Thornton and Patricia of testing hypothesis. Students will practice Grimes 7077 8-19-15 2,205.00 Ais a Gilliam and Josep hypotheses; and interpreting and critiquing West Total: $11,025.00 ar Attached to each Authority check was the purchase order and invoice related to the payment. b. The checks signed by Thornton totaled $6,615.00 and were to be paid to Indiana Institute of Technology. 37. The five (5) Authority checks issued to Indiana Institute of Technology paid for the following coursework/classes credited to Thornton by the Indiana Institute of Technology towards his Ph.D., between October 2014 and July 2015. Course Number Name of Course Description of Course Paid by Authority Check Number RES Introduction to This course emphasizes basic principles 5650 7000 Research and techniques employed in social and Methods behavior science research methods. More specifically, students will review a variety of research methods and will be introduced to the basics of research design. This course will discuss sampling techniques, descriptive, inferential statistics, and basics of testing hypothesis. Students will practice formulating research questions and hypotheses; and interpreting and critiquing statistical results found in peer- reviewed empirical studies. R Researc Es course helps enhance students' skills 6036, 6166 7011 Critique in conceptual argument construction and (Course was research analysis. Students will review taken twice) empirical studies in global leadership and critically evaluate structure, effectiveness, logic and flow of arguments. Students will also examine research purpose, effective hypothesis construction, variables, and research methods. The course will use qualitative and quantitative peer - reviewed articles for research critique. In addition, students will learn about basic and applied natures of research. Finally, students will practice writing research proposals to Thornton, 15 -046 aff Course Name of Course Description of Course Paid by Number Authority Check Number reflect the app ie nature of global leadership scholarship. D ommunications ommunications literature and b est 6797 7003 in Global & practices are analyzed to understand and Diverse maximize human interaction in global and Contexts diverse contexts. Effective communication for various leadership roles is examined including interpersonal, small group, organizational, and public situations. Skills to develop intercultural competence and evaluatingg communication barriers that prevent the understanding of a leader's message are explored. OLM Global ritica analysis of theoretical and empirical 7077 7005 Leadership literature, and best practices for managing Development private and public organizations to achieve financial accountability and financial performance. Accounting as a managerial tool for assessment of business strategy and tactical implementation are examine Principals of financial management . focusing on the development and use of budgets for planning and control, demonstrating accountability, and establishing priorities within an organization are analyzed. The use of financial data to lead decision - making links between finance and strategic planning, and Sarbanes- Oxley are explored. Creating shareholder value is analyzed, along with links to customer to alty. Cash flow management, international financial reporting and consolidations employing currency conversions, and the standards of ethical behavior in various countries are examined. 38. On July 8, 2015, Matthew Mottes was appointed by Aliquippa City Council to serve on the Authority Board, to replace Board Member William Battisti who resigned. 39, Subsequent to his appointment, Mottes reviewed the expenditures of the Authority and discovered that the Board had approved an expenditure totaling $11,025.00 paid to Indiana Institute of Technology, relating to Thornton's Ph.D. studies in Global Leadership. a. At the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes advised the Board of his discovery and voiced his belief that the education paid for by the Authority was not related to the mission of the Authority. b. In response to Mattes' concerns, Board Treasurer Joseph West decided that from August 26, 2015, forward no college tuition bills would be paid by the Authority. 40. Mottes' concern that Thornton's education was being paid for by the Authority resulted in Thornton reviewing the November 25, 2014, Authority meeting minutes. Thornton, 15 -046 age iT a. Upon review, Thornton discovered that the minutes generated by McCoy indicated that Thornton voted in favor of his education being paid for by the Authority. b. Thornton believed that he abstained from the vote and requested that McCoy review her notes of the meeting. C. McCoy's notes of the November 25, 2014, meeting reflected that Thornton abstained from the vote related to his education being paid for by the Authority. d. McCoy's notes were attached to the meeting minutes as an unofficial addendum to the minutes. 41. On May 5, 2016, Thornton was interviewed by the Investigative Division and made the following statements regarding the allegation levied against him, specific to his education being paid for by the Authority. a. Thornton stated that the business, Beyond the Mark, was created by him in order to complete a school- mandated project related to Thornton obtaining his master's degree in Professional Leadership, with a specialty in Training and Development, from Carlow University in 1999. 1. Thornton indicated that Beyond the Mark was never operated as an actual business for profit. 2. Thornton reported that in 2003 he had aspirations of operating the business for profit, but never followed through with those aspirations. b. Thornton stated that he provides free consulting services based on his education, but not as an affiliate of Beyond the Mark. 1. Thornton explained that he provides said services in his personal capacity. C. Thornton acknowledged that at the November 25, 2014, Board meeting he informed the Board that he would like the Authority to pay for some Ph.D. courses for him which he believed would benefit the Authority. 1. Thornton acknowledged that he did not inform the Board that the Authority would be paying for coursework related to a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organization Management. 2. Thornton did not provide the Board with any information to review regarding the education that Thornton wanted the Authority to pay for on his behalf. 3. Thornton did not identify how many classes he was interested in having the Authority pay on his behalf. 4. Thornton did not disclose how much the education would cost the Authority. 5. Thornton did not advise who would be providing the education he was seeking to be paid from Authority funds. Thornton, 15 -046 Page d. Thornton stated that he abstained from the vote related to his education being paid for by the Authority. 1. Thornton testified that sometime after the November 25, 2014, minutes were approved, he discovered that the minutes reflected that he voted on his education being paid for by the Authority. aa. Thornton believed that his review of the minutes may have been related to the unfavorable statements that Mottes was making about Thornton's education. 2. Thornton stated that he informed McCoy that he wanted the minutes to be altered to reflect that he abstained from the vote. 3. Thornton reported that McCoy advised him that she could not alter approved minutes. 4. Thornton indicated that it was decided by Thornton and McCoy to attach McCoy's handwritten notes of the meeting (that reflected that Thornton abstained from the vote) to the minutes as an addendum to the minutes. e. Thornton acknowledged that he took online classes associated with Indiana Tech's Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organization Management, program starting in October of 2014. 1. Thornton reported that he did not consider asking for the Board's approval to pay for the classes prior to October 2014. 2. Thornton staffed that the courses he completed did not provide him with a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organization Management, because he did not complete all of the required courses. 3. Thornton reported that it was never his intent to obtain a Ph. D.; rather he wanted to obtain education from specific classes that would benefit the Authority. f. Thornton testified that the six (6) page essay which he submitted to Indiana Tech in order to be accepted in o the Ph.D. program in Global Leadership, Organization Management... did not make mention of the Authority, due to the fact that the document was previously generated at a time when Thornton was seeking education elsewhere, and he reused the same document when making application to Indiana Tech. 1. Thornton reported that he did not consider editing the document to reflect his intent to obtain education that would benefit him in his capacity as Chairman of the Authority. g. Thornton advised that it was an oversight when he approved bill lists that identified payment to Indiana Tech and when [he] signed Authority checks that were issued to Indiana Tech. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT THORNTON FILED DEFICIENT STATEMENT [S] OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2013 AND 2014 WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE HIS OFFICE, DIRECTORSHIP OR EMPLOYMENT WITH, AND HIS FINANCIAL INTEREST IN, BEYOND THE MARK, A BUSINESS ENTITY ENGAGED FOR PROFIT. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 42. Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI") filing requirements for public officials and employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act. a. Section 1104(a) mandates, in part, the following: "...Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a pposition and of the year after he leaves such a position." [65 Pa.C.S. § 11 4(a).] 43. Thornton, in his official capacity as Board Member of the Authority, was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1st annually containing information for the prior calendar year. a. The Board Members are annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms by McCoy for completion. 44. On December 1, 2015, a Statement of Financial Interests Compliance Review was conducted for the Authority by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission. a. It was determined that Thornton filed SFIs for calendar years 2013 and 2014 on April 23, 2014, and February 25, 2015, respectively. 45. Required information to be disclosed on Statement of Financial Interests forms for public officials and employees is mandated by Section 1105 of the State Ethics Act. a. Section 1105(b)(8) -(9) mandates the following: "Required information. The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (8) Any office, directorship or employment of any nature whatsoever in any business entity. (9) Any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit." [65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(8) -(9).] 46. Thornton initially created a business model for a fictional business called "Beyond the Mark" in order to complete a school- mandated project related to Thornton completing his master's de ree in Professional Leadership, with a specialty in Training and Development, from Carlow University. a. Thornton created the business model for Beyond the Mark in 1999. 47. Thornton subsequently filed the fictitious name, Beyond the Mark, with the Pennsylvania Department of State on March 3, 2003, due to Thornton having. aspirations of operating the fictional business as an actual business entity. a. The Pennsylvania Department of State approved Thornton's filing on March 3, 2003, and provided the business with entity number 3127965. b. Department of State records reflect that the business was created with the intent to provide the following: Thornton, 15 -046 a�geT217 Management consultant; 2. Training and development, and 3. Organization development. 48. Thornton never engaged in business operations as Beyond the Mark. 49. Thornton provided a sworn affidavit to the Investigative Division that indicated, in part, the following: a. "Beyond the Mark (Entity #3127965) never began operations nor has had any income and as a result there have never been any IRS Federal Tax Returns filed." 50. Although Thornton does not provide management, leadership, and organizational development consultations through Beyond the Mark, Thornton provides said services in his personal capacity. a. Thornton does not charge for the consulting services he provides. b. Thornton provides said services for the personal enjoyment he experiences. 51. Thornton failed to disclose his directorship as owner of Beyond the Mark, and his interest in the business, on his SFIs filed for calendar years 2013 and 2014. a. Thornton identified that he did not have any office, directorship, or employment in any business and/or any financial interest in any business for profit on both of said forms. B. Testimony 52. Matthew Mottes ( "Mottes ") has served as a Member of the Authority Board since July 2015. a. When Mottes became an Authority Board Member, Respondent was Chairman of the Authority Board and the acting General Manager of the Authority. b. At the time Mottes became an Authority Board Member, some Board Members were in favor of offering Respondent the position of General Manager of the Authority. C. While attending his first meeting as an Authority Board Member on July 22, 2015, Mottes noticed an Indiana Tech tuition payment in the meeting materials. 1. On July 22, 2015, Mottes did not know what Indiana Tech was. 2. After the July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes obtained and reviewed copies of prior Authority Board meeting minutes which indicated that Respondent had voted at the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting to have the Authority pay the costs of courses he wanted to take toward his degree in management and the Authority Board had already paid other Indiana Tech tuition bills for Respondent's tuition. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 1b d. At the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes raised an issue regarding the payment by the Authority Board of Respondent's tuition bills. I g at 5. During the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, three Members of the Authority Board voted to approve bills that included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for tuition for Respondent. aa. This bill was the final tuition bill that the Authority Board paid for Respondent's tuition. 2. Respondent was not present at the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting. e. The Authority paid a total of $11,025.00 for Respondent's tuition bills from Indiana Tech. f. Mottes testified that at the time he became an Authority Board Member, the Authority had financial problems. 53. During the relevant time period of 2014 -2015, Garen Fedeles, Esquire ("Fedeles ") was one of the attorneys who attended Authority Board meetings as a member of the Solicitor law firm. a. In 2014 -2015, the Authority had financial issues that needed to be addressed. b. It is common for Authority Board Members to attend conferences, seminars, and meetings and take educational courses. C, Fedeles did not recall any Authority Board Members other than Respondent having online Ph.D. classes paid for by the Authority. d. Respondent did not ask Fedeles if it was permissible for the Authority to pay for Respondent's online Ph.D. classes or for Respondent to vote in favor of having the Authority pay for same. e. Based upon the course descriptions, it was Fedeles' opinion that the Indiana Tech courses taken by Respondent identified as RES 7000, LDS 7003, and OLM 7005 could potentially have some relevance to being an Authority Board Member, but the research analysis and research proposals referenced in the course description for course RES 7011 would not pertain to being an Authority Board Member. At the time of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, the Authority had an Authority Manager, and to Fedeles' knowledge, the individual then serving as Authority Manager did not inform the Authority Board that he was leaving such position until spring of 2015. g. During at least one Authority Board meeting, there was discussion as to whether Respondent should be considered for the position of Authority Manager. h. The Authority Manager needs to have some leadership skills. Fedeles thought that with Respondent's experience with the Authority itself, Respondent had a good understanding of what needed to be done in the fob of Authority Manager. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 16 j. Once Authority Board meeting minutes have been approved, any changes to such minutes would require another approval by the Authority Board. k. Until the hearing in this matter, Fedeles was not aware of any asserted error in the November 25, 2014, meeting minutes regarding the recording of the vote to approve payment by the Authority for Respondent's classes. 54. Denise McCoy ( "McCoy ") is employed as the Authority's Office Manager. a. The only official records of Authority Board meetings are the meeting minutes, which are prepared by McCoy. 1. McCoy takes notes by hand at Authority Board meetings. 2. Beginning approximately the day after an Authority Board meeting, McCoy uses her notes from the meeting to prepare finished product meeting minutes, which the Authority Board reviews for approval at its next meeting. b. ID 3 consists of the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. C. ID 4 consists of the minutes of the December 17, 2014, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. d. ID 5 consists of the minutes of the January 28, 2015, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. e. ID 6 consists of the minutes of the April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. f. ID 7 consists of the minutes of the May 27, 2015, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. g. ID 8 consists of the minutes of the July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. h. ID 9 consists of the minutes of the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting prepared by McCoy. i. ID 10, ID 11, ID 12, and ID 13 consist of Authority checks. j. ID 14, ID 15, ID 16, ID 17, and ID 18 consist of invoices from Indiana Tech that McCoy received from Respondent. k. During the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent requested that the Authority pay for some courses for him. 1. During the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent did not explain how much the courses would cost or where he was going to receive his education. aa. To McCoy's knowledge, during the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, the Authority Board did not ask Respondent how much the courses would cost or where he was going to receive his education. Thornton, 16 -046 a�7" 2. To McCoy's knowledge, during the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, the Authority Board did not ask and Respondent did not explain how long the courses would last. Well after the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent told McCoy that the minutes from that meeting mistakenly indicated that Respondent participated in the vote to approve having the Authority Board pay for his courses. 1. McCoy testified that she reviewed her handwritten notes from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting and her notes indicated that Respondent abstained from the Authority Board vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses. 2. McCoy testified that Authority Board votes usually are unanimous. 3. When McCoy typed the meeting minutes, she indicated that the vote was 5 -0. M. Respondent did not submit an abstention form to McCoy indicating his abstention from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board vote to approve having the Authority Board pay for Respondent's courses. 1. The Authority Board has not used abstention forms. n. The minutes from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting were approved by the Authority Board at the following meeting by a vote of 5 -0. o. No Authority Board Members} ever questioned whether the minutes from the December 2014 Authority Board meeting were correct. p. To McCoy's knowledge, nothing was brought before the Authority Board to change the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes. q. McCoy testified that R -1 is a copy of her handwritten notes from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. r. McCoy testified that R -2 is her handwritten note to substantiate her testimony that Respondent Thornton abstained from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses. 1. McCoy wrote the date at the top of R- 2-- specifically 913114- -which date would have been prior to the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. 2. McCoy testified that it was possible she created the note in evidence as R -2 after she had been contacted by the State Ethics Commission in regard to the investigation in this case. 3. McCoy testified as follows: Q. And you were asked to create that note by the Respondent in this case; correct? A. I think that's what he mentioned, yes, that he did not vote. 11/28/16 Tr., at 128. Tam, 15 -046 S. In November of 2014, there was no open General Manager position at the Authority. t. It was not until 2015 that McCoy learned McConnell would be leaving his position as Authority General Manager. U. The procedure used by the Authority for paying its bills is as follows: (1) bills are first reviewed and approved for payment by the Authority's General Manager, who submits the bills to McCoy; (2) McCoy includes the bills on bill lists 3 the bill lists are approved by the Authority Board at its next meeting; and (4) the checks paying the bills are signed by two Authority Board Members. 1. Authority checks to pay invoices are not issued until they are signed by Authority Board Members. 2. The Authority's payment of the Indiana Tech invoices for Respondent's courses occurred using these procedures. 55. Patricia Ann Grimes ( "Grimes ") served on the Authority Board from July of 2013 until August or September of 2015. a. In 2014 -2015, the Authority had financial issues. b. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent requested that the Authority pay for some courses that Respondent wanted to take. 1. Respondent did not explain to the Authority Board how many courses he would be taking, how long the courses would last, where he was going to take the courses, how much the courses were going to cost the Authority, or when he expected to complete the courses. 2. The Authority Board did not ask Respondent any questions about the courses Respondent wanted to take. 3. Grimes thought that Respondent would be taking one or two classes. 4. Grimes never thought the courses would cost the Authority as much as they cost. C. Grimes had not heard of Indiana Tech prior to the Investigative Division's investigation of Respondent and/or the dissemination of news items regarding the Authority paying for Respondent's education toward a Ph.D. d. During Grimes' tenure as an Authority Board Member, Authority Board Members received a stipend for each meeting. e. McConnell resigned as Authority General Manager sometime in the spring of 2015. f. Prior to 2015 Grimes did not know that McConnell was going to leave his position as General Manager of the Authority. g. After McConnell resigned as Authority General Manager, Respondent oversaw a lot of the day -to -day operations of the Authority, and the Authority Board considered hiring Respondent to be the Authority General Manager. Thornton, 15 -046 age3 Respondent submitted a resume to the Authority in regards to the 1 pen position of General Manager, which resum6 is in evidence as ID 2. Respondent requested a salary of $100,000 to be the Authority General Manager. 56. Daniel Cali ( "Cali ") is employed by the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission as a Special Investigator 2. a. Cali was assigned to conduct the Investigative Division's investigation of Respondent in this matter. b. ID 31 consists of a transcript of Respondent's sworn statement provided in the presence of Respondent's attorney and State Ethics Commission investigators during the Investigative Division's investigation of this matter. C. ID 20 consists of a sworn Affidavit of Respondent that was provided to Cali during the Investigative Division's investigation of this matter. 1. Respondent's Affidavit states in part: By a vote of 4 -0 (Mr. Thornton having abstained from the vote), the Aliqui pa Water Authority Board voted to allow Kenneth E. Thornton to attend schooling because he was the chairman of the Aliquippa Water Authority and suggested Kenneth E. Thornton as manager since the former manager had quit his employment with the Aliquippa Water Authority. ID 20, paragraph 3. 2. The approved minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting indicate the vote to approve having the Authority pay for Respondent's courses was 5 -0. 3. The approved minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting were not changed. 4. There is no record of the Authority Board approving an attachment to the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting with respect to Respondent's assertion that he had abstained from the vote to approve having the Authority pay for Respondent's courses. 5. In November of 2014, McConnell had not resigned from his position as Authority Manager. 6. In his sworn statement that is in evidence as ID 31, Respondent stated that it was not his intent to ever become the manager for the Authority. I D 31, at 69. d. In his sworn statement that is in evidence as ID 31, Respondent stated that he never intended on getting a degree from Indiana Tech. ID 31, at 48. 1. In the resume that Respondent submitted to the Authority, under the caption, "Education," Respondent indicated that he expected to receive a Ph.D. from Indiana Tech in 2017. ID 19, at 3. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 20 e. In his sworn statement that is in evidence as ID 31, Respondent stated: ...if you would write Indiana Tech today they were, could tell you affirmatively that I never submitted transcripts to be evaluated okay, to be accepted into their program. In other words to get advancement on my degree, why would I go back to take all of these courses that I had basically already taken plus the additional ones to approve the Authority. ID 31, at 71. 1. In Respondent's Application forAdmission to Indiana Tech's Doctoral Division (ID 25), under the heading, "Previous Education," Respondent indicated that he had requested that transcripts) from other institution(s) be sent to Indiana Tech in relation to the admissions decision. ID 25, at 1. f. Resppondent's Application for Admission to Indiana Tech's Doctoral Division (ID 25) was dated August 7, 2014, which was prior to the November 25, 22014, Authority Board meeting at which Respondent asked the Authority Board to have the Authority pay for Respondent's classes. g. ID 26 consists of a Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school. 1. The Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form in evidence as ID 26 is dated September 9, 2014, and is signed by Terrance J. McConnell, General Manager, as the authorized person. 2. The date of September 9, 2014, predated the November 25, 2014, request by Respondent and approval by the Authority Board for Respondent to take courses at the Authority's expense. 3. The Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form in evidence as ID 26 indicates that Indiana Tech was authorized to charge the Authority tuition for one course for Respondent during the academic year from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015. h. ID 27 consists of a Payment Options Form submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school. 1. ID 27 is dated September 9, 2014. .2. The date of September 9, 2014, predated the Authority Board's November 25, 2014, approval for Respondent to take courses at the Authority's expense. 3. ID 27 indicates that Respondent selected the payment option of "Deferment for Employer Assistance," with the Authority identified as Respondent's employer, and the instruction to "Send Bill To Student, He Will Forward To Employer." 1D -27. 4. ID 27 indicates that the annual employer assistance amount is 100 %. Thornton, 15 -046 a13 g r i. The total amount of money paid by the Authority to Indiana Tech for the classes that Respondent took was $11,025. j. The checks Respondent signed as an Authority signatory which were payable to Indiana Tech for Respondent's tuition were also signed by another Authority Board Member. k. ID 28 consists of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2013 dated April 23, 2014. 1. Block 13 of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2013, labeled "Office, Directorship, or Employment in any Business," is marked "None." 2. Beyond the Mark is not listed in Block 13 of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2013. ID 29 consists of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2014. 1. Block 13 of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2014, labeled "Office, Directorship, or Employment in any Business," is marked "None." 2. Beyond the Mark is not listed in Block 13 of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2014. M. ID 30 includes an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on March 3, 2003, for Beyond the Mark. 1. The Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark names Respondent as the only individual with an interest in the business. n. Respondent informed Cali that Respondent advised the Mayor of Aliquippa in his personal capacity as Kenneth E. Thornton and not as a representative of Beyond the Mark. o. ID 33 consists of a resume submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech relative to Respondent's enrollment at the school. 1. Under the caption, "Experience," the resume states, in part: BEYOND THE MARK Aliquippa, PA Owner/President 1999 to Present • Currently Serving as Senior Advisor to the Mayor and City Council of Aliquippa, PA. ID 33, at 2. 57. Terrance J. McConnell ("McConnell ") was employed by the Authority for 36 years until his resignation in 2015. a. McConnell's final position with the Authority was General Manager. b. During McConnell's tenure as General Manager of the Authority, McConnell asked Respondent for help on some administrative functions. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 22 C. At the end of March or beginning of April 2015, McConnell informed the Authority that McConnell would be leaving employment with the Authority. d. Prior to March 2015 McConnell did not tell anyone on the Authority Board that McConnell would be leaving employment with the Authority. e. McConnell himself did not know prior to March 2015 that he would be leaving employment with the Authority. f. During McConnell's tenure as General Manager of the Authority, the Authority was shorthanded and was experiencing financial problems and issues with infrastructure, equipment, and regulatory requirements. g. As the Authority's General Manager, McConnell signed purchase orders, but the Authority Board, not McConnell, made the final decisions as to the expenditure of Authority money. h. McConnell signed the Indiana Tech Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form that is in evidence as ID 26. 1. McCoy gave this form to McConnell. 2. McConnell's signature on lD 26 did not require the Authority Board to approve Respondent's classes. i. Respondent told McConnell that he (Respondent) wanted to take a class or two to be beneficial to the Authority. 1. McConnell did not ask Respondent what classes Respondent would be taking. 2. Respondent did not tell McConnell how long the classes would last. 3. McConnell was surprised when he found out Respondent's classes were toward a Ph.D. in leadership. j. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent did not tell the Authority Board how much the courses that he wanted to take were going to cost or where they were going to be. k. In relation to his position with the Authority, McConnell took advanced leadership classes that were only 2 -3 days long and cost at most $600.00. 1. The leadership classes that McConnell took helped him in his employment with the Authority. 1. When the bill for Respondent's tuition at Indiana Tech arrived, McConnell was shocked at the cost but believed there was nothing that could be done because the Authority Board had approved paying for Respondent's courses. M. McConnell has known Respondent for 36 years. n. McConnell has known Respondent to be a reputable person. o. While serving as an Authority Board Member, Respondent sought to know the plant operations. Thornton, 15 -046 —age--2T age-2 58. Joseph C. West ( "West ") was appointed to serve on the Authority Board approximately 4 Y years ago. a. In 2014 and 2015, Authority Board Members received a stipend of approximately $50 per month. b. West has known Respondent for approximately 20 years. 1. West testified that he and Respondent are friends and have had business relationships and done volunteer projects together. 2. West testified that Respondent has been a good and upstanding person. C. West testified that Beyond the Mark was a consulting business. d. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, it was stated that the courses the Authority would pay for Respondent to take would help out the Authority. 1. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent did not explain and the Board Members did not ask how much the classes Respondent was going to take would cost the Authority. 2. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, the Board Members did not ask how many classes Respondent was going to take. 3. The Solicitor was present at the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting and said nothing against having the Authority pay for Respondent's classes. e. After the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Respondent did not update the Authority Board regarding his classes. f. Respondent never told the Authority Board that he had failed a class and had to take it over again. g. There were other people at the Authority who took educational classes. h. Vouchers for classes were included on a bill list given to all Authority Board Members. 1. The Solicitor could look at the bills also. L In July or August 2015, West learned that the Authority had paid approximately $11,000 or $12,000 for Respondent's courses. 1. West had not previously realized what the cost was going to be. j. West heard rumors in January 2015 that McConnell might leave Authority employment, but to West's knowledge, there were no such rumors in November of 2014. k. When McConnell left employment with the Authority, Respondent volunteered his time to help manage the Authority. Thornton, 15046 Pa—g- _e Respondent never asked to be paid for the time he volunteered to help manage the Authority. 2. West testified that Respondent saved the Authority a lot of money and resolved a lot of problems. At an Authority Board meeting, an Authority Board Member suggested that Respondent apply for the General Manager position. M. No one --including the Solicitor- -ever said to the Authority Board that Respondent should not sign Authority checks paying for his classes. 59. Kenneth E. Thornton ( "Respondent ") retired from his prior employment with U.S. Airlines in approximately 1997. a. Respondent testified that following his retirement, he was not able to go back to any type of work. b. Authority Board Members serve a five -year term. C. During Respondent's most recent service on the Authority Board, McConnell was promoted from the position of Assistant General Manager to the position of General Manager. d. While McConnell was the Authority's General Manager, Respondent assisted McConnell with administrative matters when requested to do so. e. Respondent testified that as Chairman of the Authority, he needed to get a better understanding of how to make some of the changes that were needed at the Authority. Respondent testified: 1. That he only attended the classes at Indiana Tech to benefit the Authority; 2. That he applied to Indiana Tech at the particular time he did so that he would not have to wait until the following year to try to put some of the education he would receive to use and because there was a timeframe when a course would be available; 3. That if the Authority Board would not have approved paying Respondent's tuition, Respondent would not have taken the classes); 4. That on the Indiana Tech documents he completed, Respondent indicated he was an employee of the Authority based upon the limited choices the forms provided and his consultation with McCoy as to which blocks he should check; 5. That, with regard to the stipends Authority Board Members received, the Authority Board Members were given W2 forms with employee numbers; and 6. That Indiana Tech had to have the payment information on file prior to the courses being taken. Thornton, 15 -046 a�� g. Respondent gave to McCoy the Indiana Tech "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" that is in evidence as ID 26 and told her that the form had to be filled out. McConnell signed this form as the "authorized person." 2. Respondent was the superior of both McCoy and McConnell. 3. McCoy and McConnell had to obey Respondent's directives. h. Respondent testified that the statementlessay he attached to the Application he submitted to Indiana Tech did not mention the Authority because there was no reason to mention the Authority and because Respondent re -used a statement that had been used previously. At the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, when Respondent sought the Authority Board's approval for the classes Respondent wanted to take, Respondent did not tell the Authority Board how many classes he was going to take or how much the classes were going to cost. The Authority Solicitor and Authority Board Members were present and had an opportunity to question Respondent on anything they wanted to know. 2. Respondent testified that the Authority Solicitor sat there and gave the impression that nothing was wrong. At the time of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, no one knew that McConnell was going to terminate his employment with the Authority. k. In his sworn statement that is in evidence as ID 31, Respondent stated that if someone on the Authority Board would abstain they would fill out a form noting their abstention, that they were not required to make any statement as to why they were abstaining, but that as chairman he felt that if he would abstain from anything, he had a responsibility to make an acknowledgment. ID 31, at 7. 1. At the hearing in this matter, Respondent testified that there has never been an abstention form for an Authority Board Member to complete, and that what he meant by his prior statement was that someone would correct the minutes. {11128116 Tr., at 271). Respondent testified that he stated to McCoy that he had abstained from voting on the issue of the Authority paying for Respondent's courses, and when McCoy looked at it, she said that that was her mistake. Respondent testified that when he told McCoy that the mistake would have to be brought up at the meeting and then the minute books would have to be changed, McCoy stated that the minute books could not be changed because the whole page would have to be torn out. 2. Respondent testified that McCoy instead wrote a handwritten note. M. Respondent never asked the full Authority Board to approve any changes to the minutes for November of 2014. n. Respondent testified that the Indiana Tech courses that he took helped him tremendously as Authority Chairman and helped the Authority Board. Thornton, 15 -046 age F6- o. Respondent testified that the Authority was not bankrupt. 1. Respondent testified that the Authority sought to manage its indebtedness, not to make money, so as to avoid having the City take over the Authority. P. Respondent testified that when McConnell left the Authority, the Authority Board asked Respondent to take over the role of management temporarily, until someone would be hired. q. Respondent testified that he never applied with the Authority for the position of General Manager. r. Respondent provided varying testimony regarding when his resume that is in evidence as ID 19 was on file with the Authority. (11128116 Tr., at 246, 277- 279, 282). 1. Based on the content of ID 19 referring to Respondent's expectation of receiving a Ph.D. in 2017, Respondent acknowledged that he (11/28/16 r., at 282 . 1updated his resume that was on file with the Authority. S. Following the General Manager's review and approval of invoices to be paid by the Authority, the invoices were included on a bill list, Authority checks were prepared, the bill list was approved by the Authority Board at the next meeting, and then the checks were signed. t. Respondent voted to approve four out of five bill lists that included Authority payments to Indiana Tech for Respondent's tuition. 1. Respondent testified that none of those bills were separated out. 2. Respondent testified that the bill lists were approved by roll call vote, with Respondent as Chair being the last Authority Board Member to vote; such that it was Respondent's view the bill lists were approved before the roll call got to him. 3. Respondent testified: "I had no problem with it because the Board had already approved it." (11128116 Tr., at 274). U. Respondent testified that he first developed the business "Beyond the Mark" in 1999 to satisfy course requirements when an internship fell through. V, When Respondent applied for admission to Indiana Tech, Respondent was still the owner and president of Beyond the Mark. W. Respondent testified that there was no need for him to mention Beyond the Marc on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2013 and 2014 because he was not soliciting to do business as Beyond the Mark as a consultant with any organization, company or business, and he was not making any money with Beyond the Mark. 1. Respondent testified that he never operated Beyond the Mark as an actual business for profit. X. Although Respondent told Cali that Respondent had no intention of ever graduating from Indiana Tech (11128116 Tr., at 279), Respondent included on Thornton, 15 -046 age his resume that he filed with the Authority (ID 19) that he expected a Doctorate in 2017. Y. Respondent's statement/essay that he submitted with his Application to Indiana Tech stated that he wanted to be a consultant, Adjunct faculty member, and author, which Respondent testified were "expectations that never materialized." (11/28/16 Tr., at 280; ID 24, at 2). Z. Respondent testified that he did not disclose on his Statements of Financial Interests creditors with which he had education loans because: ...that was not the State Ethics Commission's business because it did not concern any matters of the boards that I was on. That was my private affairs. And I have no reason to be giving that information to the State for no reason at all. (11128/16 Tr., at 287). C. Documents 60. ID 3 consists of the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. a. The November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting started at 6:00 p.m., and by 6:10 p.m., all five Members of the Authority Board, including Respondent, were present at the meeting. b. The November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes state, in pertinent part: Mr. Thornton stated he is continuing his education toward his degree in management and asked the board to approve the Authority to pa the costs of the courses. Motion was made by Ms. Gilliam to approve the board pay for college courses Mr. Thornton will be taking toward his degree, Mr. West seconded the motion. Motion carried -- ayes. ayes. ID 3, at 13. 61. ID 4 consists of the minutes of the December 17, 2014, Authority Board meeting. a. All five Members of the Authorlty Board, including Respondent, were present at the December 17, 20'14, Authority Board meeting. b. The December 17, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that Respondent participated in the 5 -0 vote to approve the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. ID 4, at 4. 62. ID 5 consists of the minutes of the January 28, 2015, Authority Board meeting. a. All five Members of the Authority Board, including Respondent, were present at the January 28, 2015, Authority Board meeting. b. The January 28, 2015, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that Respondent voted in favor of approving the payment of the bills included in the bill list attached to those minutes. ID 5, at 2. Thornton, 15 -046 Page C. The bills approved by the Authority Board at the January 28, 2015, Authority Board meeting included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition, which bill was paid by Authority check number 005650. ID 5 Bill List, at 2. 63. ID 6 consists of the minutes of the April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting. a. l=our Members of the Authority Board, including Respondent, were present at the April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting. b. The April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that Respondent voted in favor of approving the payment of the bills included in the bill list attached to those minutes. ID 6, at 2. G. The bills approved by the Authority Board at the April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition, which bill was paid by Authority check number 006036. ID 6 Bill List, at 2. d. At the April 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting, the Board unanimously voted to accept McConnell's letter of resignation effective June 30, 2015. McConnell's letter of resignation was dated April 2, 2015, and stated that McConnell would be leaving the Authority as of June 30, 2015, by working through the month of April and then using his vacation days through June 30, 2015. ID 6, at 4. 64. ID 7 consists of the minutes of the May 27, 2015, Authority Board meeting. a. Three Members of the Authority Board, including Respondent, were present at the May 27, 2015, Authority Board meeting. b. The May 27, 2015, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that Respondent voted in favor of approving the payment of the bills included in the bill list attached to those minutes. 1D 7, at 2. C. The bills approved by the Authority Board at the May 27, 2015, Authority Board meeting included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition, which bill was-paid by Authority check number 006166. ID 7 Bill List, at 1. 65. ID 8 consists of the minutes of the July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting. a. The minutes indicate that four Members of the Authority Board, including Respondent, were present at the July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting. b. The July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that Respondent voted in favor of approving the payment of the bills included in the bill list attached to those minutes. ID 8, at 3. C. The bills approved by the Authority Board at the July 22, 2015, Authorit Board meeting included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.0 for Respondent's tuition, which bill was paid by Authority check number 006797. ID 8 Bill List, at 2. 66. ID 9 consists of the minutes of the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 9 a. Four Members of the Authority Board, including Mottes as Vice Chairman, were present at the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting. 1. Respondent was not present at the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting. b. The August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting minutes indicate that three Members of the Authority Board voted in favor of approving the payment of the bills included in the bill list attached to those minutes, and one Member of the Authority Board voted against approving payment of the bills. ID 9, at 5. c. The bills approved by the Authority Board at the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition, which bill was paid by Authority check number 007077. ID 9 Bill List, at page number 12. d. At the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes challenged the payment by the Authority Board of Respondent's tuition bills. ID 9, at 5. 1. West stated from that day forward, no college tuition bills would be paid by the Authority. ID 9, at 5. 2. Fedeles was authorized to investigate regarding the Authority's policy on paying for classes and/or training. lD 9, at 10. 67. ID 10 consists of Authority check number 005650 dated January 6, 2015, and Authority check number 006036 dated April 1, 2015, both of which checks are in the amount of $2,205.00 payable to Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's signature appears as one of the two authorized Authority signatories on the front of check number 005650. 68. ID 11 consists of Authority check number 006166 dated May 1, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 payable to Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's signature appears as one of the two authorized Authority signatories on the front of Authority check number 006166. 69. ID 12 consists of Authority check number 006797 dated July 2, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 payable to Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's signature appears as one of the two authorized Authority signatories on the front of Authority check number 006797. 70. ID 13 consists of Authority check number 007077 dated August 19, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 payable to Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's signature does not appear as one of the two authorized Authority signatories on the front of this check. 71. ID 14 consists of an invoice from Indiana Tech dated November 5, 2014, in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition for Course RES 7000 DOL 22 taken in Fall Term 2. a. ID 14 was paid by Authority check number 005650 in evidence as part of ID 10. Thornton, 15 -046 5 72. ID 15 consists of an invoice from Indiana Tech dated January 22, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition for Course RES 7011 DOL 31 taken in Spring Term 1. a. ID 15 was paid by Authority check number 006036 in evidence as part of ID 10. 73. ID 16 consists of an invoice from Indiana Tech dated April 1, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition for Course RES 7011 DOL 41 taken in Spring Term 2. a. ID 16 was paid by Authority check number 006166 in evidence as ID 11. 74. ID 17 consists of an invoice from Indiana Tech dated June 2, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition for Course LDS 7003 DOL 51 taken in Summer Term 1. a. ID 17 was paid by Authority check number 006797 in evidence as ID 12. 75. ID 18 consists of an invoice from Indiana Tech dated July 20, 2015, in the amount of $2,205.00 for Respondent's tuition for Course OLM 7005 DOL 61 taken in Summer Term 2. a. ID 18 was paid by Authority check number 007077 in evidence as ID 13. 76. ID 19 consists of Respondent's resume that Respondent submitted to the Authority. a. Under the caption, "Experience," the resume states, in part: BEYOND THE MARK Aliquippa, PA Owner /President 1999 to Present • Consulting and coaching Top level Executives and Management Teams in the art of leadership. • Design and install an effective budget forecasting and reporting system. • Utilize instructional design models to effectively analyze, design, implement, and evaluate training programs. • Plan and implement effective advertising, public relations, and marketing programs. • Effectively develop a full range of materials including media materials, correspondence and reports. • Desi n and execute Organization Development (ODI interventions for profit/nonprofit organizations. ID 19, at 2. b. Under the caption, "Education," the resume states: • PhD, Global Leadership, Specialization in Organization and Management, Indiana Technical College of Professional Studies, Fort Wayne, IN, Expected 2017. Thornton, 15-046 age • PhD, Organization and Management, Specialization in Executive Leadership, CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, Minneapolis, MN, Transferred 2012. • M.S., Professional Leadership, Specialization in Training and Development CARLOW UNIVERSITY, Pittsburgh, PA, 1999. • B. S., Business Administration, CARLOW UNIVERSITY, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995. ID 19, at 3. 77. ID 20 consists of a sworn Affidavit of Respondent dated April 13, 2016. a. Paragraph 2 of Respondent's Affidavit states: Beyond The Mark (Entity #3127965) never began operations nor has had any income and as a result there have never been any IRS Federal Tax Returns filed. ID 20, paragraph 2. b. Paragraph 3 of Respondent's Affidavit states: By a vote of 4 -0 (Mr. Thornton having abstained from the vote), the Aliquippa Water Authority Board voted to allow Kenneth E. Thornton to attend schooling because he was the chairman of the Aliquippa Water Authority and suggested Kenneth E. Thornton as manager since the former manager had quit his employment with the Aliquippa Water Authority. ID 20, paragraph 3. 78. ID 23 consists of a chart of the courses Respondent took at Indiana Tech at the expense of the Authority. a. The course numbers for the courses Respondent took at Indiana Tech are: RES 7000, RES 7011, LDS 7003, and OLM 7005. b. The course descriptions for the courses Respondent took at Indiana Tech are set forth at Fact Finding 37. 79. ID 24 consists of a six --page essay submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school, which document is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's essay is entitled "Candidate's Program Interest and Intended Goals," and relates to the Indiana Tech Global Leadership Ph.D. Program. b. Respondent's essay makes no mention of the Authority. C_ Respondent's essay states Respondent's goals relating to the Indiana Tech Global Leadership Ph.D. Program as follows: Thornton, 15 -046 Page 32 . I believe that the Ph.D. Global Leadership rograrn can prepare me to meet the futuristic challenges at the next level, while fulfilling my personal goals of becoming a university/college Adjunct faculty member, establishing a consulting practice, and authoring new knowledge. [A]s a future Doctoral learner I look forward to one day imparting an understandable paradigm of what global leadership and personal change signifies. As a global leadership - practitioner, my expectations are to be able to offer a unique way of thinking to others that characterizes a philosophy of social and business ethics as being three - dimensional; while promoting cultural differences and business techniques as an extensive exhibit of global change through collaborative learning and systems thinking. I also look forward to demonstrating continuous advancement as a consultant in the discipline of Global Leadership, while offering new and expanded knowledge in the specialization of organizational management, critical thinking, and executive coaching. The Ph.D. Global Leadership program will not only take me to the next level, it will rovide me with an opportunity to improve my ability to lead significant change and achieve professional and personal fulfillment. Admission into the Ph.D. Global Leadership program at Indiana Tech College of Professional Studies would empower me to fashion a culture of continuous innovation and pave a path to greater knowledge. This program would provide me with the professional proficiencies necessary to refocus my competitive skills, and explore new calling and direction. It would also grant me the opportunity to join other cohorts in discussing the latest thinking and strategies in Global Leadership. D 24, at 2 -3, 6. 80. ID 25 consists of the Application for Admission Doctoral Division ( "A placation for Admission ") submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school, which document is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. a. Respondent's Application for Admission to Indiana Tech's Doctoral Division is dated August 7, 2014. Under the heading, "Previous Education," Respondent indicated that he had requested that transcript(s) from other institution(s) be sent to Indiana Tech in relation to the admissions decision. ID 25, at 1. Under the heading, "Financial Information," Respondent indicated on the Application for Admission that the source of financial aid he would be utilizing for the Indiana Tech doctoral program was "Deferment Employee [sic] Asst. (Invoice Student directly)." ID 25, at 2. Thornton, 15 -046 a 81. ID 26 consists of a "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school, which document is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. a. The Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form in evidence as ID 26 is dated September 9, 2014, and is signed by Terrance J. McConnell, General Manager, as the authorized person. b. The Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form in evidence as ID 26 indicates that Respondent was a Board Member of the Authority. C, The Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form in evidence as ID 26 indicates that Indiana Tech was authorized to charge the Authority tuition for one course for Respondent during the academic year from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015. 82. ID 27 consists of a Payment Options Form submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school, which document is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. a. ID 27 is dated September 9, 2014. b. ID 27 indicates that Respondent selected the payment option of "Deferment for Employer Assistance," with the Authority identified as Respondent's employer, and the instruction to "Send Bill To Student, He Will Forward To Employer." 1D -27. C. ID 27 indicates that the annual employer assistance amount is 100% 83. ID 28 consists of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2013 dated April 23, 2014. a. For Block 13, labeled "Office, Directorship, or Employment in any Business," Respondent marked the box "None," indicating that there was none to disclose. 84. ID 29 consists of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2014 dated February 25, 2015. a. For Block 13, labeled "Office, Directorship, or Employment in any Business," Respondent marked the box "None," indicating that there was none to disclose. 85. ID 30 consists of records from the Pennsylvania Department of State including an Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark. a. The Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark was filed with the Department of State on March 3, 2003. b. The Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark names Respondent as the only individual with an interest in the business. C. The Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark is signed by Respondent and dated August 5, 2000. d. As of November 16, 2015, Beyond the Mark was listed in the records of the Pennsylvania Department of State as having "active" status. Thornton, 15 -046 age 4 The Application for Registration of Fictitious Name for Beyond the Mark states that the business or other activity to be carried on under or through the fictitious name is "management consultant, training & development, organization development.' ID 30, at 1. 86. ID 31 consists of a transcript of a sworn statement of Respondent provided to investigators of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, dated May 5, 2416. a. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that it was never his intent to be around [at the Authority] after the term was up. ID 31, at 18. b. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that it was not his intent to ever become the manager for the Authority. ID 31, at 69. C. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that when the Authority asked him to consider taking the General Manager's job, he refused, and when they kept pushing him, he jokingly said that for him to take a position like that and come out of retirement it would have to be "at least six figures. ID 31, at 38. d. In his sworn statement, Respondent provided inconsistent information as to when he told McCoy that the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes were not correct based upon his assertion that he abstained from the vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses: Respondent initially stated that he brought the matter to McCoy's attention at the following meeting (December 2014) (ID 31, at 41 -42) and subse uentlyy stated that he did not recall when he brought it to McCoy's attentionlID 31, at 46). In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that he never intended on getting a degree from Indiana Tech. ID 31, at 48. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that the portion of the essay he submitted with his Application to Indiana Tech regarding his personal goals of becoming a university/college adjunct faculty ember, establishing a consulting practice, and authoring new knowledge was "puffed up" as he knew tha# he was not able to do any of this. 1D 31, at 68 -69. In this regard, Respondent further stated: In that respect, alright so I put that in that in order for me to be able to get accepted into the college. Okay. And it been accepted in there was showing them how the, the degree could be used, more so than the way that I would utilize if I got because remember I said I had no intent of actually pursuing a full degree from Indiana Tech, it was just taking the course work that needed that would ultimately improve the Authority. ID 31, at 69. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated the following with regard to whether he had submitted transcripts to Indiana Tech to be evaluated: ...if you would write Indiana Tech today they were, could tell you affirmatively that I never submitted transcripts to be evaluated okay, to be accepted into their program. In other words to get advancement on Thornton, 15 -046 Page 335 my degree, why would I go back to take all of these courses that I had basically already taken plus the additional ones to approve the Authority. ID 31, at 71. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that if someone on the Authority Board would abstain they would fill out a form noting their abstention, that they were not required to make any statement as to why they were abstaining, but that as chairman he felt that if he would abstain from anything, he had a responsibility to make an acknowledgment. ID 31, at 7. i. In his sworn statement, Respondent stated that the reason he took one of the Indiana Tech courses twice was that he had received an unfavorable grade the first time he took the course, and he had to maintain a B average to stay in the program. ID 31, at 72. 87. ID 33 consists of a resume submitted by Respondent to Indiana Tech regarding Respondent's enrollment at the school, which document is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. Under the caption, "Experience," the resume states, in part: BEYOND THE MARK Aliquippa, PA Owner /President 1999 to Present • Currently Serving as Senior Advisor to the Mayor and City Council of Aliquippa, PA. • Consulting and coaching Top level Executives and Management Teams in the art of leadership. • Design and install an effective budget forecasting and reporting system. • Utilize instructional des,ggn models to effectively analyze, design,. impiement, and evaluate training programs. • Plan and implement effective advertising, public relations, and marketing programs. • Effectively develop a full range of materials including media materials, correspondence and reports. • Desi n and execute Organization Development (OD1 interventions for profit/nonprofit organizations. I D 33, at 2. Under the caption, "Education," the resume states: • Doctoral Coursework (Degree Not Compieted), Organization and Management, Specialization in Leadership, CAPELLA UNIVERSITY, Minneapolis, MN; Attendance: 2005 -2010, Cumulative GPA in specialization 3.5. • M.S., Professional Leadership, Specialization in Training and Development CARLOW UNIVERSITY, Pittsburgh, PA, 1999. Thornton, 15 -046 agF g • B.S., Business Administration, CARLOW UNIVERSITY, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995. ID 33, at 3. 88. ID 34 consists of a transcript from Indiana Tech detailing Respondent's courses taken and grades and credits earned in Indiana Tech's Doctoral Division under the Major "Global Leadership - Organizational Management." a. The transcript in evidence as ID 34 is maintained as an official business record of Indiana Tech. b. During the Fall, Spring, and Summer Semesters of the 2014 -2015 academic year, Respondent took a total of four courses at Indiana Tech, one of which courses Thornton repeated when he did not receive a passing grade the first time. 1. The course that Respondent repeated was RES 7011. 2. The other three courses that Respondent took were RES 7000, LDS 7003, and OLM 7005. 3. For each of the four courses completed with a passing grade, Respondent received three credits, for a total of 12 credits earned at the expense of the Authority. 89. McCoy testified that R -1 is a copy of her handwritten notes from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. See, Fact Finding 54 q. a. While the rest of R -1 is written primarily in cursive with an occasional printed letter, the notation regarding Respondent's claimed abstention as to the vote in question, specifically "4/1 KT DID NOT VOTE," is written to the side with all capital letters. 90. McCoy testified that R -2 is her handwritten note to substantiate her testimony that Respondent Thornton abstained from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses. See, Fact Finding 54 r. a. R -2 states: 913114 In coping [sic] the minutes, I realized I made an error in the last motion where indicated 5 Ayes pulled my notes from 11/25/14 Meeting the vote was 411 Ken did not vote [signature] R -2. Thornton, 15 -046 Page D. Derivative Findings 91. The approved official meeting minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting are the best and only credible evidence as to what occurred at that meeting and establish that Respondent voted to approve having the Authority pay for his courses. a. The approved meeting minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting were prepared by McCoy and approved by the Authority Board in close proximity to the time of the. November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. Fact Findings 54 a 2 61 b. b. At its December 17, 2014, meeting, all five of the Authority Board Members, including Respondent, unanimously approved the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting as prepared by McCoy. Fact Findings 54n 61 -61b. C. No Authority Board Member(s) ever questioned whether the minutes from the December 2014 Authority Board meeting were correct. Fact Finding 54 o. d. McCoy's unofficial notes at R -1 fail in light of the approved official meeting minutes. e. McCoy's testimony that there was an error in the November 25, 2014, Authority Board Meeting minutes with respect to Respondent voting to appprove having the Authority pay for his courses fails in light of the approved official meeting minutes. f. R -2 bears an erroneous date of "913114," and it was written well after the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting and as a result of Respondent asserting to McCoy that he had not voted. Fact Findings 541, r 1 -3 90 b. g. Respondent's testimony that he abstained from the vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses fails in light of the approved official meeting minutes. 92. The evidence in this case includes inconsistent, varying, and conflicting information attributable to Respondent. Cf., Fact Findings 56 c 1, 6; 56 d -d 1; 56 e -el; 56 n -o; 59 a; 59 k -k 1; 59 q -r 1; 59 x -y; 60 b; 76 a -b; 77 b; 79 c; 80 b; 83 a; 84 a; 86 a -b, d- h; 87 a. E. Stipulations 93. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to rovide testimony regarding this matter, Esaias Juan Rodriguez would provide the following testimony under oath: a. Rodriguez is employed by Indiana Tech as the University Registrar. b. As Registrar, Rodriguez is the records librarian /custodian of records for Indiana Tech. G. At the request of Investigator Dan Cali, Rodriguez provided the investigative Division with true and accurate Indiana Tech business records regarding Kenneth Thornton's enrollment at the school. Thornton, 15 -046 age d. The business records are maintained in the ordinary course of business and are official records of the following: Essay. See Exhibit ID 24. 2. Application. See Exhibit ID 25. 3. Employment Authorization Form. See Exhibit ID 26. 4. Payment Options Form. See Exhibit ID 27. 5. Resume. See Exhibit ID 33. 6. Transcript. See Exhibit 1D 34. Ill. DISCUSSION: As a Member of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa ( "Authority "), Beaver County, Pennsylvania, from January 25, 2012, Until October 6, 2015, and as Chairman of the Authority in 2014 and 2015, Respondent Kenneth E. Thornton, also referred to hereinafter as "Respondent," "Respondent Thornton," and "Thornton," was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa. C.S. § 1101 et se . The allegations as set forth in the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report are that Respondent Thornton violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(8) and (9) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1105(b)(8) -(9): (1) when he utilized the authority of his public office for a private pecuniary benefit y participating in discussions and actions of the Authority Board of Directors, including but not limited to directing, influencing, voting, and serving as the Authority signatory on checks, resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Technical College, an educational institution where Respondent was pursuing a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, under the guise that the classes were directly related to his duties as an Authority Board Member; and (2) when he filed deficient Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2013 and 2014 when he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment with, and his financial interest in, Beyond the Mark, a business entity engaged for profit. We initially note that the Investigative Division has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to not pros the allegation under Section 1105(b)(9 of the Ethics Act. Closin Statement and Brief of the Investigative Division, at 1 (Note 1�. Based upon the nol pros, we need not address the Section 1105(b) 9) allegation that is no longer before us. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public off iciallpublic 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 Thornton, 15 -046 Pagee 9 official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") form must provide. Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI any office, directorship or employment in any business entity. We shall now summarize the relevant facts. The Authority consists of five Members. Respondent Thornton served as a Member of the Authority Board from January 25, 2012, until October 6, 2015, and as Chairman of the Authority Board in 2014 and 2015. In a private capacity, Thornton has not been employed since his retirement from USAIR Airlines, Inc. in 1999. Thornton testified that following his retirement, he was not able to go back to any type of work. It has been a practice of the Authority Board to have the Authority pay for education related to the specific duties and responsibilities of the Board and/or employees of the Authority. Education paid for by the Authority was specific to the duties and responsibilities of the Authority, namely providing potable water, and was provided by entities such as the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association and American Water Works Association. Education paid by the Authority specific to office /technology skills was provided by entities such as community colleges. Prior to coming on the Authority Board in January 2012, Thornton had obtained a B.S. in Business Administration and an M.S. in Professional Leadership, with a specialty in Training and Development, from Carlow University, and he had taken online classes through Capella University from 2005 through 2010 to pursue a Ph.D. in Organization and Management, with a specialty in Executive Leadership. Thornton had not completed his degree at Capella University. This case pertains to courses that Thornton took —at Authority expense ---at Indiana Institute of Technology (also referred to herein as "Indiana Tech ") in 2014 and 2015, while Thornton was a Member and Chairman of the Authority. On August 7, 2014, Thornton completed and submitted an application to Indiana Tech as a candidate for consideration for enrollment in online classes commencing Thornton, 15 -046 age 4 October of 2014. Thornton indicated within his application that his academic preference was to obtain his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. The Global Leadership, Organizational Management program was similar to the one that Thornton had previously pursued during his enrollment at Capella University. Thornton further indicated within his application that a source of financial aid he anticipated utilizing for his education was "deferment emFloyee [sic] asst. (invoice student directly)." Thornton did not identify the employer he anticipated using for deferment payment assistance. Thornton was required to submit a current resume and an original essay with his application to Indiana Tech. Thornton submitted with his apppplication a six -page essay titled "Candidate's Program Interest and Intended Goals." Thornton's essay includes the following as Thornton's goals relating to the Indiana Tech Ph.D. program: "I believe that the Ph.D. Global Leadership program can prepare me to meet the futuristic challenges at the next level, while fulfilling my personal goals of becoming a university /college Adjunct faculty member, establishing a consulting practice, and authoring new knowledge." Fact Finding 20 a; 79 c. Thornton did not detail anywhere in his six -page essay that pursuing his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management would benefit him as a public official, specifically as Chairman of the Authority, or that same would be of benefit to the Authority in general. Thornton made no mention of his public position with the Authority in his essay. Thornton indicated in his application essay that obtaining a Ph.D. would help him fulfill personal goals. Thornton testified that the essay he attached to the Application he submitted to Indiana Tech did not mention the Authority because there was no reason to mention the Authority and because he re -used a statement that had been used previously. On or about August 29, 2014, Thornton received correspondence from Indiana Tech advising that he was accepted as a student at Indiana Tech to pursue his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. A description of the Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Nanagement program, as offered by Indiana Tech, is set forth at Fact Finding 22. On September 9, 2014, Thornton faxed to Indiana Tech a completed "Payment Options Form' which identified the payment option, "Deferment for Employer Assistance" that would be utilized by Thornton to pay for the classes. The form identified the Authority as Thornton's employer and further indicated that the annual employer assistance would be in the amount of 100 %. Prior to submitting the Indiana Tech "Payment Options Form" in September of 2014, Thornton did not seek pre - appproval or notify the Authority Board that he intended to have the Authority fully fund his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. On or about September 9, 2014, Thornton provided to Authority Officer Manager Denise McCoy ( "McCoy ") an Indiana Tech "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form to complete. The purpose of the form is to document that the student's employer has authonzed the student's education to be paid for by his/her employer. The form was completed indicating Thornton's present employer as "(Board Member) Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa" and that the Authority would pay for one course during the 2014/2015 academic year. McCoy provided the Indiana Tech "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" dated Se tember 9, 2014, to Terrance McConnell ( "McConnell'), then General Manager of the Authority, for review and signature. At some point Thornton told McConnell that he (Thornton) wanted to take a class or two to be beneficial to the Authority. McConnell did not ask Thornton what classes Thornton would be taking. Thornton did not tell McConnell how long the classes would last. McConnell signed the Indiana Tech "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" based on Thornton's statement that he (Thornton) intended to obtain education paid for by the Authority that would benefit the Authority. McConnell was of the belief that his signing the form did not signify a final decision on the matter, but rather that the matter would progress to the Authority Board for final approval /authorization. Thornton, 15 -046 Page 4' Thornton testified that he applied to Indiana Tech at the particular time he did so that he would not have to wait until the following year to f to put some of the education he would receive to use and because there was a timeframe when a course would be available. Thornton testified that Indiana Tech had to have the payment information on file prior to the courses being taken, and that on the Indiana Tech documents he completed, he indicated he was an employee of the Authority based upon the limited choices the forms provided and his consultation with McCoy as to which blocks he should check. Thornton further testified that Authority Board Members were given W2 forms with employee numbers relative to the stipends they received. Thornton began taking online Indiana Tech classes towards his Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management in approximately October 2014. On or about November 5, 2014, Thornton received his first invoice from Indiana Tech. The invoice was dated November 5, 2014, and was in the amount of $2,205.00. The invoice indicated the following: "Payment due January 27, 2015 for deferment students only." Later that same month, near the conclusion of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Thornton advised the Authority Board of his intent to have the Authority pay for his education stating that such would benefit the Authority in general, and Thornton as Chairman of the Authority. Thornton's request to have the Authority pay for his education was not on the agenda for the November 25, 2094, meeting. Thornton did not tell the Authority Board how many classes he was interested in having the Authority pay for on his behalf, Flow much the courses that he wanted to take were going to cost, or where the courses were going to be taken. Thornton did not inform the Authority Board that the Authority would be paying for coursework related to a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. The Board trusted Thornton to select the education Thornton believed would be of benefit to the Authority. Fact Finding 30. Voting at Authority meetings occurs in roll call fashion after a motion is made and properly seconded. Abstentions and/or dissenting votes are to be specifically documented in the meeting minutes. McCoy creates the meeting minutes based on her handwritten notes. Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each subsequent meeting of the Authority Board. The Authority Board meetings are not audio or video recorded. The approved November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes state, in pertinent part: Mr. Thornton stated he is continuing his education toward his degree in management and asked the board to approve the Authority to pay the costs of the courses. Motion was made by Ms. Gilliam to approve the board pay for collegge courses Mr. Thornton will be taking toward his degree, Mr. West seconded the motion. Motion carried — 5 ayes. ID 3, at 13. There was testimony that the Authority Solicitor was present during the aforesaid vote and said nothing at that time against having the Authority pay for Thornton's classes. The November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting minutes were unanimously approved by the Authority Board on December 17; 2014, by a 5 -0 vote with Thornton participating in the vote. In 2014 and 2015, Thornton took four courses at Indiana Tech, one of which he repeated. The course descriptions for the Indiana Tech courses that Thornton took are at Fact Finding 37. Although there was testimony that for at least three of the four courses, there was something in the course description that might have some relevance to being an Thornton, 15 -046 Page 4 Authority Board Member, the courses as a whole were not directly related to the work of the Authority in providing potable water. Thornton testified that he only attended the classes at Indiana Tech to benefit the Authority. Thornton testified that as Chairman of the Authority, he needed to get a better understanding of how to make some of the changes that were needed at the Authority. Thornton testified that the courses helped him tremendously as Authority Chairman and helped the Authority Board. After the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Thornton did not update the Authority Board regarding his classes. Thornton never told the Authority Board that he had failed a class and had to take it over again. During the time period of December 2014 through August 2015, Thornton submitted five Indiana Tech invoices totaling $11,025.00 to the Authority for payment as detailed in Fact Findings 33 and 35. Each invoice was for one course, and each invoice was in the amount of $2,205.00. Two of the invoices were for the same course taken in different sessions, which Thornton had to repeat in order to remain in the Ph.D. program. Per Authority purchasing procedures, a purchase order was completed by McCoy for each of the five (5) invoices Thornton provided to her. The payments identified on the purchase orders were authorized by either McConnell or McCoy by signing the purchase orders. The Authority Board gives final a proval forAuthority expenditures, and payment is not issued until the Board approves the bill list identifying the payment. If a service or other expenditure is to be paid, the invoice for same is to be attached to the check. As an Authority Board Member, Thornton voted to approve four of the five Authority checks issued to Indiana Tech as payment for classeslcoursework towards his Ph.D. in Global Leadership. On January 28, 2015, the Authority Board, including Thornton, approved the bill list via a 5 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check number 5650 in the amount of $2,205.00. On April 22, 2015, the Authority Board, including Thornton, approved the bill list via a 4 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check number 6036 in the amount of $2,205.00. On May 27, 2015, the Authority Board, including Thornton, approved the bill list via a 3 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check number 6166 in the amount of $2,205.00. On July 22, 2015, the Authority Board, including Thornton, approved the bill list via a 4 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check number 6797 in the amount of $2,205.00. On August 26 2015, the Authority oard - -not including Thornton, who was absent -- approved the bill list via a 4 -0 vote that identified payment to Indiana Tech via Authority check number 7077 in the amount of $2,205.00. Thornton approved $8,820.00 worth of Authority payments to Indiana Tech as identified on Authority bill lists, spanning the time frame of January 2015 through August 2015. Thornton testified that the bill lists were approved by roll call vote, with Thornton as Chair being the last Authority Board Member to vote, such that it was Thornton's view the bill lists were approved before the roll call got to him. Signature authority over Authority financial accounts is maintained by the entire Authority Board. Authority checks require the live signature of any two of the five authorized signatories. Signature stamps are not utilized by the Authority. The majority of the Authority checks are signed during Board meetings. As an authorized signatory for the Authority, Thornton signed three of the five Authority checks that were issued to Indiana Tech for his tuition, specifically, check number 5650 dated January 6, 2015, check number 6166 dated May 1, 2015, and check number 6797 dated July 2, 2015. Attached to each Authority check was the purchase order and Thornton, 15 -046 Page 4 invoice related to the payment. The checks to Indiana Tech that were signed by Thornton totaled $6,615.00. During the time period that the Authority was paying for Respondent's tuition at Indiana Tech, the Authority was experiencing financial problems and issues with infrastructure, equipment, and regulatory requirements. After McConnell resigned /ceased working as Authority General Manager in or about April of 2015 (see, Fact Finding 63 d 1), Thornton voluntarily oversaw a lot of the day -to- day operationsWthe Authority at no cost to the Authority, and at some point in time, the Authority Board considered hiring Thornton to be the Authority General Manager. However, contrary to a sworn Affidavit of Thornton that is in evidence as ID 20, such had no bearing on the Authority Board's prior vote of November 25, 2014, to authorize having the Authority pay for courses for Respondent. On November 25, 2014, when the Authority Board voted to approve having the Authority pay for courses taken by Respondent, McConnell was still employed as the Authority's General Manager, and no one — including McConnell himself —knew that in the spring of 2015 there would be an open General Manager position at the Authority. As set forth in Fact Finding 92, the evidence in this case includes various inconsistent, varying, and conflicting information attributable to Thornton. On July S, 2015, Matthew Mottes ( "Mottes ") was appointed to serve on the Authority Board. While attending his first meeting as an Authority Board Member on July 22, 2015, Mottes noticed an Indiana Tech tuition payment in the meeting materials. On July 22, 2015, Mattes did not know what Indiana Tech was. After the July 22, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes obtained and reviewed copies of prior Authority Board meeting minutes which indicated that Respondent had voted at the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting to have the Authorit pay the costs of courses he wanted to take toward his degree in management and the Au hority Board had already paid other Indiana Tech tuition bills for Respondent's tuition. At the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, Mottes raised an issue regarding the payment b the Authority Board of Respondent's tuition bills. Thornton was not present at the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting. During the August 26, 2015, Authority Board meeting, three Members of the Authority Board voted to approve bills that included a bill from Indiana Tech in the amount of $2,205.00 for tuition for Respondent. This bill was the final tuition bill that the Authority paid for Thornton's tuition. Per the admitted averments of the Investigative Complaint, Mottes' concern that Thornton's education was being paid for by the Authority resulted in Thornton reviewing the November 25, 2014, Authority meeting minutes. Fact Finding 40. Upon review, Thornton discovered that the minutes generated by McCoy indicated that Thornton voted in favor of his education being paid for by the Authority. Fact Finding 40 a. Thornton believed that he abstained from the vote and requested that McCoy review her notes of the meeting. Fact Finding 40 b. McCoy's notes of the November 25, 2014, meeting reflected that Thornton abstained from the vote related to his education being paid for by the Authority. Fact Finding 40 c. In a statement to Commission investigators, Thornton stated that he informed McCoy that he wanted the minutes to be altered to reflect that he abstained from the vote and that McCoy advised him that she could not alter approved minutes. Fact Findings 41 d 2 -3. Thornton indicated that it was decided by Thornton and McCoy to attach McCoy's handwritten notes of the meeting to the minutes as an addendum to the minutes. Fact Finding 41 d 4. McCoy testified that the document in evidence as Exhibit R -1 is a copy of her handwritten notes from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, and Exhibit R -2 Thornton, 15 -046 age 44 is her handwritten note to substantiate her testimony that Thornton abstained from the November 25, 2014, Authority Board vote to approve having the Authority pay for his courses. McCoy wrote the date at the top of R- 2-- specifically 913114 -which date is clearly not credible because it would have been prior to the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. McCoy testified that it was possible she created the note in evidence as R -2 after she had been contacted by the State Ethics Commission in regard to the investigation in this case. Thornton never asked the full Authority Board to approve any charges to the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, and those minutes were never changed. There is no record of the Authority Board approving any attachment to the minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting. As fact finder, we determine that the approved official meeting minutes of the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting are the best and only credible evidence of what happened at that meeting and establish that Thornton voted to approve having the Authority pay for his courses (see, Fact Findings 91 --92). Any evidence to the contrary fails in light of the approved official meeting minutes. In 1999 Thornton created a business model for a fictional business called "Beyond the Mark" in order to complete a school - mandated project. Thornton subsequently filed the fictitious name, "Beyond the Mark," with the Pennsylvania Department of State on March 3, 2003, due to Thornton having aspirations of operating Beyond the Mark as an actual business entity. Pennsylvania Department of State records reflect that the business was created with the intent to provide management consulting, training and development, and organization development and had an active status as of November 16, 2015. Per the admitted averments of the Investigative Complaint, Thornton never engaged in business operations as Beyond the Mark. Fact Finding 48. Although Thornton does not provide management, leadership, and organizational development consultations through Beyond the Mark, Thornton provides said services in his personal capacity. Fact Finding 50. Thornton does not charge for the consulting services he provides, Fact Finding 50 a. In 2014, when Thornton applied for admission to Indiana Tech, he identified himself as the owner and president of Beyond the Mark. The resume Thornton submitted to Indiana Tech relative to his enrollment at the school (ID 33) indicated that Thornton had been the owner /president of Beyond the Mark continuously since 1999. On his SFIs filed for calendar years 2013 and 2014, Thornton indicated that he did not have any office, directorship, or employment in any business. Thornton testified that there was no need for him to mention Beyond the Mark on his SFIs for calendar years 2013 and 2014 because he was not soliciting to do business as Beyond the Mark as a consultant with any organization, company or business, and he was not making any money with Beyond the Mark. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we note that the parties have filed closing statements /briefs in this matter. In its Closing Statement and Brief, the Investigative Division contends that Respondent Thornton violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105�b)(8) of the Ethics Act when he utilized the authority of his public office for private pecuniary benefit by participating in discussions and actions of the Authority Board, including but not limited to directing, influencing, voting, and serving as the Authority signatory on checks, resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Tech, an educational institution where Respondent was pursuing a Ph. D. in Global Leadership, under the guise that classes were direct) related to his duties as an Authority Board Member; and when he failed to disclose his office, directorship or employment in Beyond the Mark, a business that Respondent created. With regard to the Section 1103(a) allegation, the Investigative Thornton, 15 -046 Page 4 Division asserts that Respondent's uses of the authority of his office included: (1) asking the Authority Board to pay for his classes; (2) informing the Authority Board that the classes he would be taking would be management classes when they were actually classes toward a Ph.D. in Global Leadership; (3) omitting information in his conversation with the Authority Board, such as the fact that he had already applied to Indiana Tech, and how much the classes were going to cost; (4) voting at the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting to approve having the Authority pay for his classes; (5) voting to approve payments for bill lists that included payments for Indiana Tech invoices; and (6) signing checks to pay for Indiana Tech invoices as an authorized s' natory for the Authority. The Investigative Division asserts that Respondent's uses o office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for himself consisting of the $11,025.00 that the Authority, rather than Respondent, paid to Indiana Tech for Respondent's courses at a time when the Authority was struggling financially. The Investigative Division contends that this Commission should order Respondent to ay restitution of all financial gain obtained in violation of the Ethics Act, specifically the $1,025.00 paid by the Authority for Respondent's classes at Indiana Tech, plus a treble penalty in the amount of $33,075.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In his Brief, Respondent Thornton contends that he did not violate the Ethics Act based upon his assertions that (1) Thornton acted in good faith; (2) as set forth in the Investigative Complaint, it was the practice of the Authority Board to have the Authority pay for education related to the s ecific duties and responsibilities of the Authority Board and/or employees of the Authority; �3) Thornton notified the Authority Board of his education and stated that the education would benefit the Authority; (4) a Ph.D. in Global Leadership could improve Thornton's ability to participate on the Authority; (5) Thornton attended the classes at Indiana Tech for the benefit of the Authority and to help organize and assist in the reorganization of the Authority; (6) the matter of Thornton's schooling was discussed I the Authority Board with capable legal counsel present; (7) no evidence exists that Thornton misled the Authority Board; (8) the Authority Board Members saw the Indiana Tech billings and the course des' ti as part of the bill paying process and voted to approve Thornton taking these classes; (9) the Authority Board had an opportunity for debate on these issues and was represented by counsel during all of the Authority Board votes to approve the payments for Thornton's education; (10) the solicitor did not flag the payments to Indiana Tech as being improper; (11) even without Thornton, there were enough votes of the remaining Authority Board Members to approve the bills; and (12) the business "Beyond the Mark" was never engaged for profit. We must now determine whether the actions of Thornton violated Section 1103(a) and /or Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to the allegations, due U4requires that we not depart from the allegations. Penns v. 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 (1998) (Citation omitted). Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 610 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011), in order to violate Section 1103(a ) of the' Et ics Act, a public official /public employee: ... must act in such a way as to put his [office /public position] to the purpose of obtaining for himself a private pecuniary benefit. Such directed action implies awareness on the part of the [public off iciallpublic employee] of the potential pecuniary benefit as well as the motivation to obtain that benefit for himself. Kistler, supra, 610 Pa. at 523, 22 A.3d at 227. To violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Thornton, 15-046 age 4 a public official /public employee "must be consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit for himself, his family, or his business, and then must take action in the form of one or more specific steps to attain that benefit." Id., 610 Pa. at 528, 22 A.3d at 231. In applying the facts to the allegations, we find that Thornton violated Section 1103 (a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public office as an Authority Board Member to take doctoral courses at Indiana Tech at Authority expense. As an Authority Board Member and Chairman, Thornton was aware of the practice of the Authority Board to have the Authority pay for education related to the specific duties and responsibilities of the Board and/or employees of the Authority. Thornton's actions establish that he puff his office to the purpose of obtaining for himself doctoral courses at the expense of the Authority. Months before he even mentioned courses to the Authority Board, Thornton had applied for admission and had been accepted into Indiana Tech's Doctoral Division to pursue a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management, and he had also submitted to Indiana Tech documents indicating that the Authority would be paying 100% of his tuition. Thornton used the authority of his public position on or about September 9, 2014, when he submitted to McCoy for completion the Indiana Tech "Direct Bill to Employer Authorization Form" to confirm that the Authority would be paying for Thornton's tuition. Both McCoy who assisted in processing the form, and McConnell, who signed the form, were subordinates of Thornton. Thornton began taking online Indiana Tech classes in the doctoral program in approximately October 2014. It was not until the following month that Respondent mentioned taking courses to the Authority Board. Specifically, at the November 25, 2014, Authority Board meeting, Thornton used the authority of his public office when he stated he was continuing his education toward his degree in management and asked the Authority Board to approve having the Authority pay the costs of the courses. ID 3, at 13. Thornton told the Authority Board that the courses would benefit the Authority. Thornton withheld from the Authority Board material facts regarding the courses he planned to take. He did not tell the Authority Board that the courses he would be taking were toward a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, Organizational Management. Thornton did not tell the Authority Board how many courses he would take, where he would take them, or how much they would cost the Authority. Substantively, although some of the Indiana Tech courses might have had some relevance to an Authority Board Member, the courses were not the types of directly relevant courses for which it was the practice of the Authority to pay. Respondent used the authority of his public office when he voted on November 25, 2014, to authorize having he Authority ay for his classes. After November 25, 2014, Respondent did not update the Authority Board regarding his classes, and he did not inform the Authority Board that he failed one of the courses and repeated it, again at Authority expense. Respondent used the authority of his office when he voted to approve four of the five Authority checks issued to pay Indiana Tech invoices for his tuition, and when he signed, as an authorized signatory for the Authority, three of the five Authority checks paying for his tuition. The resulting private pecuniary benefit to Respondent was the $11,025.00 that the Authority paid for his tuition. Thornton, 15 -046 age 4 The evidence in this case meets the Kistler standard for finding a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. The evi ence establishes that Respondent was consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit and his official actions were steps to obtain that benefit for himself. See, Kistler, supra. The fact that other Authority Board Members also participated in the a�ores� -votes does not insulate Respondent from the finding of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. A public official who discusses and votes on issues in which he has a private pecuniary interest need not affect the outcome of those votes in order to be found in violation of the Ethics Act. Snyder v. State Ethics Commission, 686 A.2d 843, 849 (1 996), alloc. den., No. 29 M.D. AI ocatur Docket 1997 (Pa. December 22, 1997). Additionally, a solicitor's silence does not shield a respondent from the finding of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. (Cf., 65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(g) (regarding protection from criminal penalties or a treble penalty i a solicitor's expressed opinion meets certain criteria)). We hold that Respondent Thornton violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § '1'103(a), when he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself by participating in discussions and actions of the Authority Board resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Tech, an educational institution where Respondent was pursuing a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, while giving the appearance that the classes were directly related to his duties as an Authority Board Member. We further hold that Respondent Thornton violated Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(8), when he failed to disclose on his SFIs for calendar years 2013 and 2014 his office as president of Beyond the Mark, a business that Respondent created. Section 1107(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. Respondent Thornton is ordered to make payment of restitution in the amount of $11,025.00 payable to the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th)° day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Respondent Thornton is further directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Authority representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution. To the extent he has not already done so, Thornton is directed to file with the Authority amended SFIs for the 2013 and 2014 calendar years, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission, including but not limited to disclosure of his office as president of Beyond the Mark, by no later than the thirtieth (30th day .after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, and to forward copies of such flings to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: As a Member of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa ( "Authority "), Beaver County, Pennsylvania, from January 25, 2012, until October 6, 2015, and as Chairman of the Authority in 2014 and 2015, Respondent Kenneth E. Thornton Employeelhics Thorntonwas a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. Thornton, 15 -046 age 4—T Thornton violated Section 1103(a of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself by participating in discussions and actions of the Authority Board resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Institute of Technology, an educational institution where Respondent was pursuing a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, while giving the appearance that the classes were directly related to his duties as an Authority Board Member. Thornton violated Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(8), when he failed to disclose on his SStatements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2013 and 2014 his office as president of "Beyond the Mark," a business that Thornton created. Restitution is warranted. In Re: Kenneth E. Thornton, Respondent Fife Docket: 15 -046 Date Decided: 3128117 Date Mailed: 417117 ORDER NO. 1712 1. Kenneth E. Thornton ( "Thornton "), as a Member and Chairman of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa ( "Authority "), Beaver County, Pennsylvania, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ('Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he used the authority of his public office for the private =ity ary beneffit of himself by participating in discussions and actions of the Board resulting in public monies of the Authority being utilized to pay tuition fees to Indiana Institute of Technology, an educational institution where Respondent was pursuing a Ph.D. in Global Leadership, while giving the appearance that the classes were directly related to his duties as an Authority Board Member. 2. Thornton violated Section I I05(b)(8) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(8), when he failed to disclose on his SStatements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2013 and 2014 his office as president of "Beyond the Mark," a business that Thornton created. 3. Thornton is ordered to make payment of restitution in the amount of $11,025.00 payable to the Municipal Water Authority f Aliquippa and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this Order. 4. Thornton is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Authority representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid restitution. 5. To the extent he has not already done so, Thornton is directed to file with the Authority amended Statements of Financial Interests for the 2013 and 2014 calendar years, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission, including but not limited to disclosure of his office as president of Beyond the Mark, by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this Order, and to forward copies of such filings to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 6. Non - compliance with paragraph 3, 4, or 5 of this Order will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY TH COM ISS ON, ar orfigan, Vice Chair Chair Nicholas A. Colafella did not participate in this matter.