HomeMy WebLinkAbout902 HoltzmanSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In Re: Kathy L. Holtzman : File Docket: 92- 037 -C2
: Date Decided: 9/28/93
: Date Mailed: 10/07/93
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Austin M. Lee
Joseph W. Marshall, III
The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a
possible violation of the State Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S.
§401 et seq. 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 timely 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
§21.29(b).
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. S408(h) 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).
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Kathy L. Holtzman, a Cambria County Commissioner,
violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act, Act 9 of
1989, when she accepted campaign contributions from the Gleason
Insurance Agency in return for her official actions as a county
commissioner to award a no -bid insurance contract to the Gleason
Agency.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S.
5403(a).
(c) No public official, public employee
or nominee or candidate for public office
shall solicit or accept, anything of monetary
value, including a gift, loan, political
contribution, reward, or promise of future
employment based on any understanding of that
public official, public employee or nominee
that the vote, official action, or judgment of
the public official or public employee or
nominee or candidate for public office would
be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. §403(c).
II. FINDINGS:
1. Kathy Holtzman serves as a Cambria County Commissioner.
a. She has served in that position since January, 1988.
b. The Cambria County Board of Commissioners is comprised of
three (3) members.
2. Kathy Holtzman was elected President of the Board of
Commissioners in January, 1992.
a. Holtzman was an incumbent in the 1991 election.
b. Holtzman is a Republican.
c. The Republican Party gained control of the Board in
January, 1992.
d. Prior to January, 1992, the Democratic Party . held a
majority on the three member Board of Commissioners.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 3
3. The Gleason Agency, Inc., is an insurance firm owned and
operated by Robert A. Gleason, Jr., and Christopher K.
Gleason.
a. The Gleason Agency is located at BT Financial Plaza,
Suite 204, P.O. Box #8, Johnstown, PA, 15907.
b. The firm was previously owned by Robert A. Gleason, Sr.,
father of Robert, Jr., and Christopher.
4. The Gleason family is involved with politics at both the state
and local levels.
a. Robert A. Gleason, Sr., is Chairman of the Cambria County
Republican Committee.
b. Robert A. Gleason, Jr., is Vice - Chairman of the Cambria
County Republican Committee.
(1) He also serves as the elected representative for
the Republican Committee in Westmont Borough.
c. Christopher Gleason is a member of the Finance Committee
for the State Republican Party.
d. Robert D. Gleason is a State Committeeman.
5. The involvement of the family of Robert A. Gleason, Jr., in
the management of Kathy Holtzman's re- election campaign
included:
a. Financial support through contributions of their own and
solicitation of contributions from others;
b. Campaigning;
c. Advise and weekly campaign strategy meetings;
d. Recruiting votes;
e. Holding fund raisers which included a $100.00 per ticket
wine and cheese party; a $25.00 per ticket ox roast
dinner, and a $300.00 per couple inaugural dinner /dance.
6. In 1991, Kathy Holtzman ran on a ticket which included
candidate Mark Wissinger.
7. 1991 Campaign Finance Reports show that Holtzman received
contributions and loans from members of the Gleason family.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 4
8. Contributions to Kathy Holtzman for Commissioner Committee by
members of the Gleason family during her 1991 campaign for re-
election, and their relationship to Robert A., Jr., and
Christopher include:
Andrew J. Gleason 10/26/91
(Uncle)
Robert D. Gleason, Esquire 4/28/91
(Cousin) 10/26/91
Robert A. Gleason, Sr. 4/28/91
(Father)
9. Contributions to "Friends of Kathy and Mark" Committee by
members of the Gleason family during her 1991 campaign for re-
election and their relationship to Robert A., Jr., and
Christopher include:
Robert A.
(Father)
Robert D.
(Cousin)
Christopher Gleason
Robert A., Sr., and
Thelma K. Gleason
(Father and mother)
Michael Gleason
(Son)
Jonathan Gleason
(Son)
Gleason, Sr.
Gleason, Esquire
Jeanne Gleason
(Wife)
Robert A. Gleason, Jr.
12/18/91
5/14/91
5/14/91
8/16/91
10/30/91
10/30/91
10/30/91
5/14/91
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$100.00
$1,200.00
$ 100.00
$ 500.00
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$ 100.00
$1,000.00
10. Section 2.2 of the Campaign Expense Report filed by the
"Friends of Kathy and Mark" committee show a $2,000.00 loan
from C.R. Gleason, a self - employed insurance broker.
a. Christopher Gleason is one -half owner of the Gleason
Agency. (See finding 3).
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 5
b. Schedule II Summary of Expenditures show that the loan
was repaid to C.R. Gleason by the Committee on April 23,
1991.
11. In February, 1992, a contract for
Professional Liability Insurance for
placed with The Gleason Agency, Inc.
a. The Gleason Agency had never
contract prior to this time.
the General Hospital
Laurel Crest Manor was
bid on this insurance
12. Laurel Crest Manor is a nursing facility owned and operated by
Cambria County.
13. Cambria County contracts with National Health Care Services
Incorporated to operate Laurel Crest Manor.
a. Larry White was employed by National Health Care Services
Inc. as Administrator of Laurel Crest Manor.
b. Thomas Finucane was employed by National Health Care
Services, Inc., as Assistant Administrator.
14. In 1991, the liability insurance for Laurel Crest Manor was
handled by Ebensburg Insurance Agency, 129 E. High Street,
P.O. Box 90, Ebensburg, PA 15931.
a. The policy was automatically renewed annually.
b. The policy term was 2/17/91 to 2/17/92.
c. The policy was not bid since this is considered a
service.
15. By way of letter dated February 10, 1992, Carl DeYulis, broker
for Ebensburg Insurance Agency, advised Larry White,
Administrator for Laurel Crest Manor, of the renewal quotation
for the General and Hospital Professional Liability policy.
a. An attached invoice reflects the premium for the policy
term 2/17/92 to 2/17/93, was $70,084.00.
b. Notification of renewal was required by 2/14/92.
c. A completed, signed application was necessary before
coverage would be bound.
16. Ebensburg Insurance Agency, Inc., had initially sent an
application for renewal of the liability insurance on November
28, 1991.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 6
a. Between November 28, 1991, and February 10, 1992, several
calls were made to Laurel Crest Manor to determine when
the application would be submitted.
b. Laurel Crest Manor advised that they did not know how
they were going to proceed.
17. By way of letter dated January 16, 1992, Ebensburg Insurance
Agency received a request for the Loss Runs from Larry White,
Administrator.
a. Loss Runs show previous claims against the policy.
b. Loss Runs are used to determine premiums.
c. This information was necessary in order to obtain premium
quotes from insurance companies.
18. U. S. Underwriters, the company which held the liability
policy for Laurel Crest Manor, did not respond in a timely
manner to the request for the Loss Runs.
a. Ebensburg Insurance did not deal directly with U. S.
Underwriters.
b. Montgomery General Agency, Inc., Ardmore, PA., acted as
broker between Ebensburg Insurance Agency and U. S.
Underwriters.
19. By facsimile communication, dated 2/14/92, Mike McCarthy of
Bryson Associates, Inc., advised Lynn Stano of the Gleason
Agency that a Binder was obtained as per a previous quotation.
a. Policy #GA705701, was issued with a term 2/17/92 to
2/17/93.
b. February 14, 1992, fell on Thursday, the second to last
business day before the old policy expired.
20. On February 18,. 1993, Bryson Associates, Inc., provided the
Gleason Agency with a Binder for the Laurel Crest Manor
policy.
a. The binder was with Diamond State Insurance Company.
b. The binder covered Broad Form Comprehensive and Hospital
Professional Liability.
c. The binder is dated 2/18/92 and signed by James H.
Bryson, President.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 7
21. By way of letter dated 2/19/92, Lynn Stano, Placement
Coordinator for The Gleason Agency, Inc., provided Larry
White, Administrator of Laurel Crest Manor, with two bills in
relation to the Liability Insurance Policy.
a .
General Liability
CAT Fund invoice
Total
48,768.00
$18,900.00
$67,668.00
b. At the time this quote was given, Ebensburg Insurance
Agency had already given its quote to Larry White.
22. On Monday, February 18, 1992, an informal meeting was held in
the County Commissioner's Meeting room, during which the
liability insurance was discussed.
a. Present at the meeting were the County Commissioners,
Holtzman, Wissinger, and Baranik; Larry White and Thomas
Finucane.
b. The liability policy renewal date was February 17, 1991,
one day prior to the meeting.
23. During the meeting, White advised the commissioners that the
liability insurance policy had expired on 2/17/92.
a. He further advised that he had contacted another company
for a quote on the policy.
b. The search for alternate insurance took longer than
expected.
24. White advised the commissioners that, in order to keep the
facility insured, he had signed a binder with The Gleason
Agency, Inc.
a. The only other quote White had received for the liability
insurance was from Ebensburg Insurance Agency.
b. The quote from the Gleason Agency was $3,000.00 less than
that provided by Ebensburg Insurance Agency.
25. During the meeting of February 18, White further advised that
acting on the suggestion of Commissioner Holtzman, White had
contacted The Gleason Agency for a quote on the liability
policy.
a. This suggestion was in response to White's request to
obtain competitive prices from companies other than
Ebensburg Insurance Agency.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 8
b. No other companies were recommended by Holtzman.
c. No other companies were contacted by White.
26. White signed the Binder with the Gleason Agency in order to
keep liability insurance coverage, which expired on 2/17/92,
from lapsing.
27. White did not advise the Commissioners that he was going to
sign the Binder prior to obtaining coverage from the Gleason
Agency.
a. Insurance had always been automatically renewed under the
previous administration.
b. The Board of Commissioners never took official action to
renew insurance ,policies, in the past.
28. Michael Gleason, of The Gleason Agency, completed an Insurance
Survey Form, dated January 16, 1992, with information provided
by Larry White.
a. On the same date, White wrote to Ebensburg Insurance
Agency and requested the Loss Run information. (See
Finding #17).
29. The Gleason Agency contacted three other companies in an
effort to procure coverage for Laurel Crest Manor.
a. These companies are listed on a form titled "Report of
Transaction With Unlicensed Insurer(s) in Accordance With
Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of Surplus Lines Law, Act #531 ".
b. The licensed companies contacted were all located in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and included Continental;
Chubb; and Zurich.
c. The form was signed by Christopher R. Gleason, part -owner
of The Gleason Agency, Inc.
30. According to documents provided by the Gleason Agency, the
Loss Runs were finally provided by U. S. Underwriters only
after the Gleason Agency was identified as Broker of Record.
a. This information was provided on April 27, 1992.
b. Larry White provided the letter identifying the Gleason
Agency as Broker of Record at the request of The Gleason
Agency.
Ho ;tzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 9
c. The Gleason Agency made this request only after repeated
attempts were made to obtain the needed information.
(Reference Finding #18).
31. Laurel Crest Manor had lost it's accreditation during
Holtzman's first term as a Commissioner.
a. This meant the loss of the Federal funding.
b. National Health Care Services, Inc., was contracted with
to restore the accreditation, which was achieved.
c. A lapse in the liability insurance for the facility would
have affected the existing accreditation.
32. During a meeting with Commissioner Holtzman, White suggested
they obtain additional quotes on the policy-and asked if there
were other agencies in the county to contact.
a. At that time, Holtzman suggested contacting the Gleason
Agency.
33. Holtzman stated to Ted Baranik, a member of the Board of
County Commissioners, that she had told the Gleason Agency
that they would get the majority of the county insurance.
a. Holtzman also stated to Baranik that during the four
years that she had served as Minority Republican
Commissioner, she had not objected when the Democrats had
given the insurance to Ebensburg Insurance Agency.
34. Subsequent to this meeting, the commissioners agreed to put
all insurance out for Requests for Proposals (R.F.P's.).
35. Kathy Holtzman denies that she stated that she had promised
most of the county insurance to the Gleason Agency.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Commissioner for Cambria County, Kathy L. Holtzman,
hereinafter Holtzman, is a public Official as that term is defined
under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. 5402. As such, her conduct is
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions
therein are applicable to her.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26,
1989 provides, in part, as follows:
This amendatory act shall not apply to
violations committed prior to the effective
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 10
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 date of this act if any elements
of the violation occurred prior thereto.
Since the occurrences in this case transpired after
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply
provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act
violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public
official /employee shall not engage in conduct that constitutes a
conflict of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989
as follows:
Section 2. 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. "Conflict" or "conflict
of interest" 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 or his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402.
Section 3(c) of Act
public official /employee
monetary value based upon
action, or judgement of
influenced thereby.
the
the
was
9 quoted above provides in part that no
shall solicit or accept anything of
the understanding that the vote, official
the public official /employee would be
As a preliminary matter, we must address three separate
submissions which were received from the respondent: an answer
which was received one day late, two subsequent affidavits
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 11
containing factual averments and an Application to file an Answer
Nunc Pro Tunc.
As to the untimely Answer, it is clear under the Ethics Law
the Regulations, general administrative agency law and judicial
precedent that the respondent's answer had to have been received on
or before thirty days of the issuance of the Investigative Division
Complaint (June 14, 1993). Thus, the Answer was due by July 14,
1993. The Answer of the Respondent was received at the Commission
on July 15, 1993.
The case law is clear that absent a showing of
down in the postal system, time requirements for
agencies are mandatory and may not be extended.
Pennsylvania Game Commission, 83 Pa. Commw. 59,
(1984); Dilenno v. Unemployment Compensation Board
Pa. Commw. 496, 429 A.2d 1288 (1981); Mayer v.
Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commw. 44,
(1976).
Id. at ' 214.
fraud or break
administrative
See Getz v.
475 A.2d 1369
of Review, 59
Unemployment
366 A.2d 665
Respondent offered no excuse whatsoever for the late filing.
We do not have any latitude for extending the deadline, absent a
request for an extension that has been submitted and approved prior
to the deadline, since the Ethics Law requires that we must decide
and issue an Order within 30 days of the closing of the record.
The significance of the foregoing deadline is that this Commission
can not sit idly by waiting for Answer to be filed (after the
deadline) when this Commission is itself required to make and issue
a determination within 30 days.
Respondent, however, argues that McBride v. Rome, 347 Pa. 228,
32 A.2d 212 (1943) stands for the proposition that a filing may be
made late when due to the negligence of the respondent's counsel.
In McBride v. Rome, supra, the Court did allow a filing of a
claim for damages against a municipality resulting from counsel's
negligence. However, the linchpin of the decision was based upon
a statute which allowed an exception where a reasonable excuse was
shown with leave granted by court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
in reaching its holding set forth the following legal principle
concerning filing deadlines:
"If this act had not contained an exception,
the mandatory nature of the initial provisions
of the act and the fact that previous notice
was a condition precedent to the right to
bring the action would have prevented the
court from granting the relief asked."
(Citations omitted).
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 12
We must therefore decide the case based upon the findings in
the Investigative Complaint which are deemed admitted by the
failure to file an Answer within 30 days.
Turning to the two affidavits which respondent has supplied,
such a submission is for the stated purpose of challenging certain
findings in the Investigative Complaint. We have difficulty with
such a submission after the record is closed. In particular,
respondent is attempting to interject matters of a factual nature
in an ex parte fashion without a format whereby the Investigative
Division may have input or raise a challenge. The argument by
respondent that such is permissible under 65 P.S. 5407(4) as
voluntarily supplied information is unavailing since that provision
of the Ethics Law must be read in the context of such information
vis -a -vis Statements of Financial Interests but clearly not in the
context of making a record based upon the statutory procedures set
forth in 65 P.S. S407 (4) . We therefore may not consider such an ex
parte submission of the respondent which sets forth factual
averments.
Lastly, the respondent filed an Application to file an Answer
Nunc Pro Tunc on July 21, 1993. Although the respondent meanders
in the Application, it appears that the proffered basis for the
late filing was because the respondent delivered her responses on
July 14, 1993 and respondent's counsel contacted the Commission on
July 15, 1993 to request an extension wherein he was informed that
the deadline for filing an Answer had expired on the previous day.
As noted above, extensions must be requested prior to and not after
the statutory deadline expires. Brunton, Order 884 -R. In any
event, the fact that respondent waited until the filing deadline to
return her responses to her counsel does not form a basis to excuse
such nonchalance as to meeting a statutory deadline. We therefore
deny the Application.
The substantive issues before us are whether Holtzman as a
Cambria County Commissioner violated either section 3(a) or 3(c) of
Act 9 quoted above regarding the allegation that she accepted
campaign contributions from the Gleason Insurance Agency in return
for her action as a county commissioner in awarding a no -bid
insurance contract to that agency.
Factually, Holtzman has served as a Cambria County
Commissioner since January, 1988. In January, 1992 when the County
Board of Commissioners shifted in control from a Democratic to a
Republican majority, Holtzman was elected as president of the
board.
When Holtzman ran as an incumbent in the 1991 election, she
received financial and other support from the Gleason family which
is active in Cambria County Republican politics. Robert A.
Gleason, Sr., who is the Chairman of the Cambria County Republican
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 13
Committee and Robert A. Gleason, Jr. and Christopher K. Gleason who
are owners of an insurance firm known as Gleason Agency, Inc. made
financial contributions to Holtzman's re- election committee on
certain dates and in specified amounts. (Fact Finding 8.) In
addition contributions were made by Robert Sr, Jr, and Christopher
Gleason as well as other members of the Gleason family to the
"Friends of Kathy and Mark" committee which aided Holtzman and
another individual who were running as Republican candidates in the
1991 election. (Fact Finding 9.) Finally, a $2,000 loan was made
by C.K. Gleason to the "Friends of Kathy and Mark" committee which
loan was subsequently repaid. (Fact Finding 10.)
Approximately one month after Holtzman was elected as
president of the county board of commissioners, an insurance policy
on the Laurel Crest Manor, a county owned and operated nursing
facility, became subject to renewal. The liability insurance
policy on the agency had been placed with the Ebensburg Insurance
Agency, Inc. which sent an application for renewal of the policy on
November 28, 1991. By letter dated February 10, 1992, Carl
DeYulas, the broker for the Ebensburg Insurance Company advised
Larry White who is the administrator for the Laural Crest Manor of
the renewal quotation as well as an attached invoice for a policy
term from February 17, 1992, through February 17, 1993, with a
deadline for notification of renewal by February 14, 1992.
However, by letter dated January 16, 1992, Larry White requested a
list of "loss runs ", which is a statement of claims against the
existing policy from the Ebensburg Insurance Agency which would be
used as necessary information in order to obtain quotes from other
insurance companies.
Through a FAX transmission of February 14, 1992, Bryson
Associates Inc. advised the Gleason Agency that a binder was
obtained relative to the Laurel Crest Manor. On February 18, 1993,
Bryson Associates Inc. provided the Gleason Agency with a binder
for the Laurel Crest Manor policy. Larry White advised the county
commissioners that he obtained the binder with the Gleason Agency
in order to keep Laurel Crest Manor insured.
The county board of commissioners met on February 18, 1992,
which was one day after the insurance was renewed. Although the
commissioners discussed the insurance matter, they did not take
official action on the insurance. As to the cost of insurance for
the Laurel Crest Manor, the quote from Gleason Agency was $3,000
less than that provided by the Ebensburg Insurance Agency.
During a discussion of the county commissioners on February
18, 1992, White had indicated that Holtzman had advised him to
contact the Gleason Agency for a quote on the liability insurance
policy. No other companies were recommended by Holtzman and no
other companies were contacted by White.
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 14
Lastly, although County Commissioner Ted Baranik stated that
Holtzman told him that she told the Gleason Agency that she would
get a majority of the county insurance business for the Gleason
Agency, Holtzman denies that she made such a statement.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(c) of Act 9
of 1989, we do not find violations of those provisions of the
Ethics Law. As to Section 3(a), it is clear there was a use of
authority of office by Holtzman when she recommended to Larry White
that he contact the Gleason Agency for an insurance policy quote.
Such action by Holtzman in the position of a county commissioner is
clearly a use of authority of office. See Juliante Order 809.
There is also no question that Holtzman received private pecuniary
benefits from the owners of the Gleason Agency Inc. in the form of
campaign contributions and other assistance. (Fact Finding 5.)
However, we do not find a linkage between these two activities
which would form the basis of a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9.
Accordingly, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989.
In Bartle, Order No. 659, we held that a county commissioner
did not violate Sections 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act in
participating in a matter involving a firm from which various
individuals contributed to his re- election campaign, since there
was no evidence to establish a connection between the involvement
by the public official and the re- election campaign contributions
by persons in the firm. See also, Wolfcanct, Opinion No. 89 -028.
Similarly, we find no violation of Section 3(c) of Act 9 of
1989 for the same reason in that the record does not establish that
there was an understanding between Holtzman and the Gleasons
relative to her recommending the Gleason Insurance Agency and the
Gleasons supplying campaign contributions and assistance on behalf
of Holtzman's candidacy. See Gilchrist, Order 802; Moore, Order
780. On that basis, we find no violation of Section 3(c) of Act 9
of 1989.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Kathy L. Holtzman as a Cambria County-Commissioner is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Holtzman did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
regarding her recommendation of the Gleason Insurance Agency
as to an insurance policy on a county owned nursing facility
and the receipt of campaign contributions and assistance from
members of the Gleason Insurance Agency based upon the
evidence of record.
3. Holtzman did not violate Section 3(c) of Act 9 of 1989 as to
the receipt of campaign contributions and assistance from
Holtzman, 92- 037 -C2
Page 15
owners from the Gleason Insurance Agency and her
recommendation of the Gleason Insurance Agency as to an
insurance policy for a county owned nursing facility in that
the record does not establish that any understanding existed
between Holtzman and the Gleasons.
In Re: Kathy L. Holtzman : File Docket: 92- 037 -C2
: Date Decided: 9/28/93
: Date Mailed: 10/07/93
ORDER NO. 902
1. Kathy Holtzman as a Cambria County Commissioner did not
violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding her
recommendation of the Gleason Insurance Agency as to an
insurance policy on a county owned nursing facility and the
receipt of campaign contributions and assistance from members
of the Gleason Insurance Agency based upon the evidence of
record.
2. Holtzman did not violate Section 3(c) of Act 9 of 1989 as to
the receipt of campaign contributions and assistance from
owners from the Gleason Insurance Agency and her
recommendation of the Gleason Insurance Agency as to an
insurance policy for a county owned nursing facility in that
the record does not establish that any understanding existed
between Holtzman and the Gleasons.
Commisioner Austin M. Lee abstained.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY, CHAIR