HomeMy WebLinkAbout912 HillSTATE,ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In re: Ronald Hill File Docket: 87 -137 -C
Date Decided: December 7, 1993
Date Mailed: December 10, 1993
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
Joseph W. Marshall, III
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 waived. A consent agreement was
submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which
was subsequently approved. 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).
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Ronald Hill, a Wilkinsburg Borough Councilman, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's
or public official's use of office or confidential information
gained through that office to obtain financial gain, in that he
received payments from the borough to attend the 1986 Allegheny
County Boroughs Association Seminar at Seven Springs in excess of
actual costs incurred; and he received payments from the borough to
attend a Government Seminar in Chicago and failed to attend the
seminar or reimburse the borough.
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).
II. FINDINGS:
1. Ronald Hill served as a borough council member in Wilkinsburg
Borough, Allegheny County during the year 1986.
2. Wilkinsburg Borough was a member of the Allegheny County
Borough's Association.
a. The Allegheny County Borough's Association holds various
meetings and seminars throughout the year.
3. Minutes of the Wilkinsburg Borough Council meeting for January
27, 1986 indicate that on the motion of O'Leary, seconded by
Hill, Hill was appointed the Borough's delegate to attend all
meetings of the Allegheny County Borough's Association.
a. Mathis was appointed as the alternate delegate.
4. During 1986, the Allegheny County Borough's Association held
a seminar at Seven Springs, Pennsylvania.
a. The seminar was held from September 18, 1986, through
September 21, 1986.
5. Seven Springs offered several plans which included lodging and
various meals for seminar participants.
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 3
a. Ronald Hill was on the Single American Plan.
b. The Single American Plan included a room for the full
conference period, dinner the first day, breakfast, lunch
and dinner for each full day of the conference and
breakfast the last day of the conference.
c. Tax on food and lodging and gratuity was included.
6. In August, 1986, Wilkinsburg Borough forwarded payment in the
amount of $260 to Seven Springs on behalf of Ronald Hill as
payment for his attendance at the 1986 Allegheny County
Borough's Association Seminar.
a. An invoice for Ronald Hill from Seven Springs Mountain
Resort indicates that the $260 pre- payment was used to
cover the charges for three nights from September 18
through and including the night of September 20, 1986.
b. Hill's hotel bill indicates additional charges for
telephone calls in the amount of $7.50 which were paid
for by cash on September 20, 1986.
c. There were no other charges or payments noted on the
invoice.
7. On September 12, 1986, Wilkinsburg Borough issued check no.
01 -7330 in the amount of $480 payable to Ronald Hill.
a. An invoice attached to the check indicates that it is for
the Seven Springs Seminar.
b. The check was endorsed on the back by Ronald Hill and
cashed.
8. Wilkinsburg Borough also paid the seminar registration fee for
Ronald Hill in the amount of $110.
9. On October 16, 1986, the borough of Wilkinsburg issued check
no. 01 -07593 in the amount of $84 payable to Ronald Hill.
a. This check was for mileage incurred during the trip to
Seven Springs, Pennsylvania.
b. Reimbursement was calculated at twenty cents per mile for
420 miles.
10. Seven Springs is approximately seventy miles from Wilkinsburg.
11. Ronald Hill asserted that he went back and forth to Seven
Springs several times during the seminar.
Hill, 87- 137 -C
Page 4
a. He originally travelled to Seven Springs on September 18.
b. He went home to pick up his son on September 19 and then
returned that same day.
c. He then took his son home on September 20 to play
football and he returned.
d. He left the seminar on Sunday, September 21.
12. The above trips account for approximately 300 miles.
a. All but two of the above trips were personal in nature
and should not have been charged to the borough.
b. Ronald Hill should have received $28 in mileage rather
than $84. (140 x .20).
c. Ronald Hill received $56 in excess mileage reimbursement.
13. The borough code in effect during 1986 provided that:
County and regional associations of boroughs
The boroughs of any county or of two or more
adjoining or nearby counties, may organize a
county or regional association of boroughs,
composed of elected and appointed borough
officials in such county or counties,
organized for the purpose of furthering the
interests of the boroughs in the association
and their inhabitants. Any borough may
annually appropriate a sum of money, not
exceeding seventy -five dollars ($75) for the
support of such association, and may also
appropriate and expend borough moneys to pay
the actual expenses of officials of the
borou•h in attendin• meetin•s of the count or
regional association of which such borough is
a member. Any such county or regional
association of boroughs shall have the option
of admitting to membership representatives of
political subdivisions other than boroughs
within such county or counties but
representatives of such other political
subdivisions shall have no voice or vote in
any matter that is or may be of concern solely
to boroughs. (emphasis added).
14. Ronald Hill received $480 in excess expense reimbursement for
the trip to Seven Springs as the borough had pre -paid both his
registration as well as his hotel costs.
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 5
a. Ronald Hill also received $56 in excess mileage expense.
15. Minutes of the Wilkinsburg Borough Council meeting of March
24, 1986, indicate that on motion of Dennis O'Leary seconded
by Hill, Ralph Watson and Ronald Hill were authorized to
attend the National Federation of Black Public Administrators
Conference in Chicago on April 26, 1986.
a. $1,073 was authorized for each council member.
16. On April 15, 1986, check no. 01- 00296 in the amount of $1,095
was issued to Ronald Hill for use at the Chicago conference.
a. The funds were to cover airfare, hotel and registration
costs.
17. Ronald Hill did not attend the Chicago conference.
18. On April 20, 1986, Ronald Hill reimbursed the Borough of
Wilkinsburg $1,095.
19. That at all relevant times Mathis and Hill were proceeding in
accordance and pursuant to the advice of the borough
solicitor.
20. That there is no evidence to indicate that Mathis or Hill
intentionally violated the Ethics Law to the extent that the
Ethics Law has in fact been violated.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Wilkinsburg Borough Councilman,
Hill, is a public official as that term
Act, 65 P.S. S402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1.
subject to the provisions of the Ethics
therein are applicable to him.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of
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 date of this act if any elements
of the violation occurred prior thereto.
Ronald Hill, hereinafter
is defined in the Ethics
As such, his conduct is
Act and the restrictions
June 26,
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 6
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 obtain a
financial gain for 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. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw.
Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet 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 financial interests;
Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540 A.2d
1374 (1988), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 609, 553 A.2d 971 (1988).
The issue in this case is whether Hill violated Section 3(a)
of Act 170 regarding the allegation that he received borough
payments in excess of the actual costs and expenses incurred as to
his attendance at the 1986 Allegheny County Borough Association
seminar in Seven Springs and secondly that he received borough
payments for attending a government seminar in Chicago which he
failed to attend.
In 1986, Hill as a Borough Council Member in ' Wilkinsburg
Borough was selected by council to be the borough's delegate to the
annual Allegheny County Borough Association which was held in Seven
Springs, Pennsylvania from September 18 -21, 1986. The Seven
Springs Resort offered several different packages to the seminar
participants. Hill selected a plan which included a room, a dinner
on the first date, breakfast, lunch and dinner for each full day of
the conference and breakfast on the last day of the conference with
the tax and gratuities included. Wilkinsburg Borough forwarded a
payment of $260.00 to Seven Springs Resort for Hill's attendance at
the conference as well as made payment of $110.00 for Hill's
seminar registration fee. Despite the borough payments, Hill
received and endorsed a check for $480.00 payable to himself as per
an invoice for expenses at the Seven Springs seminar. In addition,
Hill received a check from Wilkinsburg Borough in the amount of
$84.00 for mileage even though part of the mileage related to
personal matters. In particular, $28.00 of the mileage related to
travel to the seminar while $56.00 amounted to mileage for personal
matters.
Another event in which Hill was authorized to attend on behalf
of the borough was the National Federation of Black Public
Administrators conference in Chicago on April 26, 1986. The sum of
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 7
$1,073.00 was authorized for each council member and a check in the
amount of $1,095.00 was issued to Hill for use at the Chicago
conference. Hill never attended the conference and reimbursed the
borough five days later in the amount of $1,095.00.
This Commission, in the past, has reviewed the issue of
expense allowances in relation to certain public officials and the
retention of excess funds relating to such allowances. We
determined that any funds in excess of authorized amounts, received
and retained by said officials through their official positions,
would constitute financial gain other than the compensation
provided for by law contrary to Section 3(a) of the State Ethics
Act. See Bigler, 85 -020.
Specifically, we determined that when a code only permitted
expense reimbursements for actual expenses or within a certain
dollar amount, funds requested and received in excess of the
permitted amount through the public official's office and retained
by said public official would constitute a financial gain other
than the compensation provided by law. Public officials who,
through their public positions, received and retained excess funds
would thus be in violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act.
In Hawkins, Order 368, we determined that a county sheriff
violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act when, through his
position, he requested and received expense allowances for
attendance at a state sheriff's convention in excess of that which
was permitted by the code. Specifically, the county sheriff
received certain funds even though he had not attended the
convention. Additionally, he had received funds in excess of that
specifically allowed by the county code. We held that a county
official would not be permitted to receive reimbursement for
attending a convention of the official's organization if such
individual did not, in fact, attend. See Shultz, Order 369. Our
analysis was based upon long standing judicial interpretation of
this area of law. See Bechak v. Corak, 414 Pa. 522, 201 A.2d 213,
(1964); Susquehanna County Auditor's Report, 118 Pa. Super 47, 180
A.148, (1935); Walker v. Somerset County, 26 D & C 2d 775, (1961).
We have applied the above principles to supervisors in second
class townships. Thus in Vachon, Order, 607, we held that a
township supervisor violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when
he received reimbursement for expenses he did not incur in
attending a supervisors convention.
In Hagen, Order 554 -R, we held that a first class township
commissioner violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 when he received
township funds for attending various conventions, conferences and
schools in excess of that which was authorized in law.
In the instant situation, in order to determine whether
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 8
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act has been implicated, compensation in
the form of expense allowances permitted by the Borough Code, must
be reviewed. Based upon a determination as to what compensation is
permitted, we will then be able to determine if Hill through public
office obtained a financial gain in the form of excess expense
allowances that were not provided for by law.
The Borough Code in effect in 1986, when the above occurrence
transpired, provided that the expenditure of borough funds was
limited to the "actual expenses" incurred. Hence, the receipt by
a borough official of any money which was in excess of an actual
expense was contrary to the Borough Code and the Ethics Law. In
this case, Hill received $536.00 ($480.00 excess convention expense
plus $56.00 excess mileage) over his actual expenses. The receipt
of such an amount through public office was a financial gain not
provided in law. Such action constituted a violation of Section
3(a) of Act 170 of 1978.
This Commission has the authority to make an affirmative
recommendation to an appropriate law enforcement authority for the
initiation of criminal charges pursuant to the above provision of
the law.
This Commission has also been granted the authority to offer
the opportunity to an individual who has obtained financial gain as
a result of a violation of the Ethics Law the opportunity to divest
himself of said gain. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission,
Commw. Ct. 529, (1982); Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, supra.
We have on a number of occasions offered individuals the
opportunity to divest themselves of the gain received and
thereafter, recommended no further action.
The financial gain that Hill received in the instant situation
equaled $536.00. There was no justification whatsoever or
reasonable excuse for receiving the $536.00 expense reimbursement.
Hill clearly did not incur such an expense and, as such, Hill
clearly secured a financial gain for his own personal benefit.
As per the consent agreement of the parties, the Investigative
Division and the Respondent, Hill has agreed to pay $536.00 to
Wilkinsburg Borough.
Turning to the issue of the receipt by Hill of the check for
the National Federation of Black Public Administrators conference
for which Hill received $1,095, we find no violation even though
Hill did not attend. From the limited record before us, we do not
know whether Hill was merely holding the check until five days
later when he decided not to attend or whether Hill kept the check
until it was discovered that he would not attend the conference and
would try to keep the money. Without sufficient facts to determine
the circumstances of this occurrence, we must conclude that there
Hill, 87 -137 -C
Page 9
was no violation of the Ethics law as to the second allegation.
Hill must, therefore, forward payment in the amount of $536.00
payable to the Wilkinsburg Borough within thirty (30) days of the
date of issuance of this order. Failure to comply with the
foregoing will result in the initiation of an order enforcement
action. Compliance will result in a closing of the file with no
further action by the Commission.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Ronald Hill as a Wilkinsburg Borough Councilman was a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978.
2. Hill violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he received
a financial gain consisting of excess expenses for attending
a borough association seminar in Seven Springs.
3. The financial gain which Hill received that was not
compensation provided for by law amounted to $536.00.
4. Hill did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
the receipt of expenses for attending a Chicago conference in
that Hill returned the money when he did not attend the
conference.
In re: Ronald Hill
ORDER NO. 912
File Docket: 87 -137 -C
Date Decided: December 7, 1993
Date Mailed: December 10, 1993
1. Ronald Hill as a Wilkinsburg Borough Councilman violated
Section 3(a) when he received a financial gain consisting of
excess expenses for attending a borough association seminar in
Seven Springs.
2. The compensation rov for by law amounted to $536.00. as ot
comp provided
3. Hill did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
the receipt of expenses for attending a Chicago conference in
that Hill returned the money when he did not attend the
conference.
4. Hill is directed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this
order to forward a check or payment to this Commission payable
to the order of Wilkinsburg Borough in the amount of $536.00
as per the consent agreement between the Investigative
Division and Hill.
a. Failure to comply with the foregoing will result in the
initiation of an order enforcement action.
b. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing
of this file with no further action by the Commission.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY, IR