HomeMy WebLinkAbout833 RohrerIn re: Clyde N. Rohrer
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1712,0
. File Docket:
: Date Decided:
: Date Mailed:
Before: Dennis C. Harrington;
James M. Howley, Vice
Daneen E. Reese
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
James P. Gallagher
Allan M. Rluger
88 -076 -C
February 20, 199,2
Fcbruary 27. 1992
Chair
Chair
The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a
possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, P.L.
883. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the
commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and
served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the
Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was not filed and
a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. This
adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the
individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of
Law and Order.
This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public
document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be
requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending
action on the request by the Commission. A request for
reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this
adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this
Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed
explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted
in conformity with 51 Pa. Code 52.38.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 during the fifteen day period and
no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate
confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order.
However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with
an attorney at law.
Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is
guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e).
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 2
1. ALLEGATION:
That Clyde N. Rohrer, an employee of the Potter County Community
Development Block Grant Program violated the following provisions of
the State Ethics Act, when he participated in the awarding of CDBG
funds to firms with which he is associated:
II. FINDINGS:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a), No public official or public employee shall
use his public office or any confidential
information received through his holding public
office to obtain financial gain other than
compensation provided by law for himself, a member
of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. §403(a).
1. Clyde Rohrer was employed as a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector
with the Potter County Office of Planning and Development in
Coudersport, Pennsylvania.
a. He served in this position from January 4, 1984 until April
4, 1986.
2. The Potter County Office of Planning and Development was closed in
1986. The functions then became part of the Potter County Housing
and Redevelopment Authority in 1986.
3. The duties of a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector were as follows:
a. To inspect and prepare work write -ups on housing
rehabilitation projects.
b. The inspections were for the purpose of bringing the
properties up to acceptable standards of living.
4. Robert Perry was the Director of the Potter County Office of
Planning and Development.
a. As Director, Perry handled all of the administrative
matters of the office and had supervision over the Housing
Rehabilitation Inspectors.
b. Perry had the final approval for the awarding of the grants
and loans and based his decisions on the preliminary
inspections conducted by the Housing Rehabilitation
Inspectors.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 3
5. In 1984 the Potter County Office of Planning and Development
sponsored a Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program for the
citizens of Roulette Township.
a.
Funding was provided through the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Affairs, Small Communities Program.
6. Housing Assistance was available to renters and homeowners in the
form of grants and low interest loans.
a. The eligible applicants must have met the following income
requirements:
Family Number 1 $10,900
2 12,500
3 14,050
4 15,600
5 16,550
6 17,550
7 18,500
7. The Potter County Office of Planning and Development's Grant and
Loan Program application procedure was as follows:
a. Owner submits application to the Office of Planning and
Development.
b. Preliminary screening and review of proposal.
c. Inspection Stage:
(1) Rehabilitation Inspector conducts inspection to
determine work needed to renovate.
(2) Program administrator approves rehabilitation
inspector's report.
d. Review of contractor proposal.
(1) Program administrator reviews proposal with
rehabilitation inspector, if approved, informs owner of
decision.
(2) Owner notifies contractor.
e. Construction Process.
(1) The owner shall issue a written Proceed Order within
the ten (10) days from the date of the contract.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 4
(2) The contractor must commence work within ten (10) days
after issuance of the Proceed Order.
(3) The contractor must satisfactorily complete the work
within thirty (30) days after issuance of the Proceed
Order.
(4) The rehabilitation inspector would be inspecting all
work related to the contract.
8. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programs administered by
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) prohibits conflicts of interest under Federal Regulation
570.611.
a. The conflict of interest provision applies to any person who
is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected
official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any
designated public agencies or subrecipients which are
reviewing funds.
b. It prohibits obtaining personal or financial interest or
benefits including money, favors, gratuities, entertainment
or anything of value that might be interpreted as a conflict
of interest.
c. It prohibits obtaining a direct or indirect interest in any
contract, subcontract or agreement for any CDBG activity.
This prohibition extends to contracts in which a spouse,
minor child, dependent or business associate may have a
personal or financial interest. This prohibition extends
for a period of one year after leaving a position with a
CDBG activity or program.
d. HUD may grant an exception to this caaflict of interest
provision if it determines that such an exception will
enhance the effectiveness of the CDBG project. Requests for
such exceptions must be made in writing to the local HUD
office.
9. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Programs administered by
the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs (DCA) follows the
same regulations as the federal government in prohibiting
conflicts of interest.
a. The CDBG regulations of CFR Part 570.611 state that except
for the use of CDBG funds to pay salaries and other related
administrative or personnel costs, the general rule is that
no person who is an employee, agent, .onsultant, officer, or
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 5
elected official or appointed official of the subrecipient,
or of any designated public agencies, or subrecipients which
are receiving CDBG funds who exercise or have exercised any
functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG
activities assisted under this part or who are in a
position to participate in a decision'' making process or
gain inside information with regard to such activities, may
obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from a
CDBG assisted activity, or have an interest in any contract,
subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the
proceeds thereunder either for themselves or those with whom
they have family or business ties, during their tenure or
for one year thereafter.
10. DCA may grant, upon written request of the grantee, an exception
to the federal conflict of interest provisions on a case -by -case
basis when it determines that such exception will serve to
further the purposes of the CDBG program and the effective and
efficient administration of the grantee's program. An exception
may be considered only after the following steps have been taken:
a. A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by
an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the
conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was
made.
b. The grantee's solicitor reviews the circumstances involved
and renders an opinion based on the applicable municipal
code as to whether the particular situation constitutes, or
if implemented would constitute a conflict of interest.
c. The information is then forwarded to DCA and then they
determine if an exception to the federal conflict of
interest may be granted. However, it may still be
necessary to request a determination from the State Ethics
Commission.
11. A Home Improvement Grant /Loan File Preliminary Information
Worksheet was filed by Leon and Karen Green with the Potter
County Office of Planning and Development on June 27, 1985 .
a. The Greens listed their address as P.O. Box 159, Roulette,
Pennsylvania.
b. The Greens listed their total income as $7,248.00 for the
year.
c. The Greens listed themselves as being the owners of the
property and had eight people living in the household.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 6
12. Clyde N. Rohrer performed the preliminary inspection of Green's
property on June 27, 1985 and recommended that it did not meet HUD
Section 8 Housing Quality Standards and made a recommendation that
the property be approved for a grant.
a. This report was submitted to Robert Perry, Rohrer's
supervisor.
b. Perry approved Rohrer's inspection of the Green property.
13. D & K Construction was awarded the contract to repair the home of
Leon Green for the amount of $4,040.00.
a. Additional repairs were needed for Green's property as a
Change Order Form was written up and the final cost to
repair the property came to $5,500.00.
b. A change Order Form is completed whenever a deviation
occurs in the work write -up for the original contract.
c. The Change Order Form was completed cn September 3, 1985 and
it was approved by Clyde N. Rohrer.
d. The Certification of Final Inspection on Leon Green's
property was conducted by Clyde N. Rohrer on September 16,
1985.
14. An Agreement of Sale was made on October 23, 1984 between Bruce C.
Burr and his wife as the seller, and Clyde N. Rohrer and Karen M.
Rohrer as the buyer of a property located at Box 159, Roulette,
Pennsylvania.
a. The Rohrers purchased the property from the Burrs under a
land contract for the sum of $13,000.00.
b. The Rohrers were to make monthly payments in the amount of
$156.03 and a balloon payment was to to made in three years.
15. An Agreement of Sale was made for the property at Box 159,
Roulette, Pennsylvania, on June 13, 1985 between Clyde N. Rohrer
as the seller and Leon and Karen Green as the buyer.
a. The agreement was for the Greens to pay Rohrer the sum of
$2,000,00 as a down payment against the purchase price of
$16,500.00. The balance was due on or before October 30,
1987.
b. The Greens agreed to lease the property from Rohrer for
$156.03 a month.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 7
c. On December 1, 1985 this was changed to $250.00 a month
when the Greens applied for housing assistance under a
Section 8 program with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Redevelopment and they were accepted.
16. Robert Perry, Clyde N. Rohrer's supervisor, approved Rohrer's
inspection of Green's property.
a. Perry was aware that Rohrer owned the property.
b. He approved the report because he believed there was an
agreement of sale between Rohrer and Green.
17. The Greens were unable to pay the balance of $14,500 to the
Rohrers for the property at Box 159, Roulette, Pennsylvania in
October of 1987.
a. The Greens were forced to leave the property.
b. When the Greens left the premises, extensive property
damage was done.
18. A subsequent Agreement of Sale was made for the property at Box
159, Roulette, Pennsylvania on July 22, 1988 between Clyde N.
Rohrer and Karen Rohrer as the seller and Lester and Dorothy
Saylers as the buyer.
a. The Salyers paid the Rohrers the sum of $19,000 for the
property.
b. This agreement was contingent upon the Rohrer's renovating
certain areas of the house.
19. A Quit -Claim Deed was made for the property at Box 159 in
Roulette, Pennsylvania on September 29, 1988 where the Rohrer's
transferred the property back to the Burr's for the sum of $1.00.
a. The Burr's then transferred this same property to the
Salyers through a Quit -Claim Deed on September 30, 1988 for
the sum of $1.00.
b. Two transactions were made on this property to avoid paying
additional real estate transfer taxes.
20. When the deeds were completed, Lester Salyers then signed
mortgage documents on September 30, 1988 with Albert Winkelvoss of
Coudersport and a second mortgage with Clyde L. Rohrer of
Coudersport.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 8
a. The Salyers were to pay Albert Winkelvoss $14,500.00 at a
12% interest rate for a term of 15 years having a monthly
payment of $174.03. A balloon payment was to be made at the
end of five years for the balance owed on the principal and
interest.
b. The Salyers were to pay Clyde L. Rohrer a sum of $4,500.00
at a rate of 12% for a term of 15 years having a monthly
payment of $54.02. A balloon payment was to be made at the
end, of five years for the balance owed on the principal and
interest.
21. Clyde N. Rohrer never filed for an exception of the conflict of
interest provisions of the grant application with DCA.
22. Clyde N. Rohrer conducted inspections of properties owned by his
father, Clyde L. Rohrer, during the Roulette Redevelopment Project
where block grants were awarded.
a. The borough of Roulette participated in the Potter County
Housing and Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program.
23. Records of the Potter County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
confirm that Clyde L. Rohrer received grants for housing
rehabilitation as follows:
a. Case Number: R -95
Owner: Clyde L. Rohrer
Tenant: Kristine Landes
Location: Box 21, Roulette, PA 16746
Grant: $1,788.75
Contractor: Greely & Rio
Inspector: Clyde N. Rohrer
Date of Final Inspection: 11/20/84
b. Case Number: RB -35
Owner: Clyde L. Rohrer
Tenant: Gerald P. and Susan Quii!n
Location: Trailer Lot No. 23, Roulette, PA 16746
Contractor: Steve Smith
Inspector: Clyde N. Rohrer
Date of Final Inspection: 1/24/85
c. Case Number: RB -P -38
Owner: Clyde L. Rohrer
Tenant: Sharon L. Kaple
Location: Trailer Lot No 17
Contractor: Steve Smith
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 9
Inspector: Clyde N. Rohrer
Date of Final Inspection: 1/24/85
d. Case Number: RBTP -39
Owner: Clyde L. Rohrer
Tenant: Calee Sherwood
Location: Trailer Lot #23, Roulette, PA 16746
Contractor: Steve Smith
Inspector: Clyde N. Rohrer
e. Total Grant amount for 23 b,c,d, $1,551.34.
f. Change order was submitted for RBTP -38 and RBTP -39.
g.
III. DISCUSSION:
1) An additional $654.31 was approved for those
properties.
Clyde N. Rohrer conducted all of the estimates of
rehabilitation and inspections for the properties outlined
in 23 a,b,c,d.
As a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector, Clyde N. Rohrer,
hereinafter Rohrer, is a public employee as that term is defined in
the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 402; 51 Pa. Code 1.1. As such, his conduct is
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions
therein are applicable to him.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989,
P.L. 26, provides, in part, as follows:
"This amendatory act shall not apply to
violations committed prior to the effective date
of this act, and causes of action initiated for
such violations shall be governed by the prior
law, which is continued in effect for that purpose
as if this act were not in force. For the
purposes of this section, a violation was
committed prior to the effective data of this act
if any elements of the violation occs:xed prior
thereto."
Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions
of Act 170 of 1978, P.L. 883, to determine whether the Ethics Act was
violated.
Under Section 3(a), quoted above, this Commission has determined
that use of office by a public official to obaain a financial gain for
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 10
himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which
he is associated which is not provided for in law transgresses the
above provision of law. Thus, use of office by.a public official to
obtain a financial gain which is not authorized as part of his
compensation is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. Stake
Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yocabet
v. State Ethics Commission,, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536
(1987). Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a
public official /employee from using public office to advance his own
interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19,
540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Likewise, a public official /employee may not
use the status or position of public office for his own personal
advantage; Huff, Opinion 84 -015.
The allegation before us in this case is whether Rohrer while
employed as a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector violated Section 3(a)
of Act 170 of 1978 quoted above regarding his participation in
awarding Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds to entities
with which he was associated.
Factually, Rohrer was employed as a Housing Rehabilitation
Inspector with the Potter County Office of Planning and Development
from January 4, 1984 until April 4, 1986 when that office was closed
and its functions were incorporated into the. Potter County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority. Rohrer's duties as a Housing Rehabilitation
Inspector were to inspect and prepare write -ups on housing
rehabilitation projects, the goal of which is to raise properties to
an acceptable standard of living. The Director of the Potter County
Planning and Development handled all administrative matters of the
office and had supervision over the inspectors. In addition, the
director had final approval for awarding grants and loans, which
decisions were based upon the preliminary inspections conducted by
the inspectors. One program sponsored in 1984 by the Potter County
Office of Planning and Development was for a rehabilitation loan and
grant program for the citizens of Roulette Township with the funding
being provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs
(DCA). The particular housing assistance program was available to
renters as well as homeowners in the form of grants and low interest
loans.
Participation in the Housing Assistance Program occurred
according to the following procedures: an owner would submit an
application to the Office of Planning and Development followed by a
preliminary screening and review of the proposal; a rehabilitation
inspector would conduct an inspection to determine the renovation
work needed followed by a review of the inspector's report by the
Program Administrator; the submission of a proposal by a contractor
which would be reviewed by the Program Administrator and the
Rehabilitation Inspector followed by a notification, if approved, to
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 11
the owner who would then notify the contractor; and finally
construction would begin whereby the owner would issue a written
proceed order within ten days from that date to the contractor who
would have to commence work within ten days after issuance of the
proceed order followed by a satisfactory completion within thirty days
subject to a final review of the contract work by the inspector.
The CDBG program is administrated by the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which has promulgated certain
conflict of interest provisions that apply to any person who is an
employee of a designated public agency which reviews funding requests.
One provision prohibits obtaining any personal or financial interest
or obtaining any direct or indirect interest ir,:any contract,
subcontract, or agreement. Likewise, DCA in administering the CDBG
program applies federal conflict of interest regulations so that any
person who is an official or employee of an agency receiving CDBG
funds may not obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from
a CDBG assisted program. Procedures do exist whereby a person may
request an exception with respect to a conflict of interest provision.
Rohrer was involved in an official capacity as a Housing
Rehabilitation Inspector as to a property located at P.O. Box 159
Roulette, Pennsylvania. A home improvement grant /loan application was
filed by Leon and Karen Green with the Potter County Office of
Planning and Development on June 27, 1985 as to that property. The
Potter County Office and Planning Development file reflects that the
Greens listed themselves as the owners of the property and that Rohrer
performed a preliminary inspection of the property on June 27, 1985
followed by his recommendation that the property did not meet HUD
Section 8 Housing Quality Standards so as to satisfy one of the
qualifications for a CDBG grant. The report was submitted to the
Planning and Development Director who approved Rohrer's inspection of
the Green property. A contract for the repair of the Green property
in the amount of $4,040.00 was approved with D &K Construction
performing the services. A subsequent change order was written to
modify the amount of the repairs to $5,500.00. The work was completed
and a certification of final inspection of the Green property was
conducted by Rohrer on September 16, 1985.
As to the property in question, an agreement of sale had been
entered into on October 23, 1984 between Rohrer and his wife as buyer
and Bruce C. Burr and his wife as sellers for a consideration of
$13,000. A subsequent agreement of sale was entered into on June 13,
1985 with Rohrer as seller and Leon and Karen Green as buyers with a
down payment of $2,000.00 applied against the purchase price of
$16,500.00 with the balance due on or before October 30, 1987. The
Greens agreed to lease the property from Rohrer for $156.03 per month
which was changed on December 1, 1985 to a payment of $250.00 a month
when the Greens applied for the housing assistance. Parenthetically,
Rohrer's supervisor, the Director of the Planning and Development
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 12
Office, was aware that Rohrer owned the property in question but was
under the belief that there was an agreement of'jsale between Rohrer
and Green. After the Greens were unable to pay the balance of
$14,500.00 to the Rohrers for the property in question, the Greens
were forced to leave the property and extensive property damage
occurred. Thereafter, another agreement of sale was entered between
the Rohrers as sellers and Lester and Dorothy Salyers as buyers for a
consideration of $19,000.00, contingent upon Rohrer making certain
renovations to the house. Title was transferred through the
mechanism of two Quit Claim Deeds whereby the Rohrers transferred the
property back to the Burrs who in turn executed a Quit Claim Deed to
the Saylers for the purpose of avoiding Pennsylvania realty transfer
taxes. Contemporaneous with the title transfer, the Saylers signed
mortgage documents with Albert Winkelvoss of Coudersport as the first
mortgagee and Rohrer as the second mortgagee. Rohrer never filed an
exception for a conflict of interest with DCA as to the property.
Finally, the record reflects that Rohrer conducted inspections of
properties owned by his father during the period when block grants
were awarded as to the Roulette Development Project. Rohrer's father
received grants as to four different properties totalling $1,551.34
with an additional $654.31 being approved as to a change order for
one property. Rohrer conducted all of the rehabilitation estimates
and inspections as to those properties.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
quoted above to the facts of this case, we find a violation of Section
3(a) as to Rohrer's use of office concerning the realty located at Box
159 in Roulette, Pennsylvania. In particular, Rohrer used public
office in his position as a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector to
perform his duties as to a property that he owned and contemplated
selling. Given Rohrer's financial interest in:that property, his
inspection activities ultimately generated an approval for a CDBG
participation which enhanced the value of the property. The $5500
received for the improvements to the property was $5500 that Rohrer
did not have to expend from his own personal funds. Further, these
funds markedly increased the value of the property as is evidenced by
the fact that Rohrer purchased the property for in October,
1984, but sold the property to the Greens in June, 1985, for $16,500.
The foregoing latter sales price clearly reflected the improvements
which were to be made in the property. Such action was clearly a use
of office to obtain a financial gain. Such financial gain is other
than compensation provided for by law because there is no provision in
law which authorizes such use of public office. In fact, the conflict
of interest provisions contained in HUD regulations prohibit such
activities. Therefore, Rohrer did violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of
1978 by performing his inspection duties as to a property in which he
had a financial interest when he received a financial gain through the
enhanced value of that property that resulted from participation in
the program.
Rohrer, 88 -076 -C
Page 13
Turning to the question of Rohrer conducting rehabilitation and
inspection activities as to various properties owned by his father, we
find no violation in those instances. Under Act 170 of 1978,
"immediate family" is defined as follows: "a spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent children." Although we find
both a use of office on the part of Rohrer and a financial gain to his
father, we are constrained to find no violation because his father is
not included within the statutory definition of immediate family under
Act 170 of 1978.
The authority of this Commission to impose restitution of a
financial gain has been judicially upheld. See, Yocabet v. State
Ethics Commission, supra. Given the nature of Rohrer's conduct in
this case, we find that restitution is appropriate. Accordingly, we
direct Rohrer to make restitution in the amount of $5500 to DCA within
thirty days of issuance of this Order by forwarding a check to the
Commission payable to DCA in the amount above. Failure to comply with
the restitution order will result in a directive of this Commission to
institute an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Clyde N. Rohrer as a Housing Rehabilitation Inspector for the
Potter County Office of Planning and Development was a public
employee subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978.
2. Rohrer violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he performed
inspection activities on a property in which he had an interest,
that resulted in the award of a rehabilitation grant to that
property which was a financial gain other tran compensation
provided for by law.
3. Rohrer did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
performing inspections as to various properties owned by his
father in that his father is not a member of Rohrer's "immediate
family" as that term is statutorily defined in Act 170 of 1978.
In re: Clyde N. Rohrer
: File Docket: 88 -076 -C
: Date Decided: February 20, 1992
: Date Mailed: February 27. 1997
ORDER No. 833
1. Clyde N. Rohrer as the Housing Rehabilitation Inspector for the
Potter County Office of Planning and Development in Coudersport
violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he performed
inspection activities on a property in which he had a financial
interest which resulted in the award for a rehabilitation grant to
that property which was a financial gain other than compensation
provided for by law.
2. Rohrer did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
performing inspections as to various properties owned by his
father in that his father is not a member of Rohrer's "immediate
family" as that term is statutorily defined under Act 170 of
1978.
3. The financial gain received by Rohrer in Paragraph 1 amounted to
$5500.
4. Rohrer is ordered to make restitution of the financial gain
referenced in Paragraph 3 by forwarding a check to this Commission
within thirty days of the date of issuance of this Order payable
to the order of the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs
in the amount of $5500.
5. Failure by Rohrer to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 4
will cause this Commission to issue a directive to institute an
order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
DENNIS C. HARRINGTON;'CHAIR