HomeMy WebLinkAbout1743 BoydPHONE: 717 -783 -1610
TOLL FREE: 1 -800- 932 -0936
In Re: Philip Boyd,
Respondent
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
FINANCE BUILDING
613 NORTH STREET, ROOM 309
HARRISBURG, PA 97120 -0400
File Docket:
X-ref:
Date Decided
Date Mailed:
FACSIMILE: 717- 787 -0806
WEBSITE: www.ethics.12a.aav
17 -034
Order No. 1743
10/23/18
10/31/18
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 seg., 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 Philip Boyd, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Council
Member for Carnegie Borough ( "Borough "), Allegheny County, violated [Sections 1103(x),
1104(a), 1104(d), and 1105((b)(5) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he utilized
the authority of his public oWlice Tor a private pecuniary benefit when he directed andlor
authorizedlapproved the use of public resources, including Borough funds, Borough
employees, and Borough equipment, to remove trees andlor other vegetative /organic
matter from real property owned by him; and when he failed to identify the Borough as a
direct/indirect source of income upon Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2015
and 2016 calendar years.
li. FINDINGS:
Philip Boyd ("Boyd), continuously served as a Council Member for Carnegie
Borough ("Borough'), Allegheny County, since January 6, 2014.
Boyd has held the position of Vice President of Borough Council ( "Council ")
from January 9, 2017, to the present.
Prior to serving as a Council Member, Boyd served as a Member of the
Carnegie Borough Zoning Hearing Board from March 8, 2010, until
approximately January 5, 2014.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 2
Boyd resigned from the Carnegie Borough Zoning Hearing Board on
or about January 5, 2014, to take office as a Member of Council.
2. The Borough is governed by a six - Member Council and a Mayor.
a. Council holds one regularly scheduled legislative meeting per month on the
second Monday of the month.
Special meetings are held as necessary.
b. Council holds two workshop meetings per month on the first and second
Mondays of the month.
The second workshop meeting is held immediately prior to the
monthly legislative meeting.
3. Select Council Members serve as liaisons to specific Borough departments in order
to stay apprised of Borough - related matters.
a. Council Member Rick D'Loss ( "D'Loss ") served as Council's liaison to the
Public Works Department during calendar year 2017.
b. Boyd and D'Loss have maintained a personal friendship since approximately
20 4.
4. The Borough, by and through Council, employs a Public Works Department to
maintain the Borough's roads, property, and structures.
a. Public Works Supervisor Keith Hatcher ( "Hatcher ") and Public Works
Foreman Pete Schepis ( "Schepis ") supervise the Public Works Department.
Borough Manager Steve Beuter ( "Beuter ") is responsible for
supervising Hatcher and Schepis.
5. The Public Works Department maintains regular work hours of Monday through
Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., during the summer months.
a. Hatcher and Schepis supervise at least ten full -time employees and six part-
time employees during the summer months.
6. The Public Works Department has disposed of leaves, bushes, hedges, and tree
trimmings for residents free of charge since at least 2007.
a. Residents are required to inform the Public Works Department prior to any
leaves, bushes, hedges, and tree trimmings being removed by the Borough.
Residents requesting the disposal of tree trimmings are advised of the
Public Works Department's stipulations regarding the disposal of said
debris.
2. The tree trimmings must be bundled, no more than four feet in length
and two feet in diameter, and weigh no more than forty pounds.
b. Leaves, bushes, hedges, and tree trimmings are to be placed at the curb for
disposal.
Boyd, 17-034
Page 3
C. The Public Works Department will not access private property in order to
dispose of leaves, bushes, hedges, and tree trimmings.
7. Hatcher typically dispatches two Public Works Department employees and a one -
ton dump truck to collect bundled tree trimmings.
a. At times Hatcher has dispatched a backhoe to assist with the collection of
multiple tree bundles at a single location.
8. The Public Works Department does not have the expertise to cut down Borough
trees located in residential areas.
a. Hatcher is responsible for obtaining quotes from qualified contractors for the
removal of Borough trees located in residential areas.
9. Hatcher has the discretion to either direct the Public Works Department to dispose
of Borough trees that were cut down by a contractor or to utilize the contractor to
dispose of the trees.
a. Hatcher's determination is based upon his estimation of how long the
disposal process will take and how much money the Borough could
potentially save by having the Public Works Department dispose of the trees.
b. Hatcher typically selects the contractor that provided the lowest responsible
quote.
10. On July 9, 2012, Council created the Borough Shade Tree Commission ( "Shade
Tree Commission ") via the adoption of Borough Ordinance No. 2376.
a. The Shade Tree Commission was created to provide recommendations to
Council on matters related to the planting, maintenance, and removal of the
Borough's shade trees.
Borough Ordinance No. 25 defines a shade tree as "any shade tree,
shrub or other woody plant on any public street, highway, public areas
or public parks in the Borough of Carnegie, or that part of any shade
tree, shrub or other woody plant which extends into any public street,
highway, public areas or public parks within the Borough."
11. The Shade Tree Commission is comprised of seven Members appointed by
Council.
a. The Shade Tree Commission holds one regularly scheduled legislative
meeting per month on the second Wednesday of the month.
b. The Shade Tree Commission does not hold workshop meetings.
12. Voting at Shade Tree Commission meetings occurs via roll call vote after a motion
is properly made and seconded.
a. Abstentions and/or dissenting votes are specifically documented in the
meeting minutes.
Minutes of each meeting are approved for accuracy at each
subsequent meeting.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 4
13. Council Member and Shade Tree Commission Member Mike Sarsfield ( "Sarsfield ")
is responsible for informing Council andlor the Borough Manager of any Shade Tree
Commission recommendations that require Council s approval.
a. All Shade Tree "Commission recommendations follow the provisions of
Borough Ordinance No. 25.
b. Shade Tree Commission recommendations to Council are advisory only.
14. Borough Ordinance No. 25 provides, in part, that a permit must be obtained in order
"to cut, prune, break, climb with spurs, injure in any manner or remove any shade
tree ..." except in cases of immediate necessity for protection of life or property.
a. The Borough does not charge a permit fee related to the removal of shade
trees.
15. Borough residents must adhere to the following process in order to obtain a permit
to remove any of the Borough's shade trees.
a. Completion of a permit application by the requesting resident and submission
of the application to the Borough Secretary.
b. Forwarding of the permit application by the Borough Secretary to the Shade
Tree Commission for a recommendation.
C. Issuance of the permit by Council upon the recommendation of the Shade
Tree Commission.
16. Sections 25 -102 and 25 -104 of Borough Ordinance No. 25 pertain to the cutting,
pruning, and removal of shade trees.
a. Section 25 -102 states, in part, that the "cost of planting, transplanting or
removing any shade tree in or along the streets and highways in Carnegie ...
shall be paid by the owner of the real estate abutting which the work is
done."
1. Section 25 -102 relates to all shade trees located in the Borough,
including those trees planted prior to the creation of the Shade Tree
Commission.
b. Section 25 -104 provides that the "cost and expenses of caring for trees now
planted or hereafter planted" by the Shade Tree Commission "on public
streets and highways of the Borough shall be paid by the Borough."
1. Section 25 -104 does not specify whether "care" includes removal of
Borough shade trees and/or Borough shade trees planted prior to the
creation of the Shade Tree Commission.
17. On June 3, 2015, Boyd purchased real estate located at 347 Reamer Avenue,
Carnegie, PA 15106 (hereafter, "347 Reamer Avenue ") for the purpose of
constructing a new residence.
a. The purchased property is identified by the Allegheny County Real Estate
Office as being tax parcel number 0103 -8- 00050000 -00.
b. The lot area of 347 Reamer Avenue is estimated at 26,004 square feet (.60
acres).
Bo dd, 17034
Page 5
C. 347 Reamer Avenue is located at the intersection of Reamer Avenue and
Mansfield Avenue.
18. The Allegheny County Real Estate Office's land survey of 347 Reamer Avenue
identifies the property line of 347 Reamer Avenue as being approximately fifteen
feet short of the edge of Mansfield Avenue.
a. The property between 347 Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue is owned
by the Borough.
19. A decaying, dying, sixty -foot ash tree stood on the Borough property between
Boyd's property and Mansfield Avenue.
a. Mansfield Avenue is a Borough roadway that the Public Works Department
maintains.
b. The Shade Tree Commission did not plant the ash tree.
20. During a Storm Water Management Assessment of Boyd's property on June 24,
2015, Boyd was advised that the ash tree was infested with ash borers and was
dying.
a. Boyd was informed that the ash tree would eventually die.
21. The planning related to Boyd's new residence began in or about June 2015 and
took approximately one year to complete.
a. Demolition of the structure that previously stood at 347 Reamer Avenue
started in approximately 2016.
22. Boyd telephoned Hatcher in April 2016 and requested that Hatcher meet him at the
intersection of Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue.
a. Boyd did not inform Hatcher as to the purpose of the meeting.
23. Hatcher met Boyd at the intersection of Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue
shortly after Boyd's telephone call that same day.
a. Boyd showed Hatcher the ash tree and told him that he wanted the Public
Works Department to remove it since the ash tree stood on Borough
property.
b. Boyd's reasons for wanting the ash tree removed were that the ash tree was
dead and a safety concern to Boyd.
24. Hatcher did not believe that the ash tree was on Borough property, dead, and /or a
safety concern, and he declined to have the Borough perform the work that Boyd
requested.
a. Hatcher instructed Boyd to obtain approval from the Shade Tree
Commission and Council in order to have the ash tree removed. Boyd
claims he was never instructed to obtain such approval.
25. On April 10, 2017, at 2:28 .m., Boyd emailed Shade Tree Commission President
Marlene Pendleton ("Pendleton"), stating, in part, the following:
"There's a big old Ash tree with Emerald Ash borers all
through it that I'd like the borough to remove. Most of
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 6
the tree is dead at this point ... Anyhow, the tree is on
borough property that is adjacent to a lot that I own and
where 1 plan to build a home this year. Having just
cleaned the yard of 3 wheelbarrows of branches thaf fell
from it this winter so the grass could be cut without
damaging the mower and hearing my neighbor talk
about ow often he picks branches off of the road, I'm
now motivated to make the tree go away ... All that said,
what do I need to do to get the tree on Keith's list of
things to do? The street address of my lot is 347
Reamer Ave ...."
a. Boyd further stated in his email that he was motivated to remove the ash tree
because it was causing an inconvenience to him and his neighbor.
26. On April 10, 2017, at 2:45 p.m., Pendleton responded to Boyd's email as follows:
"It sounds like this tree needs to come down. The STC
has a meeting on Wednesday. If it's ok with you I'll
discuss removal at the meeting. I don't foresee a
problem getting approval. If any" one feels the need to
look at the tree I'll contact you.
27. On April 10, 2017, at 3:23 p.m., Boyd responded to Pendleton's email stating the
following:
"Please do. And thanks for the quick follow up."
28. Pendleton subsequently contacted Shade Tree Commission Member Robert
Podurgiel ( "Podurgiel ") about the situation, and the two of them traveled to the
intersection of Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue to examine the ash tree.
a. Pendleton and Pod urgiel concluded that the ash tree was dead and that the
removal of the ash tree was an appropriate request.
29. On April 12, 2017, the Shade Tree Commission met and discussed Boyd's request
regarding the removal of the ash tree.
a. The Shade Tree Commission determined that the removal of the ash tree
was an appropriate request and that Boyd was financially responsible for the
complete removal of the ash tree.
b. The Shade Tree Commission also determined that it did not have the
authority to direct the Public Works Department to remove the ash tree, as
requested by Boyd in his April 10, 2017, email.
C. The Shade Tree Commission did not formalize its determination via an
official vote due to an oversight by the Shade Tree Commission.
30. Shade Tree Commission Member Sarsfield informed Boyd of the Shade Tree
Commission's determination regarding the removal of the ash tree.
a. Sarsfield did not communicate the Shade Tree Commission's determination
to Council and/or Borough Manager Beuter because the Shade Tree
Commission recommended that Boyd incur all expenses associated with the
removal of the ash tree.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 7
b. Council never voted on the Shade Tree Commission's determination
regarding the removal of the ash tree.
C. Boyd claims he was never told about the Shade Tree Commission's
determination.
31. Boyd organized a meeting with Borough Manager Beuter and Code Enforcement
Officer Terry Roma ( "Roma ") contemporaneous to the Shade Tree Commission's
April 12, 2017, meeting to express his position that the Borough should incur the
expenses associated with the removal of the ash tree since the ash tree stood on
Borough property.
32. Code Enforcement Officer Roma reviewed the Borough's most current street map,
real estate records on file with the Allegheny County Assessment Office, records
maintained by Google Maps, and a professional survey provided by Boyd to
determine where the ash tree stood.
a. Roma ultimately determined that the ash tree was located on Borough
property.
33. Based on Roma's determination that the ash tree was on Borough property, Beuter
subsequently agreed with Boyd that the Borough should incur the expenses
associated with the removal of the ash tree.
a. Beuter was unaware of the Shade Tree Commission's April 12, 2017,
recommendation at the time of his meeting with Boyd.
b. Beuter was unaware of the provisions of Borough Ordinance No. 25 at the
time of his meeting with Boyd.
34. Boyd suggested to Beuter that the Borough hire a contractor to remove the ash tree.
a. Beuter agreed with Boyd, which ultimately resulted in Boyd contacting Public
Works Supervisor Hatcher.
35. Boyd subsequently contacted Hatcher and informed Hatcher that the Shade Tree
Commission and Council approved of the ash tree being removed at the Borough's
expense.
a. Neither Borough Council nor the Shade Tree Commission approved of the
removal of the ash tree at the Borough's expense.
b. Beuter was the only Borough official to agree with Boyd that the ash tree
should be removed at the Borough's expense.
36. Hatcher informed Boyd that he would obtain quotes from contractors related to the
ash tree being cut down since the Public Works Department did not have the
expertise to remove a large tree.
a. Boyd advised Hatcher that he would do the same since it related to a matter
in which he had an interest.
b. Hatcher and Boyd agreed that each would seek quotes from contractors for
the ash tree removal.
37. Hatcher determined that the Public Works Department would dispose of the ash
tree after it was cut down in order to potentially save the Borough money related to
the disposal of the ash tree.
B_oyd_, 17 -034
1 e8
a. Boyd agreed with Hatcher's assessment.
38. Boyd contacted at least two businesses for quotes related to cutting down the ash
tree.
a. Sidelines Tree Service, LLC was the first business to provide Boyd with a
quote.
Sidelines Tree Service, LLC is located in Collier Township (which
neighbors the Borough) and provides the service of complete tree
clearing, landscaping services, etc.
b. Falling Timber Tree Service was the second business to provide Boyd with a
quote.
Falling Timber Tree Service is located in the Borough and provides
complete tree clearing services.
39. On or about May 9, 2017, Boyd telephoned Sidelines Tree Service, LLC employee
Barry Lewellyn ("Lewellyn ") to solicit a quote related to the removal of the ash tree.
a. Boyd and Lewellyn have maintained a personal friendship for approximately
twenty years.
b. On May 11, 2017, Boyd met with Lewellyn at 347 Reamer Avenue to show
Lewellyn the ash tree and to obtain a quote from him related to the ash tree
being cut down.
40. Lewellyn initially provided the Borough, through Boyd, with a written quote of
$1,543.75 to cut down the ash tree.
a. Lewellyn identified on the quote that the customer requesting the quote was
"Carnegie Borough" due to Boyd asserting that the Borough was financially
responsible.
b. The quote of $1,543.75 included a five percent discount if accepted on May
11, 2017.
The five percent discount represented a potential price reduction of
$81.25.
41. On May 11, 2017, Boyd obtained a separate written quote from Sidelines Tree
Service, LLC of $3,249.00 for the complete removal of several trees on his property
and the performance of landscaping services.
a. Lewellyn identified on the quote that the customer was "Phil Boyd" due to
Boyd's explanation of the work to be performed.
b. The scope of proposed work did not include the removal of the ash tree.
c. The quote identified the following work to be completed:
Estimate
Billed to
Description of Work
Amount
Total to be
Date
Char ed
5-11-17
Phil Boyd-
. Remove Walnut tree ($500.00)
420.00
3,24 9.00
Mailing Address
2. Sumacs 1 branch removed over year
(5 0
333 Center Ave.
20,00)
discount of
Carnegie, PA
Sumacs Tree removed $25.00
$171.00
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 9
42. Boyd additionally contacted the owner /operator of Falling Timber Tree Service,
James Scarfone, to provide Boyd with a quote related to the cutting down of the ash
tree in addition to tree clearing /landscaping services to be performed on Boyd's
property.
a. Falling Timber Tree Service did not retain a copy of the written quotes that
Boyd received.
b. Boyd did not maintain the written quotes he received from Falling Timber
Tree Service.
43. After receiving Falling Timber Tree Service's quotes, Boyd contacted Lewellyn via
telephone and informed him that Falling Timber Tree Service provided lower quotes
for cutting down the ash tree and performing additional tree clearing /landscaping
services on Boyd's property.
a. Bo d indicated that Falling Timber Tree Service provided Boyd with a quote
of $1,000.00 related to the ash tree being cut down and a quote of $2,450.00
related to additional tree clearing /landscaping services to be performed
exclusive to Boyd's property.
b. Lewellyn informed Boyd that he would match Falling Timber Tree Service's
price quotes.
44. Boyd contacted Public Works Supervisor Hatcher and informed him of the
$1,000.00 price quote that he obtained from Sidelines Tree Service, LLC related to
cutting down the ash tree.
a. Hatcher advised Boyd that Boyd's price quote was lower than the price quote
Hatcher had received from Classic Landscaping.
The verbal quote provided by Classic Landscaping included the
cutting down and disposal of the ash tree.
45. Boyd subsequently informed Borough Manager Beuter that he wanted to utilize
Sidelines Tree Service, LLC to cut down the ash tree and that the Public Works
Department would dispose of the ash tree based on his discussions with Public
Works Supervisor Hatcher.
a. Boyd informed Beuter that it would be cheaper for the Borough if the ash tree
was cut down by Sidelines Tree Service, LLC and removed by the Public
Works Department.
b. Beuter did not question Boyd's information.
15106
4. Tulip Polar elevate 25.00
5. Remove Pine Tree $450.00
6. White Pine elevate over pavilion ($150.00)
7. Pine elevate dead branches ($75.00)
8. Pine elevate low hanging branches
�$25.00)
. Remove Pine Tree ($400.00)
10. Remove Pine Tree $400.00
11. Remove Pine Tree ($550.00)
12. Maple elevate 2 lowest branches
$25.00)
Stumps $675.00
42. Boyd additionally contacted the owner /operator of Falling Timber Tree Service,
James Scarfone, to provide Boyd with a quote related to the cutting down of the ash
tree in addition to tree clearing /landscaping services to be performed on Boyd's
property.
a. Falling Timber Tree Service did not retain a copy of the written quotes that
Boyd received.
b. Boyd did not maintain the written quotes he received from Falling Timber
Tree Service.
43. After receiving Falling Timber Tree Service's quotes, Boyd contacted Lewellyn via
telephone and informed him that Falling Timber Tree Service provided lower quotes
for cutting down the ash tree and performing additional tree clearing /landscaping
services on Boyd's property.
a. Bo d indicated that Falling Timber Tree Service provided Boyd with a quote
of $1,000.00 related to the ash tree being cut down and a quote of $2,450.00
related to additional tree clearing /landscaping services to be performed
exclusive to Boyd's property.
b. Lewellyn informed Boyd that he would match Falling Timber Tree Service's
price quotes.
44. Boyd contacted Public Works Supervisor Hatcher and informed him of the
$1,000.00 price quote that he obtained from Sidelines Tree Service, LLC related to
cutting down the ash tree.
a. Hatcher advised Boyd that Boyd's price quote was lower than the price quote
Hatcher had received from Classic Landscaping.
The verbal quote provided by Classic Landscaping included the
cutting down and disposal of the ash tree.
45. Boyd subsequently informed Borough Manager Beuter that he wanted to utilize
Sidelines Tree Service, LLC to cut down the ash tree and that the Public Works
Department would dispose of the ash tree based on his discussions with Public
Works Supervisor Hatcher.
a. Boyd informed Beuter that it would be cheaper for the Borough if the ash tree
was cut down by Sidelines Tree Service, LLC and removed by the Public
Works Department.
b. Beuter did not question Boyd's information.
BOO, 17 -034
Page 10
46. On or about July 19, 2017, Sidelines Tree Service, LLC reported to 347 Reamer
Avenue to perform work related exclusively to Boyd's property and unrelated to the
removal of the ash tree.
a. Boyd altered the scope of the work resulting in the issuance of a price
revision from $3,654.00 to $2,450.00.
47. On July 20, 2017, following the completion of the additional work on Boyd's
property, Sidelines Tree Service, LLC cut down the ash tree located on Borough
property adjacent to 347 Reamer Avenue.
a. Sidelines Tree Service, LLC cut the trunk into sections several feet long
each, leaving the majority of the limbs on the trunk.
b. Sidelines Tree Service, LLC's internal work notes related to the cutting down
of the ash tree stated the following:
"The Borough is [expletive redacted] cause the mess
we left them."
48. Boyd contacted Public Works Foreman Schepis on July 20, 2017, and informed him
that the ash tree was cut down and ready to be hauled away by the Public Works
Department.
a. Schepis then informed Public Works Supervisor Hatcher of Boyd's update
regarding the ash tree.
b. Hatcher reported to 347 Reamer Avenue in order to estimate the amount of
manpower and equipment that would be needed the following day to dispose
of the ash tree.
49. On July 21, 2017, Hatcher dispatched six full -time Public Works Department
employees and four part -time Public Works Department employees to 347 Reamer
Avenue to dispose of the ash tree.
a. The Public Works Department worked at 347 Reamer Avenue from 7:30
a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on July 21, 2017, to complete the disposal.
b. Borough equipment utilized to dispose of the ash tree included:
1. One 10 -ton dump truck;
2. Four 1--ton dump trucks;
3. A backhoe; and
4. Two chainsaws.
50. On July 21, 2017, Borough resident Jeffrey Stephan ( "Stephan ") took videos and
pictures of the Public Works Department clearing the remnants of the ash tree near
the vicinity of Boyd's property.
a. The videos and pictures were posted to Stephan's public Facebook account
on July 21, 2017, at or about 11:18 a.m.
b. The posting generated social media comments related to Boyd possibly
receiving a service not provided to other residents.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 11
51. On July 21, 2017, Borough Manager Beuter became aware of Stephan's Facebook
post and contacted Hatcher.
a. Beuter was upset at Hatcher for not informing him of the extent of the work
required to dispose of the ash tree and for failing to seek Beuter's approval
related to the matter.
b. Hatcher informed Beuter that Boyd dispatched him to dispose of the ash
tree.
52. Beuter subsequently contacted Boyd to apprise him of Stephan's Facebook post.
a. Boyd's response was "Here we go."
53. Boyd contacted Borough Solicitor Joe Lucas ( "Lucas ") to inform him of Stephan's
Facebook post.
a. Lucas was unaware of the situation involving the ash tree prior to Boyd's
telephone call.
b. Lucas did not provide any legal advice regarding the matter at that time.
54. Boyd sent the following email to Council on July 21, 2017, at 12:52 p.m., after
viewing Stephan's Facebook post:
"The tree we discussed that was adjacent to the lot
where I am building a new home was taken down
yesterday. It was an oldllargelmostly dead Ash tree
infested with the Ash borer beetle. As we discussed, the
tree commission examined the tree and determined that
it should come down. Public works got bids. I also got
bids on it because I felt we could save $ by having the
borough's tree removed at the same time I had my 7
trees removed. This proved to be correct and the
company I ended up using was the low bidder. The plan
was for the tree folks to drop the tree in place which
they did yesterday /cut it into manageable chunks and
public works would provide the labor and equipment to
remove the pieces once they were on the ground. This
morning public works arrived bright and early and began
hauling away the tree parts. Public works played no part
in the removal of any of my trees as I paid to have them
cut down and completely removed. Later in the morning
Jeff Stephan happened by, took pictures and posted
the picture attached here and others on Facebook.
It's probably written somewhere that council folks are
not entitled to ask for the same considerations from the
borough as other residents but I missed that chapter.
Sorry to cause this distraction and the untold number of
conversations the Facebook posting may generate. I
think I should make a public statement about it at our
next meeting. We can discuss that idea when we are
together at the beginning of August ...."
55. Council as a whole had not discussed the removal of the ash tree as indicated in
Boyd's email.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 12
a. The only Council Member aware of Boyd's interest in having the ash tree cut
down and removed was Sarsfield.
b. Boyd did discuss the ash tree removal with Borough Manager Beuter and
Public Works Supervisor Hatcher.
56. As a result of Stephan's social media ost and the public perception surrounding
such, Council Member D'Loss ultimately requested and conducted an investigation
into the matter on Council's behalf.
a. Council President Sue Demko ( "Demko ") was the sole Council Member to
approve of D'Loss's request.
57. D'Loss's investigation occurred during the time period of approximately July 21,
2017, to August 7, 2017.
a. During his investigation, D'Loss spoke with the following individuals:
1. Shade Tree Commission Members Podurgiel, Pendelton, and Karen
Rok ( "Rok ");
2. Borough Manager Beuter;
3. Solicitor Lucas;
4. Public Works Supervisor Hatcher and Public Works Foreman
Schepis; and
5. Boyd.
b. During his investigation, D'Loss obtained the following records:
1. Pendelton's photo of the ash tree;
2. Boyd's photo of the ash tree;
3. Boyd's email to the Shade Tree Commission dated April 10, 2017;
4. Shade Tree Commission meeting minutes dated April 12, 2017;
5. Property survey of 347 Reamer Avenue, Carnegie, Pennsylvania
15106;
6. Borough Ordinance No. 25;
7. Three Sidelines Tree Service, LLC quotes;
aa. Boyd did not provide D'Loss with the revised quote he obtained
from Sidelines Tree Service, LLC that documented he was
charged $2,450.00 for the work to be performed on his
property.
bb. Boyd provided D'Loss with all the other quotes that he
obtained from Sidelines Tree Service, LLC.
8. A blank Shade Tree Commission permit application;
9. Three screen shots of Stephan's July 21, 2017, Facebook post; and
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 13
10. Boyd's email to Council dated July 21, 2017.
58. D'Loss spoke with Solicitor Lucas on July 31, 2017, regarding who was responsible
for expenses associated with the cutting down and disposal of the ash tree near 347
Reamer Avenue.
a. Lucas's opinion was that Boyd was financially responsible for expenses
associated with the cutting down and disposal of the ash tree due to the
following:
1. Borough Ordinance No. 25, Section 25 -102 required such;
2. Boyd requested the removal of the ash tree; and
3. Boyd's private property abutted the Borough's property on which the
ash tree stood.
59. D'Loss organized a meeting with Shade Tree Commission Members Podurgiel,
Pendelton, and Rok on August 3, 2017, to ascertain the Shade Tree Commission's
interpretation of Borough Ordinance No. 25.
a. During the meeting, Rok asserted that interpretation of Borough ordinances
is the Borough Solicitor's responsibility.
1. Rok referenced potential applicability of Section 25 -104 of Borough
Ordinance No. 25 which states, in part, that expenses associated with
caring of trees "now planted or hereafter planted by said Commission
... shall be paid by the Borough."
2. Rok informed D'Loss that "caring for trees" seemed vague and might
relate to the removal of a diseased tree that could cause problems for
surrounding healthy trees.
3. Rok's opinion was that D'Loss should seek Lucas's interpretation of
Borough Ordinance No. 25, Section 25 -104.
b. Rok and D'Loss agreed that Section 25 -104 of Borough Ordinance No. 25
might not relate to Boyd's situation, since the ash tree was not originally
planted by the Shade Tree Commission.
60. On August 4, 2017, D'Loss contacted Lucas for an opinion as to whether Section
25 -10-4 of Borough Ordinance No. 25 would apply to Boyd's situation.
a. Lucas stated that Section 25 -104 and Section 25 -102 of Borough Ordinance
No. 25 could be viewed as conflicting stipulations regarding who is financially
responsible for the removal of a Borough shade tree.
b. Lucas advised the Shade Tree Commission to reevaluate the matter at its
upcoming meeting, since the recommendation made by the Shade Tree
Commission at its April 12, 2017, meeting was not formalized via a vote.
61. D'Loss documented the results of his investigation via correspondence dated
August 7, 2017, to Council President Demko.
a. D'Loss's correspondence outlined a timeline/explanation of events allegedly
applicable to the removal of the ash tree abutting Boyd's property.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 14
b. D'Loss concluded his correspondence by recommending that "this case
should be returned to the Shade Tree Commission for a ruling.
D'Loss noted that the Shade Tree Commission needed to state
clearly who has financial responsibility for the various shade trees in
the community, whether they be on public or private property.
2. D'Loss further noted that Borough Ordinance No. 25 needed to be
clarified as to the Borough's responsibility and the private property
owner's responsibility.
62. All of Council was not provided with D'Loss's letter to Demko.
a. D'Loss and Demko decided to refer the matter to the Shade Tree
Commission.
63. D'Loss's letter to Demko did not contain the following information regarding the ash
tree removal:
a. Boyd did not complete a permit application related to the removal of the ash
tree as required per Borough Ordinance No. 25;
b. Boyd failed to follow the Shade Tree Commission's April 12, 2017,
recommendation;
C. The Shade Tree Commission's April 12, 2017, recommendation was never
presented to Council for a formal decision; and
d. Council did not initially approve the removal of the ash tree.
64. Demko agreed with D'Loss that the Shade Tree Commission should reevaluate the
situation involving the removal of the ash tree after reading D'Loss's
correspondence.
a. D'Loss subsequently attended the Shade Tree Commission's August 2017
meeting in order to explain to the Shade Tree Commission the determination
made by Demko and D'Loss.
65. At its August 9, 2017, meeting, the Shade Tree Commission concluded that Boyd
was financially responsible for the cutting down of the ash tree and that the Public
Works Department was responsible for the disposal of the ash tree.
a. At the time it reached its conclusion, the Shade Tree Commission had been
informed by Commission Member John Ferri that he had witnessed the
Public Works Department removing tree debris for other residents.
66. The Shade Tree Commission's August 9, 2017, conclusion contradicted the
recommendation the Shade Tree Commission made at its April 12, 2017, meeting
which determined that Boyd was solely responsible for the ash tree removal costs.
a. The Shade Tree Commission's August 9, 2017, recommendation was not
binding on Council.
b. The Shade Tree Commission does not have the legal authority to direct the
actions of the Public Works Department.
1. The Shade Tree Commission had previously acknowledged such at
its April 12, 2017, meeting.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 15
67. Shade Tree Commission Member Rok subsequently emailed the Borough Manager
a memorandum dated August 14, 2017, documenting the reasons for the Shade
Tree Commission's August 9, 2017, recommendation regarding the removal of the
ash tree as follows:
a. The Shade Tree Commission concluded that Section 25 -104 of Borough
Ordinance No. 25 did not relate to the removal of the ash tree since the ash
tree was not planted by the Shade Tree Commission; and
b. The Shade Tree Commission concluded that Section 25 -102 of Borough
Ordinance No. 25 related to the removal of the ash tree.
68. Rok concluded the memorandum by noting that the Shade Tree Commission made
the following recommendation regarding the matter:
"Based upon the above interpretations and conclusions
by the Shade Tree Commission regarding the Code of
Ordinances of the Borouggh of Carnegie, adopted by
Ordinance 2384, 12110116, Chapter 25: Shade Trees,
§25 -102 and §25 -104, the Commission recommends
that Mr. Boyd assume the cost of the tree removal and
the cost of a replacement tree. Since Carnegie Public
Works has historically removed tree branches, etc., for
private residents of Carnegie when they have been set
out by the street and due to the hazardous condition of
the dead tree which posed a public safety issue as well
as the necessity to minimize the spreading of Ash
Borers disease, the Commission believes that the cost
of the clean up of the dead tree is the responsibility of
Carnegie Borough."
69. At Council's August 14, 2017, meeting, D'Loss informed Council and the public of
his investigation and the final recommendation made by the Shade Tree
Commission regarding the removal of the ash tree.
a. D'Loss reiterated the Shade Tree Commission's conclusion that the Borough
would pay for the removal costs and Boyd would pay for the cutting down of
the ash tree and that would conclude the matter.
b. Boyd was present at this meeting but did not participate in the discussion.
C. Neither D'Loss nor any of the other Members of Council called for a vote to
accept the recommendation made by the Shade Tree Commission.
d. No formal action was taken by Council regarding the Shade Tree
Commission's recommendation.
e. No Member of Council voiced any disagreement with the Shade Tree
Commission's recommendation, and Council considered the matter closed.
Boyyd expressed his gratitude to the Shade Tree Commission regarding its
determination of the matter at the conclusion of the meeting.
70. On August 16, 2017, Boyd issued a cash payment to Sidelines Tree Service, LLC of
$3,450.00, which included $1,000.00 for the cutting down of the ash tree and
$2,450.00 for other services related to Boyd's property.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 16
71. On December 18, 2017, and again on May 22, 2018, Boyd was interviewed by
Investigators for the State Ethics Commission and made the following statements
specific to the removal of the ash tree.
a. In or about early 2017, Boyd determined that the ash tree should be
completely removed due to multiple limbs falling from the ash tree onto
Boyd's property and Mansfield Avenue, which were a nuisance to clean up.
b. Boyd later acknowledged that a Borough Ordinance No. 25 exists and that it
requires property owners to obtain a permit to remove any Borough shade
trees.
C. Boyd acknowledged that the revised quote resulted in $1,204.00 in savings
for him even though $405.00 in services was added to the revised quote.
1. Boyd acknowledged that the $1,204.00 in savings was close to the
amount that Boyd ultimately paid Sidelines Tree Service, LLC to cut
down the ash tree.
d. Boyd acknowledged that Borough Ordinance No. 25 directs that he is
financially responsible for the removal of the Borough shade tree that was
cut down by Sidelines Tree Service, LLC and removed by the Public Works
Department.
e. Boyd acknowledged that he did not follow the Borough's process related to
the removal of the Borough's shade tree.
72. On February 12, 2018, and again on May 16, 2018, Sidelines Tree Service, LLC
employee Lewellyn was interviewed by an Investigator for the State Ethics
Commission and made the following statements specific to the removal of the ash
tree.
a. Lewellyn stated that on or about May 9, 2017, Boyd contacted him and
requested a quote related to the ash tree being cut down and tree
clearing /landscaping services to be performed on Boyd's property.
b. Lewellyn stated that Boyd subsequently contacted him and indicated that
Fallen Timber Tree Service offered to cut down the ash tree for $1,000.00
and perform the work on his property for $2,450.00.
C. Lewellyn acknowledged that the final Sidelines Tree Service, LLC quote
related to the removal of the ash tree indicated that the price provided
($1,000.00) was the result of price matching Fallen Timber Tree Service.
d. Lewellyn acknowledged that the revised quote resulted in $1,204.00 in
savings for Boyd even though $405.00 in services was added to the revised
quote.
1. Lewellyn stated that he maintained the $2,450.00 price match
because he wanted to secure the job for Sidelines Tree Service, LLC.
e. Lewellyn estimated that Sidelines Tree Service, LLC would have charged the
Borough $1,300.00 to dispose of the ash tree once cut down.
73. No Borough official or employee provided any information or evidence that Boyd
used the authority of his position as a Council Member to solicit, recommend, or
direct that the ash tree be removed at the Borough's expense.
BOO, 17 -034
Page 17
a. Boyd did express his opinion to the Borough Manager and the Public Works
Supervisor that the Borough should pay the expenses for the ash tree
removal since the ash tree was on Borough property.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO BOYD FILING DEFICIENT STATEMENTS OF
FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2015 AND 2016.
74. Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") filing requirements for public officials and
public 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
position and of the year after he leaves such a
position....
65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
75. Boyd, in his official capacity as a Council Member, was required to file an SFI form
by May 16t annually containing information for the prior calendar year.
a. The Council Members are provided with blank SFI forms by Beuter annually
for completion.
b. Boyd's SFIs for calendar gears 2013 through 2016 were obtained from the
Borough by the Investigative Division on November 15, 2017.
76. Information to be disclosed on SFIs filed by public officials and public employees is
mandated by Section 1105 of the State Ethics Act.
a. Section 1105(b), Subsections 1 -10 identify specific information to be
disclosed as well as exceptions to disclosure requirements when applicable.
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....
65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5).
77. An SFI review by the Investigative Division concluded that Boyd failed to disclose
the Borough as a direct or indirect source of income on his SFIs filed for calendar
years 2015 and 2016 as mandated per Section 1105(b)(5) of the State Ethics Act.
a. Boyd received income from the Borough in the amount of $1,620.00 in 2015
and $1,620.00 in 2016 in his position as a Council Member.
b. Boyd correctly identified income received from the Borough on his SFI form
for calendar year 2014.
[Boyd had no income from the Borough to disclose on his SFI for
calendar year 2013 as he did not serve as a Council Member in
2013.]
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 18
78. On March 30, 2018, Boyd completed and filed amended SFI forms for calendar
years 2015 and 2016 with the Borough.
a. The amended SFI forms disclosed the income that Boyd received from the
Borough during 2015 and 2016 as a Council Member.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Council Member for Carnegie Borough ("Borough"), Allegheny County, since
.January 6, 2014, Respondent Philip Boyd, also referred to hereinafter as "Respondent,"
"Respondent Boyd," and "Boyd," 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 se q.
The allegations are that Boyd violated Sections 1103(a), 1104Ace , 1104(d), and
1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he utilized the authority of his public for a private
pecuniary benefit when he directed and /or authorizedlapproved the use of public
resources, including Borough funds, Borough employees, and Borough equipment, to
remove trees and /or other vegetative /organic matter from real property owned by him; and
when he failed to identify the Borough as a direct/indirect source of income on Statements
of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") filed for the 2015 and 2016 calendar years.
Per the Consent Agreement, the Investigative Division has exercised its
prosecutorial discretion to nol pros the allegation under Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act.
Based upon the nol pros, we need not address the Section 1104(d) 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.
Bo dd, 17 -034
Page 19
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from
using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public 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.
Boyd has served as a Member of Borough Council (also referred to herein as
"Council ") since January 6, 2014. Boyd has served as Vice President of Council from
January 9, 2017, to the present. Council consists of six Members.
The Borough Public Works Department ( "Public Works Department ") does not have
the expertise to cut down Borough trees located in residential areas. Public Works
Supervisor Keith Hatcher ( "Hatcher ") is responsible for obtaining quotes from qualified
contractors for the removal of Borough trees located in residential areas. Hatcher has the
discretion to either direct the Public Works Department to dispose of Borough trees that
were cut down by a contractor or to utilize the contractor to dispose of the trees. Since at
least 2007, the Public Works Department has disposed of leaves, bushes, hedges, and
tree trimmings for residents free of charge, subject to certain requirements.
On July 9, 2012, Council created the Borough Shade Tree Commission ( "Shade
Tree Commission ") to provide recommendations to Council on matters related to the
planting, maintenance, and removal of the Borough's shade trees. All Shade Tree
Commission recommendations follow the provisions of Borough Ordinance No. 25, which
defines a shade tree, in pertinent part, as 'any shade tree, shrub or other woody plant on
any public street, highway, public areas or public parks in the Borough of Carnegie ...."
Fact Finding 10 a 1.
Section 25 -102 of Borough Ordinance No. 25 states, in part, that the "cost of
planting, transplanting or removing any shade tree in or along the streets and highways in
Carneggie ... shall be paid by the owner of the real estate abutting which the work is done."
Fact Findin 16 a. Section 25 -102 relates to all shade trees located in the Borough,
including those trees planted prior to the creation of the Shade Tree Commission. Section
25 -104 of Borough Ordinance No. 25 provides that the "cost and expenses of caring for
trees now planted or hereafter planted' by the Shade Tree Commission "on ppublic streets
and highways of the Borough shall be paid by the Borough." Fact Findinq '16 b.
On June 3, 2015, Boyd purchased property located at 347 Reamer Avenue,
Carnegie, PA 15106 ( "347 Reamer Avenue'). 347 Reamer Avenue is located at the
intersection of Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue. The property line of 347 Reamer
Avenue is approximately fifteen feet short of the edge of Mansfield Avenue. The property
between 347 Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue is owned by the Borough.
BOW, 17 -034
Page 20
At the time that Boyd purchased 347 Reamer Avenue, a decaying, dying, sixty -foot
ash tree (the "Ash Tree ") stood on the Borough property between 347 Reamer Avenue and
Mansfield Avenue. The Ash Tree had not been planted by the Shade Tree Commission.
In April 2016, Public Works Supervisor Hatcher met Boyd at the intersection of
Reamer Avenue and Mansfield Avenue at Boyd's request. Boyd told Hatcher that he
wanted the Public Works Department to remove the Ash Tree since it stood on Borough
F roperty. Boyd wanted the Ash Tree removed because it was dead and a safety concern
o him. Hatcher did not believe that the Ash Tree was on Borough property, dead, or a
safety concern, and he declined to have the Borough perform the work that Boyd
requested. Hatcher instructed Boyd to obtain approval from the Shade Tree Commission
and Council in order to have the Ash Tree removed.
On April 10, 2017, Boyd sent an email to Shade Tree Commission President
Marlene Pendleton ( "Pendleton "), in which he indicated that the Ash Tree was on Borough
property and was dying and that he would like the Borough to remove it. On April 12,
20 f 7, the Shade Tree Commission met and discussed Boyd's request for removal of the
Ash Tree. The Shade Tree Commission's recommendation was that the removal of the
Ash Tree was an appropriate request and that Boyd would be financially responsible for
the complete removal of the Ash Tree. The Shade Tree Commission did not formalize its
recommendation regarding the removal of the Ash Tree via an official vote due to an
oversight. Council and Borough Manager Steve Beuter ( "Beuter ") were not informed of the
Shade Tree Commission's recommendation because it recommended that Boyd should
incur all expenses associated with the removal of the Ash Tree. Boyd was informed of the
Shade Tree Commission's recommendation.
Contemporaneous to the Shade Tree Commission's April 12, 2017, meeting, Boyd
organized a meeting with Beuter and the Borough Code Enforcement Officer to express his
position that the Borough should incur the expenses associated with the removal of the
Ash Tree since it stood on Borough property. Beuter, who was unaware of the Shade Tree
Commission's recommendation, agreed that the Borough should incur the expenses
associated with the removal of the Ash Tree and agreed with a suggestion by Boyd that the
Borough should hire a contractor to remove the Ash Tree.
Boyd subsequently contacted Public Works Supervisor Hatcher and informed him
that the Shade Tree Commission and Council approved of the Ash Tree being removed at
the Borough's expense, even though such was not the case. Hatcher informed Boyd that
he would obtain quotes from contractors, and Boyd advised Hatcher that he would do the
same since it related to a matter in which he had an interest. Hatcher determined that the
Public Works Department would dispose of the Ash Tree after it was cut down in order to
potentially save the Borough money related to the disposal of the Ash Tree.
On May 11, 2017, Boyd met with Barry Lewellyn ( "Lewellyn "), an employee of
Sidelines Tree Service, LLC ('Sidelines Lewellyn provided the Borough, through Boyd,
with a written quote to cut down the Ash 'Le. Boyd also obtained a separate written quote
from Sidelines for the complete removal of several trees on his property and the
performance of landscaping services on his property.
Boyd informed Beuter that he wanted to utilize Sidelines to cut down the Ash Tree.
Based on Boyd's discussions with Hatcher, Boyd also informed Beuter that the Public
Works Department would dispose of the Ash Tree.
On or about July 19, 2017, Sidelines reported to 347 Reamer Avenue to perform
work related exclusively to Boyd's property. On July 20, 2017, following the completion of
the work on Boyd's property, Sidelines cut down the Ash Tree. Boyd then contacted Public
Works Foreman Pete Schepis and informed him that the Ash Tree was cut down and ready
to be hauled away by the Public Works Department.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 21
On July 21, 2017, Hatcher dispatched six full -time and four part-time Public Works
Department employees to dispose of the Ash Tree. The Public Works Department
employees worked from 7:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and used five dump trucks and a backhoe
to dispose of the Ash Tree. A Borough resident took videos and pictures of the Public
Works Department clearing the remnants of the Ash Tree near the vicinity of Boyd's
property and posted the videos and pictures to his public Facebook account. The post
generated social media comments related to Boyd possibly receiving a service not
provided to other residents.
As a result, Council Member Rick D'Loss ( "D'Loss ") conducted an investigation into
the matter on Council's behalf. D'Loss's investigation occurred during the time period of
approximately July 21, 2017, to August 7, 2017. During the course of the investigation,
D'Loss contacted Borough Solicitor Joe Lucas ( "Lucas ") with regard to who was financially
responsible for expenses associated with the cutting down and disposal of the Ash Tree.
Lucas stated that Section 25 -102 and Section 25 -104 of Borough Ordinance No. 25 could
be viewed as conflicting stipulations regarding who is financially responsible for the
removal of a Borough shade tree, and he advised that the matter should be reevaluated by
the Shade Tree Commission at its upcoming meeting since its prior recommendation that
Boyd would be responsible for the complete removal of the Ash Tree had not been
formalized via a vote.
D'Loss documented the results of his investigation via a letter dated August 7, 2017,
to Council President Sue Demko ( "Demko "), and Demko and D'Loss decided to refer the
matter to the Shade Tree Commission.
On August 9, 2017, the Shade Tree Commission concluded that Section 25-102,
and not Section 25 -104, of Borough Ordinance No. 25 related to the removal of the Ash
Tree since the Shade Tree Commission had not planted the Ash Tree. Based upon this
conclusion, the Shade Tree Commission recommended that Boyd be financially
responsible for the cutting down of the Ash Tree. The Shade Tree Commission further
recommended that the Borough be responsible for the disposal of the Ash Tree since the
Public Works Department had historically removed tree branches and the like for Borough
residents and the hazardous condition of the Ash Tree posed a public safety issue.
At Council's August 14, 2017, meeting, D'Loss informed Council and the public of
his investigation and the final recommendation made by the Shade Tree Commission
regarding the removal of the Ash Tree. D'Loss reiterated the Shade Tree Commission's
recommendation that Boyd pay for the cutting down of the Ash Tree and the Borough pay
for the disposal of the Ash Tree. No Member of Council voiced any disagreement with the
Shade Tree Commission's recommendation, and Council took no formal action regarding
the recommendation and considered the matter closed.
On August 16, 2017, Boyd issued a cash payment in the total amount of $3,450.00
to Sideline, which included $1,000.00 for cutting down the Ash Tree and $2,450.00 for
services related to Boyd's property.
As a Council Member, Boyd is required to annually file an SFI by May 1 containing
information for the prior calendar year. Although Boyd received $1,620.00 from the
Borough in both 2015 and 2016 for serving as a Council Member, he failed to disclose the
Borough as a direct or indirect source of income on his SFIs for calendar years 2015 and
2016. On March 30, 2018, Boyd filed amended SFIs for calendar years 20'15 and 2016
with the Borough that disclosed the income he had received from the Borough.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findin .9s 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:
BOW, 17 -034
Page 22
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in
relation to the above allegations:
That no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(x), occurred in relation to the removal of
trees and/or other vegetative /organic matter from
real property, owned by Boyd because there is
insufficient clear and convincing evidence that
Boyd directed and/or a uth orizedla pp roved the
use of public resources, including Borough
funds, employees, and equipment.
That two violations of Section 1105(b)(5} of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred in relation to
Boyd's failure to identify the Borough as a
direct/indirect source of income on Statements of
Financial Interests filed for the 2015 and 2016
calendar years.
That no action will be undertaken pursuant to
Section 1104(d) of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(d).
4. Boyd agrees to make payment in the amount of $750.00 in
settlement of this matter.
Boyd agrees to make a payment of $500.00,
representing the two violations of Section
1105(b)(5), 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.
Boyd agrees to make a payment of $250.00,
representing a portion of the costs incurred by
the Commission in the investigation and
enforcement of this matter, which shall be made
payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission within thirty {30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
5. If he has not already one so, Boyd agrees to file complete
and accurate amended Statements of Financial Interests with
Carnegie Borough, through the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission, for calendar years 2015 and 2016 within thirty
(30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this
matter.
6. Boyd agrees to not accept any reimbursement, compensation
or other payment from Carnegie Borough representing a full or
partial reimbursement of the amount paid in settlement of this
matter.
Bold, 17 -034
Page 23
The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics
Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no
specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other
authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not
prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate
enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to
comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or
cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to
review this matter further.
Consent Agreement, at 1 -2.
It appears that the Investigative Division in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion
has elected to non pros the portion of the allegations pertaining to Section 1104(a) of the
Ethics Act.
In considering the Consent Agreement, we agree with the parties that there is an
insufficiency of evidence to establish a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in this
matter. The Shade Tree Commission recommended to Council that Boyd should be
financially responsible for the cutting down of the Ash Tree, which stood on Borough
forthat abuts Boyd's property at 347 Reamer Avenue. Boyd paid Sideline $1,000.00
for cutting down the Ash Tree and an additional $2,450.00 for services that Sideline
performed at Boyd's propperty at 347 Reamer Avenue. The Shade Tree Commission
further recommended to Council that the Borough should be financially responsible for the
disposal of the Ash Tree. There is no basis in the Stipulated Findings for concluding that
Boyd used the authority of his public position as a Council Member to direct, authorize, or
appprove the use of Borough funds, Boraugh employees, Borough equipment, or other
public resources in relation to the cutting down or disposal of the Ash Tree or in relation to
the performance of any services at his property at 347 Reamer Avenue.
Ac din I , we hold that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103a, occurred in relation to the allegation that Boyd utilized the authority of
his public office or a private pecuniary benefit, as there is insufficient evidence to establish
that Boyd directed and/or authorizedlapproved the use of public resources, including
Borough funds, Borough employees, and Borough equipment, to remove trees and/or
other vegetative /organic matter from real property owned by him.
We agree with the parties, and we hold, that two violations of Section 1105(b) 5) of
the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred in relation to Boyd's failure to identi the
Borough as a direct/indirect source of income on SFIs filed for the 2015 and 2016 calendar
years.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Boyd has agreed to make payment in the total
amount of $750.00 in settlement of this matter as follows. Boyd has agreed to make
payment in the amount of $500.00 ppayable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
representing two violations of Section 1105 (b)(5 of the Ethics Act, with such payment to be
forwarded to this Commission within thirt y 30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter. Boyd has further agreed to make payment in the amount of
$250.00 payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, representing a portion of
the costs incurred by the Commission in the investigation and enforcement of this matter,
with such payment to be forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of the final adjudication in this matter.
Boyd 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.
Boyd, 17 -034
Page 24
To the extent he has not already done so, Boyd has agreed to file complete and
accurate amended SFIs with the Borough, through this Commission, for calendar years
2015 and 2016 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, Boyd is directed to make
payment in the amount of $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
representing two violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, with such payment
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, Boyd is further directed to make payment
in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission,
representing a portion of the costs incurred by the Commission in the investigation and
enforcement of this matter, with such payment forwarded to this Commission by no later
than the thirtieth (301h) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Boyd 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 he has not already done so, Boyd is directed to file complete and
accurate amended SFIs for calendar years 2015 and 2016 with the Borough, through this
Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after the mailing date of this
adjudication and Order.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Council Member for Carnegie Borou h ( "Borough "), Allegheny County, since
January 6, 2014, Respondent Philip Boyd "Boyd ") has been a public official subject
to the provisions of the Public Official an Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65
Pa.C.S. § 1101 et se .
2. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. 1103(a), occurred in
relation to the allegation that Boyd utilized the authority of is public office for a
private pecuniary benefit, as there is insufficient evidence to establish that Boyd
directed and/or authorized /approved the use of public resources, including Borough
funds, Borough employees, and Borough equipment, to remove trees and /or other
vegetative /organic mater from real property owned by him.
3. Two violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5),
occurred in relation to Boyd's failure to identify the Borough as a direct/indirect
source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2015 and 2016
calendar years.
In Re: Philip Boyd, File Docket: 17 -034
Respondent Date Decided: 10/23/18
Date Mailed: 10/31/18
ORDER NO. 1743
1. No violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act
(("Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 11 033(a), occurred in relation to the allegation that Philip
ioyd ( "Bo d ") utilized the authority of his public office as a Council Member for
Carnegie Borough ("Borough"), Allegheny County, for a private pecuniary benefit, as
there is insufficient evidence to establish that Boyd directed and/or
authorized /approved the use of public resources, including Borough funds, Borough
employees, and Borough equipment, to remove trees and /or other
vegetative /organic matter from real property owned by him.
2. Two violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S, 1105(b)(5),
occurred in relation to Boyd's failure to identify he Borough as a
source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2015 and 2016
calendar years.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Boyd is directed to make payment in the
amount of $500.00 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, representing
two violations of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, with such payment forwarded
to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day
after the mailing date of this Order.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Boyd is further directed to make
payment in the amount of $250.00 payable to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission, representing a portion of the costs incurred by the Commission in the
investigation and enforcement of this matter, with such payment forwarded to the
Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30th) day after
the mailing date of this Order.
5. Boyd 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.
6. To the extent he has not already done so, Boyd is directed to file complete and
accurate amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2015 and
2016 with the Borough, through this Commission, by no later than the thirtieth (30th)
day after the mailing date of this Order.
7. Compliance with paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Order will result in the closing of
this case with no further action by this Commission.
Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
m
�c o as o a e Ila, Chair