Loading...
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