Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1730 RebuckPHONE: 717 -783 -1610 TOLL FREE: 1 -800- 932 -0936 In Re: Cynthia Rebuck, Respondent STATE ETHICS COMMISSION FINANCE BUILDING 613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309 HARRISBURG, PA 171200400 File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided Date Mailed: FACSIMILE: 717- 787 -0606 WEBSITE: www.ethics.pa.pov 17 -012 Order No. 1730 1131118 216118 Before: Nicholas A. Colafella, Chair Mark R. Corrigan, Vice Chair Roger Nick Melanie DePalma Monique Myatt Galloway Michael A. Schwartz Shelley Y. Simms This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et se g., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. ALLEGATIONS. That Cynthia Rebuck, a public official /public employee in her capacity as a Member of Punxsutawney Borough Council, Jefferson County, violated [Sections 1103(a), 11 03(f), 1104(a), 1104(4), and `1105(b)((5)] of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when she utilized the authority of her public position resulting in a pecuniary benefit when she participated in discussions and actions of Borough Council, including but not limited to voting, discussing, and/or otherwise taking official action to approve invoices and/or issue Eto Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and /or members of her immediate family are associated; when contracts in excess of $500.00 were entered into between the Borough and Rebuck's Southside Service, absent an open and public process; and when she failed to include income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2016 calendar year. II. FINDINGS: Cynthia Rebuck ( "Rebuck ") has served as a Councilwoman for Punxsutawney Borough ( "Borough "), Jefferson County, from January 26, 2016, through the present. Rebuck was appointed to Borough Council ( "Council ") following the resignation of Councilwoman Jeanne Porada. The Borough is governed by a seven - Member Council and a Mayor. f STATE ETHICS COMMISSION FINANCE BUILDING 613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309 HARRISBURG, PA 171200400 File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided Date Mailed: FACSIMILE: 717- 787 -0606 WEBSITE: www.ethics.pa.pov 17 -012 Order No. 1730 1131118 216118 Before: Nicholas A. Colafella, Chair Mark R. Corrigan, Vice Chair Roger Nick Melanie DePalma Monique Myatt Galloway Michael A. Schwartz Shelley Y. Simms This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et se g., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. ALLEGATIONS. That Cynthia Rebuck, a public official /public employee in her capacity as a Member of Punxsutawney Borough Council, Jefferson County, violated [Sections 1103(a), 11 03(f), 1104(a), 1104(4), and `1105(b)((5)] of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when she utilized the authority of her public position resulting in a pecuniary benefit when she participated in discussions and actions of Borough Council, including but not limited to voting, discussing, and/or otherwise taking official action to approve invoices and/or issue Eto Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and /or members of her immediate family are associated; when contracts in excess of $500.00 were entered into between the Borough and Rebuck's Southside Service, absent an open and public process; and when she failed to include income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2016 calendar year. II. FINDINGS: Cynthia Rebuck ( "Rebuck ") has served as a Councilwoman for Punxsutawney Borough ( "Borough "), Jefferson County, from January 26, 2016, through the present. Rebuck was appointed to Borough Council ( "Council ") following the resignation of Councilwoman Jeanne Porada. The Borough is governed by a seven - Member Council and a Mayor. Rebuck, 17 -012 age a. Council holds regular meetings at the Borough Municipal Building on the second Tuesday of each month. b. Special meetings are held as needed throughout the year. C. Council Members receive a monthly salary of $135.00 for their service on Council. 3. Official voting at Council meetings occurs via an "aye" or "nay" voice vote after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. A roll call vote may occur upon request. b. Abstentions or dissenting votes are specifically documented in the minutes, regardless of the manner in which a vote is taken. C. The Mayor has voting privileges only in the case of a tie vote by Council. 4. Council Members are appointed by the Council President to three - member committees that oversee Borough departments and functions i.e., Legal, Finance, Public Works, Public Safety, Police Pension, Recreation). a. Since 2015, the committee members have met on an as- needed basis. b. Since taking. office, Rebuck has served as a member of the Recreation and Police Pension committees. 5. The Borough Manager, Ben White ( "White "), manages the day -to -day administrative functions of the Borough. a. As Borough Manager, White maintains primary supervision of department heads for Public Works, Police, Sewer, Code Enforcement, and the Administrative staff. 1. White also serves as the Borough's Right -to -Know Officer. 6. The Borough Secretary, Mary Neal ( "Neal "), audio records Council meetings to later generate the official Borough meeting minutes. a. The official minutes are subsequently approved by Council at the following meeting. b. The audio recordings are retained by the Borough until Council authorizes the destruction of the recordings. 7. White and Neal assemble an informational packet that Neal delivers to Council Members every Friday. a. The packet normally includes an agenda, department reports, Treasurer's Report, and correspondences. 1. A list of monthly expenditures from the prior month is also included within the packet that is delivered the first Friday of each month. 8. The Borough maintains separate financial accounts at First Commonwealth Bank for the General, Motor, Sewer, and Fire Funds. Rebuck, 17 -012 P-59-6-9- 9. The Borough Manager, the Borough Treasurer, and the Legal /Finance Committee members hold signature authority over financial accounts maintained by the Borough. a. Borough checks require the live signatures of no less than two authorized signatories. 1. The Borough Manager and the Borough Treasurer normally sign Borough checks. aa. Legal/Finance Committee members sign Borough checks in the absence of the Borough Manager or the Borough Treasurer. b. The Borough does not utilize facsimile signature stamps. 10. At each regular meeting, Council votes to approve the monthly Treasurer's Report, which constitutes formal approval to pay the prior month's bills from the Motor Fund and the Fire Fund. a. Council does not take any other official action to approve payments issued from the Motor Fund or the Fire Fund. b. By separate action, Council votes to approve payment of monthly expenses from the General Fund or the Sewer Fund. 11. The Borough's accounts payable /receivable process is performed by the Borough Manager, Borough Treasurer, and Borough Secretary as outlined below: a. The Borough Secretary receives any invoice(s) for initial review; b. Following review, the Borough Secretary generates and forwards a purchase order and payment check to the Borough Manager; C. The Borough Manager reviewslsigns the purchase order and check and then forwards the invoice, purchase order, and payment to the Borough Treasurer for review /signature; and d. Once reviewed /signed, the Borough Treasurer returns the purchase order and check to the Borough Secretary for disbursement. 1. Once a bill /invoice is paid, the purchase order and invoice are filed in the Administrative Office. REBUCK'S SOUTHSIDE SERVICE. 12. Denny Rebuck is Rebuck's spouse. 13. Denny Rebuck is the owner /operator of Rebuck's Southside Service ( "RSS "). a. RSS is located at 111 Lincoln Way, Punxsutawney, PA 15767. 1. RSS is approximately one and a half miles from the Punxsutawney Municipal Building. 2. RSS is located within the Borough's geographic boundaries. b. RSS has been in operation since 1976. Rebuck, 17 -012 Page 4 C. RSS is not incorporated within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 14. RSS is a full- service automotive repair business which also provides light/heavy duty towing, state vehicle /truck inspections and repairs, salvage, U -Haul rentals, and used car sales. a. RSS employs two full -time mechanics, not including Denny Rebuck. 15. RSS is the only automotive repair facility located within the Borough that has the ability to inspectlservice vehicles over 17,000 lbs. a. The Borough has several vehicles over 17,000 lbs. 16. Safety inspection of vehicles registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania falls under the urisdiction of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation T ( "PennDO). a. PennDOT licenses facilities and individuals to perform safety inspections on both a semi - annual and annual basis. b. PennDOT segregates inspection licenses by category based on vehicle type and registered gross weight. 1. PennDOT utilizes three (3) primary inspection license categories: 1, 2 and 3. C. Inspection authority per categories 1 through 3 is as follows: 1. Class 1: Inspection of passenger cars, trucks 17,000 pounds or less and trailers less than 10,000 pounds. 2. Class 2: Inspection of motorcycles. 3. Class 3: Inspection of trucks over 17,000 pounds, trailers over 10,000 pounds, and buses. 17. Registered vehicles which fall into the category of a Class 3 Safety Inspection must be inspected on a semi - annual basis: a. § 175.5. Semiannual inspection. School buses, vehicles which are under contract with or owned by a school district or a private or parochial school, including vehicles having chartered group and party rights under the Public Utility Commission and used to transport school students; passenger vans used to transport persons for hire or owned by a commercial enterprise and used for the transportation of employees to or from their place of employment; mass transit vehicles and motor carrier vehicles with a registered gross weight in excess of 17,000 pounds, other than farm vehicles for which a biennial certificate of exemption has been issued shall be subject to semiannual inspection. 18. Rebuck performs various functions for RSS, including but not limited to managing U -Haul rentals, answering telephone calls, cleaning, mailing bills to customers, depositing checks, and completing inspections; however, Rebuck is not an employee of RSS. —age T 17 -012 a. Rebuck is not a compensated employee of RSS. b. Rebuck does not hold any ownership or financial interest in RSS. 19. RSS maintains numerous financial accounts for business purposes, including a First Commonwealth Bank checking account. a. Rebuck has been an authorized signatory of the account since May 2011. b. Rebuck maintains signatory authority over the account in order to write checks in Denny Rebuck's absence. THE BOROUGH PUBLIC WORKS AND SEWER DEPARTMENTS. 20. The Borough Public Works Department ( "Public Works Department ") is responsible for maintaining the Borough's streets and alleys, Borough propperty (including parks), and sanitary and storm water collection system and performing curbsEde leaf collection. 21. David Bowfinger ( "Bowfinger "), the Public Works Foreman, is responsible for overseeing the day -to -day functions of the Public Works Department and Sewer Department "vactor crew" employees. a. The Public Works Department consists of eight full -time employees and at least one seasonal employee. b. The Sewer Department "vactor crew" consists of three full -time employees. 1. The " vactor crew" is responsible for maintaining sewer lines. C. Bowfinger, as the Public Works Foreman, creates a monthly report that is included in the Council Members' regular meeting packet. 22. The Borough maintains vehicles /equipment ( "vehicles ") for use by the Public Works Department and the Sewer Department. a. The Public Works Department fleet consisted of thirteen vehicles during the time period from 2016 to the present. 1. Six of the thirteen vehicles (street sweeper, sewer trucks (2), tandem dump truck, and Ford F550 and F450 dump trucks) are commercial - type vehicles or trucks that are over 17,000 lbs. gross weight. b. The Sewer Department fleet (vactor crew) consisted of two vehicles during the time period from 2016 to the present. Both vactor crew vehicles (vactor truck and Ford F550 truck) are over 17,000 lbs. gross weight. C. These vehicles are subject to PennDOT's Class 3 Safety Inspections. 23. Borough mechanic Daniel Kaza ( "Kaza ") performs routine maintenance and repair of Borough vehicles. a. Employees from the Public Works Department or the Sewer Department notify Kaza of Borough vehicles that need to be serviced or inspected. b. Kaza and Bowfinger discuss where (which auto repair facility) to send vehicles if Kaza cannot complete the service. Rebuck, 17 -012 age 1. Bowfinger consults with the Borough Manager (White) for any repair expected to exceed $1,500.00. C. At times, Kaza recommends where to send vehicles for service or inspection, however, the final decision is made by Bowfinger. 1. Bowfinger or Kaza will schedule for service directly with the repair facility. 2. Council Members are not involved with the decision - making process as to when or where Borough vehicles are sent for service or inspection. 24. The Borough prefers to utilize locally -owned automotive repair facilities when possible. a. Borough passenger vehicles (including police cruisers) are mainly serviced at Calabrese Garage or Cerulli's Service, both of which are located within the Borough. 1. Neither Calabrese Garage nor Cerulli's Service is capable of servicing vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight. 25. The Public Works Department and the Sewer Department have utilized RSS to service, inspect, and tow vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight for approximately 40 years. a. Bowfinger and Kaza schedule appointments at RSS with either Rebuck or Denny Rebuck via telephone. b. Denny Rebuck will consult with Bowfinger or Kaza on matters pertaining to parts or services needed, if any, for Public Works Department and Sewer Department vehicles. C. Denny Rebuck will complete an invoice for services performed on the Borough vehicles. d. Rebuck will mail the RSS bill to the Borough or hand deliver the bill to the Borough employee at the time of vehicle pickup. THE BOROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENTS. 26. The Borough's fire protection services are provided by three volunteer fire departments: Central Fire Department, Elk Run Fire Company, and Lindsey Fire Company. a. A fire chief oversees each fire department. 1. The fire chiefs have discretion on where to send their respective station's vehicles for repairs or service. 27. The Borough allocates funding to the three volunteer fire departments to assist with vehicleslequipment and costs to maintain the fire stations. a. Invoices associated with fire department expenses are paid from the Fire Fund following the Borough's accounts payable process. Ram, 17 -012 9 b. Council votes to approve the monthly Treasurer's Report, signifying the formal approval to pay bills from the Fire Fund. 28. The Elk Run Fire Company ( "ERFC ") and the Lindsey Fire Company ( "LFC ") have utilized RSS to service and inspect vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight for at least fifteen years. a. The Central Fire Department utilizes Barnett Repairs, which is located nearby but outside the Borough. 1. A member of the Central Fire Department has familial relationships with the owner of Barnett Repairs. 29. The fire chiefs [of ERFC and LFC] will contact RSS to schedule appointments to service or inspect their respective company's vehicles. 30. Denny Rebuck completes invoices for services performed on the fire departments' vehicles. a. Rebuck mails the RSS invoice to the Borough. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REBUCK TAKING OFFICIAL ACTION TO APPROVE INVOICES FROM OR PAYMENTS TO RSS. 31. On March 18, 2016, approximately two months after Rebuck took office, the Borough received a Right -to -Know ( "RTK ") request for information regarding payments issued to RSS. a. In response to the request, White conferred with Solicitor Jay Lundy ( "Lundy ") as to whether there was a conflict of interest with Rebuck approving payments to RSS. 32. Lundy responded to White's concerns with a written legal o inion, dated March 21, 2016, that addressed the matters associated with a conflic of interest for Rebuck. a. Lundy determined that no violation of the Ethics Act had occurred, believing that the amount paid to RSS had been de minim is, and that all contracts with RSS during Rebuck 's tenure had been less than $500.00. 1. Lundy noted that the values paid by the Borough to RSS were less than those in Bixler vs. State Ethics Commission, and he reasoned that the Comm onweaI ourt would t ere ore find no violation of the Ethics Act. b. Lundy recommended that any future contracts with RSS over $500.00 be voted upon at a public meeting, with Rebuck abstaining. 1. Lundy recommended that an estimate of the work be obtained prior to completion of the work, in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act. C. Lundy recommended that Rebuck be conservative and abstain from voting to approve any future payments to RSS. 33. Lundy discussed his March 21, 2016, written le al opinion with Council during an executive session held immediately prior to the April 12, 2016, regular meeting. a. Lundy informed Council that the Borough had received an RTK request for payments to RSS, and that White had sought an opinion pertaining to any Rebuck, 17 -012 aP� conflict of interest by Rebuck in approving payments to RSS. b. Council acknowledged Lundy's advice without any further discussion. G. White did not provide Council Members with a copy of Lundy's March 21, 2016, opinion due to the sensitivity of the matter. d. Rebuck was present during the April 12, 2016, executive session and regular meeting. 34. Fallowing the April 12, 2016, meeting, Rebuck approached White for further clarification. a. White advised Rebuck to abstain from voting on any RSS invoice that is presented to Council and to further discuss the matter with Lundy. 1. White did not specify that Rebuck should abstain from voting to approve payment of the monthly expenditures. b. Rebuck did not further discuss the matter with Lundy. 35. From January 2016 to July 2017, Rebuck voted on fourteen occasions to approve payment of the monthly expenditures from the General Fund, which included all eighteen Borough checks totaling $4,792.29 that were issued to RSS from the General Fund. a. Labor/towing costs accounted for $2,926.80 of the $4,792.29. 1. Parts /supplies accounted for the remaining $1,865.49. b. Rebuck motioned or seconded the motion to approve the monthly expenditures from the General Fund on ten of the fourteen occasions. C. Rebuck continued to participate in the bill approval payment process, which included payments to RSS, on at least fourteen occasions after receiving advice from Lundy to abstain. 36. From January 2016 to July 2017, Rebuck voted affirmatively on five occasions to approve payment of the monthly expenditures from the Sewer Fund, which included ali five Borough checks totaling $277.45 that were issued to RSS. a. Rebuck motioned or seconded the motion to approve the monthly expenditures from the Sewer Fund on four of the five votes. b. All of the $277.45 accounted for labor costs. G. Four of Rebuck's votes occurred after she had been advised by Lundy to abstain. 37. From January 2016 to July 2017, Rebuck voted on all ten occasions to approve the monthly Treasurer's Report, which included eleven Borough checks totaling $3,783.40 that were issued to RSS from the Fire Fund. a. Rebuck motioned or seconded the motion to approve the Treasurer's Report for six of the ten votes. b. Laborltowing costs accounted for $2,024.65 of the $3,783.40. Rebuck, 17 -012 age 1. The remaining $1,758.75 was associated with parts. C. Rebuck voted nine times after she had been advised by Lundy to abstain. 38. Rebuck, a public official in her capacity as a Borough Councilwoman, utilized the authority of her public office when she participated in discussions and actions of Council, including but not limited to voting, discussing, and/or otherwise takingg official action to approve invoices and/or issue payments to RSS, a business wN which she and/or members of her immediate family are associated, resulting in a private pecuniary benefit beyond a de minimis amount. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT REBUCK VIOLATED SECTION 1103 OF THE ETHICS ACT WHEN CONTRACTS IN EXCESS OF $500.00 WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE BOROUGH AND REBUCK'S SOUTHSIDE SERVICE ABSENT AN OPEN AND PUBLI C 39. In or about November 2016, Bowfinger. and Kaza determined that the street sweeper required immediate service /repairs. a. The Borough contacted Denny Rebuck and requested that RSS tow the street sweeper and perform a diagnostic evaluation. b. Upon completion of a diagnostic test, Denny Rebuck informed Bowfinger or Kaza that the required service /repairs exceeded the capabilities of RSS. 1. Denny Rebuck determined that the street sweeper's exhaust needed to be cleaned. 2. Denny Rebuck recommended utilizing Zacherl's Motors to service the exhaust. C. Denny Rebuck provided Bowfinger with an estimate of approximately $2,828.11 for the repair. 40. Bowfinger discussed the street sweeper repair with White. a. Bowfinger and White agreed to have RSS and Zacherl's Motors service the street sweeper. b. There was no consideration or discussion with Council to seek bidslquotes for the repair of the street sweeper, even though the costs were expected to exceed $500.00. C. Bowfinger authorized Denny Rebuck to complete the service /repair of the street sweeper. d. Rebuck was not consulted by Bowfinger and White and did not participate in the decision to have the vehicle repaired. 41. On November 22, 2016, RSS returned the street sweeper to the Borough. a. The street sweeper continued to malfunction and required additional service. 42. Bowfinger and Denny Rebuck subsequently discussed the street sweeper's continued malfunction and decided to have Murray's Freightliner Western Star ( "Murray's Freightliner "), located in Dubois, Pennsylvania, perform a computer reset. a. Murray's Freightliner is the closest licensed Freightliner service center to the Borough. RaQb 17 -012 9 b. on November 23, 2016, RSS was authorized by Bowfinger to tow the street sweeper to Murray's Freightliner. 43. Rebuck submitted invoice no. 2019, dated November 17, 2016, to the Borough outlining the services performed on the street sweeper, as follows: a. The Zacherl's Motors' service cost of $2,388.11 was included in the invoice as sub - contractor fees. 1. RSS paid Zacherl's Motors for the service related to the exhaust. 44. White and the Borough Secretary/Accounts Payable Clerk, Mary Neal ( "Neal "), signed purchase order no. 13529, dated December 5, 2016, and purchase order no. 5237, dated December 6, 2016, authorizing payment to RSS in the amount of $1,414.06 from the General Fund and $1,414.05 from the Motor Fund for invoice no. 2019. a. At Council's January 10, 2017, regular meeting, Rebuck seconded the motion to approve the December 2016 General Fund expenditures as well as the December 2016 Treasurer's Report. b. The December 2016 General Fund expenditures and Treasurer's Report contained a payment to RSS specific to the street sweeper repair. 45. Rebuck mailed RSS invoice no. 2221 (not dated) to the Borough for additional services to the street sweeper totaling $624.50 as follows: a. A Murray's Freightliner $80.00 service fee was included under "Total Parts." 1. Denny Rebuck inadvertently calculated Murray's Freightliner's service fee as $80.00, when the actual service fee was $84.00. 2. RSS issued payment to Murray's Freightliner for the service to the exhaust via RSS First Commonwealth Bank check no. 28249, dated January 5, 2017, in the amount of $84.00. 46. White and Neal signed purchase order no. 13600, and purchase order no. 5244, both dated January 5, 2017, authorizing payment to RSS in the amount of $312.25 from the General Fund and Motor Fund respectively for invoice no. 2221. a. At Council's February 14, 2017, regular meeting, Rebuck seconded the motion to approve the January 2017 General Fund expenditures as well as the January 2017 Treasurer's Report even though she had been previously advised by Lundy to abstain from voting. Rebuck 17 -012 age l b. The January 2017 General Fund expenditures and Treasurer's Report included authorization to pay RSS invoices. 47. On May 16, 2017, Rebuck was interviewed by representatives of the Investigative Division, during which Rebuck asserted, in part, fhe following: a. Rebuck does not receive a paycheck for the work that she performs at RSS. b. Rebuck does not hold any financial interests in RSS. C. Rebuck received material from the Borough when she was first appointed to Council that included material specific to ethics /conflict of interests. 1. Rebuck briefly reviewed the material and determined that she should not vote to approve Borough payments to RSS. d. Rebuck was not involved in any Borough discussions in relation to having Borough vehicles /equipment repaired or serviced at RSS. e. Rebuck asserted that she remains silent on the vote to approve monthly expenditures that include payments to RSS, as a way of removing herself from any potential conflict of interest. 1. It did not occur to Rebuck that she needs to vocalize her abstentions from these votes. 2. Rebuck has not informed Borough representatives that she remains silent on these votes. Rebuck normally votes to accept the prior month's meeting minutes. 1. She has not informed Borough representatives to correct the minutes to indicate she is remaining silent on the votes to approve the payment of the monthly expenditures, which include payments to RSS. g. Rebuck denied that she received Lundy's March 21, 2016, legal opinion and that any Borough representative had provided her with advice on how to vote on payments to RSS. h. Rebuck stated that she would abstain from discussions /votes to approve future Borough work with RSS. i. Rebuck did not direct or recommend that Borough representatives utilize RSS for Borough and/or personal service /repair. j. Rebuck was not aware of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, pertaining to contracts. k. RSS does not mark up costs for parts needed for Borough service /repairs. 48. Rebuck, in her capacity as a Member of Borough Council, participated in actions of Council to eater into contracts /agreements between the Borough and RSS, in excess of $500.00, absent an open and public process. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO REBUCK'S FAILURE TO FILE A COMPLETE AND ACCURATE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS TERESTS FORM FOR THE 2016 Rebuck, 17 -012 airge M CALENDAR YEAR. 49. Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") filing requirements for public officials and public employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the Ethics Act. a. Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act sets forth that each public official of the Commonwealth shall file an SFI for the preceding calendar year with the Commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such position and of the year after he leaves such position. 1. Rebuck is annually required to file an SF1 by May 1ST in her position as a Council Member. 50. Information to be disclosed on SFIs filed by public officials and public employees is mandated by Section 1105 of the Ethics Act. a. 1105(b)., subsections 0,lorieirefns a disclosed as well as exceptions t dscsuerquirmetwhen applicablle. 1. Section 1105(b)(5) mandates disclosure of the following on SFis filed: "The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more." 51. In April 2017, an SFI compliance review was conducted at the Borough Municipal Building by a representative of the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission. a. Rebuck's SFIs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 were obtained from the Borough on April 11, 2017. 52. Rebuck filed SFIs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 as follows: Calendar Year Date on Form 205 04122/1 6 2016 02/17/17 53. Rebuck failed to disclose income received from the Borough on her 2016 calendar year filing. a. Rebuck was paid $1,485.00 in 2016, from public monies, for her service as a Council Member. Ill. DISCUSSION. As a Member of Council for Punxsutawney Borough ( "Borough "), Jefferson Countyy, from January 26, 2016, through the present, Respondent Cynthia Rebuck, also referred to hereinafter as "Respondent, Respondent Rebuck, and Rebuck, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seg. The allegations are that Rebuck violated Sections 1103(a), 1103 {f), 1104(a), 1104(d), and 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when she utilized the authority of her public position resulting in a pecuniary benefit when she participated in discussions and actions of Borough Council, including but not limited to voting, discussing, and/or otherwise taking official action to approve invoices and/or issue payments to Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and /or members of her immediate family are associated; when contracts in excess of $500.00 were entered into between the Borough and Rebuck's Southside Service, absent an open and public process; and when she failed to include Rebuck, 17 -012 age income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") filed for the 2016 calendar year. Per the Consent Agreement, the Investigative Division has exercised its prosecutorial discretion to not pros the allegation under Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act. Based upon the nol pros, we need not address the Section 1104(4) allegation that is no longer before us. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. --No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa-C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions , ' Conflict or conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public officiallpublic employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private , ecuniary benefit of the public official/public employee himself, any member of his im date family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting: § 1103. Restricted activities (f) Contract. —No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and Rebuck, 17 -012 Page 1 public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Section 1104(x) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official /public employee must file an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 1105(b ) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the SFI form must provide. Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. The Borough is governed by a seven - Member Council and a Mayor. Rebuck has served as a Member of Borough Council (also referred to herein as "Council ") from January 26, 2016, through the present. Council Members receive a monthly salary of $135.00 for their service on Council. The Borou h maintains separate financial accounts for the General, Motor, Sewer, and Fire Funds. The first Friday of each month, the Borough Secretary delivers to the Council Members a packet that includes a list of expenditures from the prior month. At each regular monthly meeting of Council, payments issued from the Motor Fund or the Fire Fund for the prior month's expenses are formally approved when Council votes to approve the monthly Treasurer's Report. Payments issued from the General Fund or the Sewer Fund for the prior months expenses are approved by a separate vote by Council. Rebuck's spouse, Denny Rebuck ( "Mr. Rebuck") ' is the owner/operator of Rebuck's Southside Service ( "RSS "), which is located in the Borough. RSS provides state vehicle /truck inspections, automotive repairs, light/heavy duty towing, and other services. RSS is the only automotive repair facility in the Borough that has the ability to inspect and service vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight. Rebuck, who is not an employee of RSS and does not hold any ownership or financial interests in RSS, performs various functions for RSS, including but not limited to answering telephone calls, cleaning, mailing bills to customers, and depositing checks. The Borough maintains vehicles /equipment ( "vehicles ") for use by the Borough Public Works Department ( "Public Works Department ") and the Borough Sewer Department ('Sewer Department "). As of 2016, the Public Works Department and Sewer Department fleets had a total of eight vehicles that were over 17,000 lbs. gross weight, including a street sweeper. Employees from the Public Works Department and the Sewer Department notify Borough mechanic Daniel Kaza ("Kaza'l of Borough vehicles that need to be serviced or inspected. Kaza and the Public Works Foreman, David Bowfinger ( "Bowfinger "), discuss Rebuck, 17 -012 aka where to send vehicles if Kaza cannot complete the work, and Bowfinger consults with Borough Manager Ben White ( "White ") for any repair expected to exceed $1,500.00. Bowfinger makes the final decision where to send vehicles for work that Kaza cannot complete. Council Members are not involved in deciding when or where Borough vehicles are to be sent for service or inspection. The Public Works Department and the Sewer Department have utilized RSS to service, inspect, and tow vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight for approximately forty years. Bowfinger and Kaza schedule appointments at RSS with either Denny Rebuck or Rebuck. Denny Rebuck consults with Bowfinger or Kaza on matters pertaining to parts or service needed, if any, for Public Works Department and Sewer Department vehicles. and Denny Rebuck ils the invoices to the Borough services delivers themBto Borough employees Rebuck when the vehicles are picked up. The Borough's fire protection services are provided by three volunteer fire departments. The Borough allocates funding to the fire departments to assist with vehicles /equipment and costs to maintain the fire stations. The fire chief of each fire department has discretion as to where to send the fire station's vehicles for repairs or service. Invoices associated with fire department expenses are paid from the Fire Fund. Two of the three volunteer fire departments, the Elk Run Fire Company ( "ERFC") and the Lindsey Fire Company ( "LFC "), have utilized RSS to service and inspect vehicles over 17,000 lb s. gross weight for at least fifteen years. The fire chiefs of ERFC and LFC contact RSS to schedule appointments for service or inspection. Denny Rebuck completes invoices for work performed on ERFC and LFC vehicles, and Rebuck mails the invoices to the Borough. On March 18, 2016, approximately two months after Rebuck took office, the Borough received a Right -to -Know request for information regarding payments issued to RSS. In response to the request, White, who serves as the Boroughs Right -to -Know Officer, conferred with Solicitor Jay Lundy ( "Lundy ") as to whether there was a conflict of interest with regard to Rebuck approving payments to RSS. Lundy responded to White's concerns with a written legal opinion dated March 21, 2016, that addressed the matter. Lundy believed that the amount which had been paid to RSS was de minimis and that all contracts with RSS had been less than $500.00 during Rebuck's tenure, and he reasoned that no violation of the Ethics Act had occurred. Lundy recommended that: (1) an estimate of the work be obtained prior to completion of the work; (2} any future contracts over $500.00 with RSS be voted upon at a public meeting, with Rebuck abstainingg, and (3) Rebuck be conservative and abstain from voting to approve any future payments to RSS. White did not provide the Council Members with a copy of Lundy's written legal opinion due to the sensitivity of the matter. Lundy discussed his written legal opinion with Council during an executive session held immediately prior to Council's April 12, 2016, regular meeting. Rebuck was present during the executive session. Lundy informed Council that the Borough had received a Right-To-Know request for payments to RSS and that White had sought an opinion pertaining to any conflict of interest with regard to Rebuck approving payments to RSS. Council acknowledged Lundy's advice without any further discussion. After Council's regular meeting on April 12, 2016, Rebuck approached White for further clarification. White advised Rebuck to abstain from votin on any RSS invoice presented to Council and to discuss the matter with Lundy. Whi e did not specify hat Rebuck should abstain from voting to approve payment of the monthly expenditures. Rebuck did not discuss the matter with Lundy, and she continued to participate in approving the payment of monthly expenditures that included amounts paid to RSS. In or about November 2016, Bowfinger and Kaza determined that the Borough street sweeper required immediate service or repairs. The Borough contacted Denny Rebuck, 17 -012 9 Rebuck and requested that RSS tow the street sweeper and perform a diagnostic evaluation. Upon completion of a diagnostic test, Denny Rebuck determined that the street sweeper's exhaust system needed to be cleaned. Denny Rebuck informed Bowfinger or Kaza that the required repairs exceeded the capabilities of RSS, and he recommended utilizing Zacherl's Motors to service the exhaust. Denny Rebuck provided Bowfinger with an estimate of approximately $2,828.11 for the repairs. Bowfinger and White discussed the street sweeper repairs and agreed to have RSS and Zacherl's Motors service the street sweeper. Bowfinger authorized Denny Rebuck to complete the repair of the street sweeper. There was no discussion with Council about seeking bids/ quotes for the repair of the street sweeper, even though the costs were expected to exceed $500.00. Rebuck was not consulted by Bowfinger and White and did not participate in the decision to have the street sweeper repaired. On November 22, 2016, RSS returned the street sweeper to the Borough. The street sweeper continued to malfunction and required additional service, and Bowfinger and Denny Rebuck decided to have Murray's Freightliner Western Star ( "Murray's Freightliner "), located in Dubois, Pennsylvania, perform a computer reset. On November 23, 2016, Bowfinger authorized RSS to tow the street sweeper to Murray's Freightliner. Rebuck submitted RSS invoice No. 2019, totaling $2,828.11, to the Borough for services performed on the street sweeper. Invoice Ido. 2019 included a charge for $2,388.11 that RSS had paid to Zacherl's Motors for service related to the street sweeper's exhaust system. Rebuck submitted RSS invoice No. 2221, totaling $624.50, to the Borough for additional services performed on the street sweeper. Invoice No. 2221 included a charge of $80.00 for a service fee that RSS had paid to Murray's Freightliner for servicing the street sweeper's exhaust system. From January 2016 to July 2017, Rebuck: (1) voted on ten occasions to approve monthly Treasurer's Reports that included Borough checks totaling $3,783.40 which were issued to RSS from the Fire Fund for costs for labor, towing, and parts; (2) voted on fourteen occasions to approve payment of monthly expenditures from the General Fund that included Borough checks totaling $4,792.29 which were issued to RSS for costs for labor, towing, parts, and supplies; and (3) voted on five occasions to approve payment of monthly expenditures from the Sewer Fund that included Borough checks totaling $277.45 which were issued to RSS for labor costs. On twenty of the aforesaid twenty -nine total occasions, Rebuck made or seconded the motion that was voted on by Council. Rebuck additionally participated in discussions of Council related to such payments to RSS. As a Council Member, Rebuck is required to annually file an SFI by May 1 containing information for the prior calendar yyear. In April 2017, an SFI compliance review was conducted at the Borough Municipal Building by the Investigative Division of the Commission. Rebuck's SFI for calendar year 2015, dated April 22, 2016, and her SFI for calendar year 2016, dated February 17, 2017, were on file with the Borough. Although Rebuck received $1,485.00 from the Borough for serving as a Council Member in 2016, she failed to disclose the Borough as a source of income on her SF1 for calendar year 2016. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § Rebuck, 17 -012 e 9 e 1103(a), occurred in relation to Cynthia Rebuck, in her capacity as a Member of Punxsutawney Borough Council, Jefferson County, utilizing the authority of her public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council, to approve invoices and/or to issue payments to Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and /or members of her immediate family are associated. That no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(, occurred when contracts in excess of $500. 0 were entered into between the Borough and Rebuck's Southside Service, in that pursuant to Bixler v. State Ethics Commission, 847 78!5 Section d 1103(f), 65 Pa.C.S. 4§ a 1103(f), s unsustainable. C. That a technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred when, as a Borough Council Member, Rebuck failed to include income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2016 calendar year. d. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred, in that Rebuck filed Statements of Financial Interests for all applicable calendar years, albeit [the 2016 calendar year filing was] deficient. e. That no action will be undertaken Official and Section 1104(4) of the Public O Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(d). Rebuck agrees to make payment in the amount of $750.00 in settlement of this matter payable as follows: a. $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the 'Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. $250.00, which represents a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by the State Ethics Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) dayys of the issuance of the final adjudication in tF�is matter. Rebuck, 17 -012 a�ge-T$ Rebuck agrees to file a complete and accurate amended Statement of Financial Interests with Punxsutawney Borough, through the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, for the 2016 calendar year within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Rebuck agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from Punxsutawney Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent A reement, at 1 -3. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the recommendation of the Parties for a finding that a violation of Section 1103(a) of Ethics Act occurred in relation to Rebuck, in her capacity as a Council Member, utilizing the authority. of her public position by participating n discussions and actions of Council to approve invoices and/or issue payments to RSS, a business with which she and/or members of her immediate family are associated. Rebuck's spouse, Denny Rebuck, is the owner /operator of RSS. The Borough Public Works Department and the Borough Sewer Department utilize RSS to service and inspect vehicles over 17,000 lbs. gross weight. Two volunteer fire departments that provide fore r 17,000 lbsen swei ght. The Borough ough pays for Rwork that RSS performs on vehicles over 17,000 the two fire departments' gross vehicles, g Rebuck used the authorityy of her public position as a Council Member when, from January 2016 to July 2017, she: (1) voted on ten occasions to approve monthly Treasurer's Reports that included Borough chhecks totaling $3,783.40 which were issued to RSS from the Fire Fund; (2) voted on fourteen occasions to approve payment of monthly expenditures from the General Fund that included Borough checks totaling $4,792.29 which were issued to RSS; (3) voted on five occasions to approve payment of monthly expenditures from the Sewer Fund that included Borough checks totaling $277.45 which were issued to RSS; (4) made or seconded the motion that was voted on by Council on twenty of the aforesaid occasions; and (5) participated in discussions of Council related to such payments to RSS. Based upon the Stipulated Findings and the Consent Agreement, we hold that Rebuck, in her capacity as a Council Member, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to her utilizing the authority of her public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council to approve invoices and/or issue payments to RSS, a business with which she and /or members of her immediate family are associated. We accept the recommendation of the parties for a finding of no violation as to the Section 1103(f) allegation. Rebuck, 17 -012 age In Bixler v. State Ethics Commission, 847 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), the Commonwealth ourt o Pennsyvania a that a township supervisor did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a business that employed him entered into a contract in excess of $500 with his township without an open and public process, but the supervisor himself was neither a party to the contract nor a principal of the contracting business. The Court determined that Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act prohibited the conduct of entering into the contract under such circumstances. The Court concluded that although a violation ot Section I M(f) of the Ethics Act would be established under such circumstances, it would not be the public official who would be in violation of the law. Id. See also, Means, Opinion 04 -007. In the instant matter, although contracts valued at $500.00 or more that pertained to the repair of the Borough street sweeper were entered into by the Borough and RSS without an open and public process, Rebuck was neither a party to such contracts nor a principal of the contracting business. Accordingglyy, we hold that Rebuck did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), when contracts valued at $500.00 or more were entered into by the Borough and RSS absent an open and public process, in that Rebuck was neither a party to such contracts nor a principal of the contracting business. Turning to the allegations regarding Rebuck's SFI for the 2016 calendar year, we hold that: (1) a technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred when Rebuck failed to include income received from the Borough on an SI I ffilled for the 2016 calendar year; and (2)) no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred, in that Rebuck filed SFls for all applicable calendar years, albeit the 2016 calendar year filing was deficient. As part of the Consent Agreement, Rebuck has agreed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Rebuck has further agreed to make payment to this Commission in the amount of $250.00, representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by this Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Rebuck has agreed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. Rebuck has also agreed to file a complete and accurate amended SFI with the Borough, through this Commission, for the 2016 calendar year within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth a proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rebuck is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rebuck is further directed to make payment to this Commission in the amount of $250.00, representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by this Commission in the investigation and administrative Rebuck, 17 -012 age prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30t") day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Rebuck is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. To the extent she has not already done so, Rebuck is directed to file a complete and year b accurate no aterr than the thirtieth h�day after they mailing date of this adjudication and Order Compliance with the foreggoing will result in he closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. As a Member of Council for Punxsutawney orou h "Borough "), Jefferson County, from January 26, 2016, through the present,, Respondent Cynthia Rebuck ( "Rebuck) has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et sect. 2. Rebuck, in her capacityy as a Borough Council Member, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to her utilizing the authority of her public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council to approve mvo�ces andlor jssue payments to Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and/or members of her immediate family are associated. 3. Rebuck did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f) , when contracts valued at $500.00 or more were entered into by the Borough and Service absent an r public that Rebuck was neither a party to such contracts nor a principal f the ccont actngbusiness 4. A technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of he Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred when Rebuck failed to include income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2016 calendar year. 5. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred, in that Rebuck filed Statements of Financial Interests for all applicable calendar years, albeit the 2016 calendar year filing was deficient. In Re: Cynthia Rebuck, File Docket: 17 -012 Respondent Date Decided: 1131118 Date Mailed: 216118 ORDER NO. 1730 1. Cynthia Rebuck ( "Rebuck "), in her capacity as a Member of Council for Punxsutawney Borough ( "Borough "), Jefferson County, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. §1 103(a), in relation to her, utilizing the authority of her public position by participating in discussions and actions of Borough Council to approve invoices and/or issue payments to Rebuck's Southside Service, a business with which she and/or members of her immediate family are associated. 2. Rebuck did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), when contracts valued at $500.00 or more were entered into by the Borough and Rebuck's Southside Service absent an open and public process: to that Rebuck was neither a party to such contracts nor a principal of the contracting business. 3. A technical violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred when Rebuck failed to include income received from the Borough on a Statement of Financial Interests filed for the 2016 calendar year. 4. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1104(a), occurred, in that Rebuck filed Statements of Financial Interests for all applicable calendar years, albeit the 2016 calendar year filing was deficient. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rebuck is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this Order. 6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rebuck is further directed to make payment to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission in the amount of $250.00, representing a portion of the expenses and costs incurred by this Commission in the investigation and administrative prosecution of the instant matter, payable by certified check or money order made payable o to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this Order. Rebuck is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation or other payment from the Borough representing a full or partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this matter. 8. To the extent she has not already done so, Rebuck is directed to file a complete and accurate amended Statement of Financial Interests for the 2016 calendar year with the Borough, through the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this Order. 9. Compliance with paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this Order will result in the closing of this ' case with no further action by this Commission. Rebuck, 17 -012 a� a. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, 6 f j , !M,"" y F rr f