Loading...
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