HomeMy WebLinkAbout926 TuranoIn Re: Robert G. Turano Jr.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 93- 053 -C2
Date Decided: 06/23/94
Date Mailed: 06/30/94
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
The Investigative Division of 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 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
§21.29(b).
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. 5408(h) during the fifteen day period
and no one un1e4s 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. 5409(e).
Turano, Jr., 93- 053 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Robert G. Turano, Jr., a Councilman for the Borough of
Honesdale, Wayne County, violated the following provisions of the
State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when his firm, Robert G. Turano
Insurance Agency, contracted with the Borough for the sale of
insurance without an open and public process; and when he
participated in council decisions to approve payments to his firm.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S.
§403(a).
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 of his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. S402.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Robert G. Turano Jr. was appointed to serve as a Honesdale
Borough Councilman on December 14, 1992, and held that
position until December 31, 1993.
2. In December of 1992, Honesdale Borough Council President
Wilbur Pohle passed away creating an opening on Borough
Council.
a. Turano was asked if he was interested in serving out the
remainder of Pohle's term.
Turano, Jr., 93- 053 -C2
Page 3
3. Turano questioned whether his company's sales of insurance to
the Borough would present a problem with him accepting the
position.
a. The borough solicitor, who was aware of the business
relationship between Turano Insurance Agency and the
borough, did not advise that problems could arise as a
result of this relationship.
4. Turano has owned the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency,
955 Main Street, Honesdale, PA 18431 for approximately 20
years.
5. The Borough of Honesdale has purchased insurance coverage,
with the exception of Workman's Compensation Insurance, from
the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency for the last 12
years. Policies included:
a. General Liability.
b. Errors and Omissions.
c. Law Enforcement.
c. vehicle.
6. The same policies were renewed in January of each year with
Borough Council voting to approve payments for the policies at
the regular council meetings.
a. Policy renewals were generally signed by the council
president without council approval prior to receipt of
premium notices.
7. In October of 1992, Borough Council President Wilbur Pohle
signed renewal applications for the 1993 policies.
a. There was no vote of council taken authorizing these
renewals.
8. Turano participated in actions of Borough Council to review
bills presented to the Borough and vote to approve the same
for payment.
9. Robert G. Turano, Jr. was present and participated in the
unanimous votes of Council to approve the payments to Turano
Insurance.
a. There was no roll call vote for any of these actions.
b. Turano had no prior experience as a public official and
Turano, Jr.,, 93- 053 -C2
Page 4
relied on the advice of the borough solicitor as to
voting procedures.
10. On January 11, 1993, payments to Robert G. Turano, Jr.
Insurance Agency, in the amounts of $12,543.70; $6,627.00;
$3,275.00; $10,847.00 and $5,376.00 were presented to Borough
Council for their approval.
a. These invoices were part of a larger bill listing.
b. Council approved payment.
c. No roll call vote was taken.
11. On February 8, 1993, payments to Robert G. Turano, Jr.
Insurance Agency in the amounts of $150.00 and $14,538.00 were
presented to Borough Council for their approval.
a. These bills were part of a larger bill listing.
b. Council approved payment.
c. No roll call vote was taken.
12. Minutes of the January 11, 1993, and February 8, 1993, Council
meetings confirm that Robert G. Turano, Jr. was present,
seconded the motion to pay the bills and participated in the
unanimous vote of Borough Council to approve paying all bills
which included the premium statements from his company.
a. Robert Turano relied on the advice of the borough
solicitor that the voting procedure he followed was
correct.
13. The Robert G. Turano, Jr. Insurance Agency received gross
commissions of $3,239.36 on the sale of the 1993 insurance
coverage to the Borough.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Councilman for the Borough of Honesdale, Wayne County,
Robert G. Turano, Jr., hereinafter, Turano, is a public official as
that term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. 5402. As such,
his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the
restrictions therein are applicable to him.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26,
1989 provides, in part, as follows:
Turano. Jr., 93- 053 -C2
Page 5
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.
Since the occurrences in this case transpired after the
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the
provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was
violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted in the allegations,
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
in the allegations.
The issue before us is whether Turano violated Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989 regarding the allegation that he participated in
council decisions to approve payments to his firm, the Robert G.
Turano Jr. Insurance Agency, as to contracts for the sale of
insurance that were entered into without an open and public
process.
Turano was appointed to Honesdale Borough Council on December
14, 1992 and served in that position until December 31, 1993. For
a period of twelve years prior to Turano's appointment to Council,
his firm, the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency, provided
general liability, errors and omissions, law enforcement and
vehicle insurance to the Borough of Honesdale. When Turano
inquired of the Borough Solicitor as to whether the sale of
insurance by his company to. the Borough would present a problem
with him accepting the position on Council, the Solicitor did not
advise that problems could arise.
While Turano was on Council, the insurance policies the
Borough had with, 'Turano's insurance agency were renewed.
Typically, such policy renewals were generally signed by the
Council President without Council approval. Turano however did
participate and vote in Council actions to review insurance bills
presented to the Borough. However, the invoices submitted by the
Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency were part of a larger bill
listing which Council approved unanimously with no roll call being
taken. The minutes of the January 11, 1993 and February 8, 1993
Council meetings reflect that Turano seconded motions to pay bills
Turano, Jr., 93- 053 -C2
Page 6
and participated in the unanimous vote of Council to approve the
payment of a list of bills which included premium statements from
his company. In taking such action, Turano relied on the advice of
the Borough Solicitor who opined that the voting procedure Turano
followed was correct.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to
the above facts, we find a technical violation of the Ethics Law.
Turano did use the authority of office as to seconding motions and
voting to approve a list of bills which include premium payments to
Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency. See Juliante, Order 809. As
noted above, the voting was for a list of bills which received
unanimous approval by Council. The use of authority of office did
result in a private pecuniary benefit to the extent of the
commissions received by the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency.
Fact Finding #13. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit inured
to a business with which Turano is associated. The term business
with which associated is defined under the Ethics Law as follows:
Section 2. Definitions
"Business with which he is associated."
Any business in which the person or a member
of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner, employee or has a
financial interest.
65 P.S. S402.
Since Turano was the owner of
Agency, it is clear that it
associated. Given the above,
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989.
the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance
was a business with which he is
we find a technical violation of
See Lactana, Order 903.
In reaching our decision, we do note that the Turano Insurance
Agency was supplying insurance to the Honesdale Borough for a
period of twelve years before Turano was appointed to Council.
Further, there is evidence of record that Turano did consult with
the Borough Solicitor regarding the matter of his company selling
insurance to the Borough as well as consulting with the Solicitor
regarding voting procedures. The action of Turano in this case was
limited to seconding a motion and voting to approve a list of bills
which included premiums from his insurance company. The bills were
approved unanimously by Borough Council. Based upon the above and
the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case, we will
take no further action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Robert G. Turano Jr. as a Honesdale Borough Councilman was a
Turano, Jr., 93- 053 -C2
Page 7
public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Turano participated in Council decisions to
approve payments to the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance Agency,
a business with which he is associated.
In Re: Robert G. Turano Jr.
File Docket: 93- 053 -C2
Date Decided: 06/23/94
Date Mailed: 06/30/94
ORDER NO. 926
1. A technical violation occurred when Robert G. Turano Jr. as a
Honesdale Borough Councilman participated in Council decisions
to approve payments to the Robert G. Turano Jr. Insurance
Agency, a business with which he is associated.
2. Based upon the totality of facts and circumstance, this
Commission will take no further action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY, CHAIR