HomeMy WebLinkAbout931 HessingerSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In re: Richard Hessinger File Docket: 89 -002 -C
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 complaints regarding possible violations of the State
Ethics Law, Act No. 170 of 1978 and Act No. 9 of 1989. 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 filed
and a; hearing was held. 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 and /or 51 Pa. Code 521.29(b).
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S.
$408(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. 5409(e).
gess4naer, 89- 002 -C
:age 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Richard Hessinger, a Summit Township Supervisor, Erie
County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act
(Act 170 of 1978), when he received overtime pay without auditor
approval; received pay as roadmaster /laborer for attending meetings
and conventions; received pay for administrative duties, including
but not limited to, working on the budget and road checks; voted to
hire the township solicitor to represent the board of supervisors
in a salary dispute with the board of auditors; received salaries
of both roadmaster and road laborer for performing the same duties;
received payment for expenses for attending conventions in excess
of actual expenses incurred.
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. 5403(a).
d that, Richard Hessinger, as a public official /public employee,
in his capacity as a Supervisor for Summit Township, Brie County
violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of
1989) when he submitted overtime hours and was- compensated for same
without auditor approval; when he submitted hours for attending
meetings and other administrative duties and was compensated for
same; and when he approved payments to the township solicitor's law
firm to represent him in an action against the township auditors:
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).
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
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 3
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. $402.
II. FINDINGS:
A. PLEADINGS:
1. Richard Hessinger has served as an elected Summit Township
Supervisor since 1988.
a. Hessinger served as Chairman in 1989.
b. Hessinger previously served as township supervisor from
1981 to 1986.
2. Hessinger has served in the following positions since his
election as a Summit Township Supervisor in 1988.
a. Roadmaster (1988 to present.)
b. Superintendent - Public Safety and Administration (1990
to present).
c. Secretary /Treasurer (1990 to present).
3. At the Reorganization Meetings of the Board of Supervisors, in
1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993, Hessinger was appointed
roadmaster of one of the three road districts in the township.
a. Hessinger was appointed roadmaster in charge of District
#1 each year that he has served as a supervisor.
b. District #1 is defined as those township roads West of
• Route 19.
4. The minutes of the February 1, 1988, meeting confirmed that
Hessinger was hired as a part -time employee at a rate of
$8.00 /hour by unanimous vote.
5. In 1990, the Summit Township supervisors appointed themselves
superintendents and assigned themselves to specific duties
which included: Office operations, public safety, parks and
recreation; road and garage; and public works.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 4
a. This was in addition to his appointment as roadmaster in
charge of District #1.
b. This was also in addition to his appointment as
Secretary /Treasurer.
6. At the 1990 reorganization meeting of the board of
supervisors, Hessinger was appointed secretary /treasurer of
Summit Township.
7. At the June 4, 1990, Supervisor's Meeting, a motion was
approved in relation to Hessinger's employment as a laborer by
the township which stipulated that, as provided at the first
of the year, Richard Hessinger would work full -time during the
course of the summer months at the rate set by the auditors.
a. Hessinger's hours would be spent mostly as secretary/
treasurer, but some hours would be spent on the roads.
b. The motion was made by Wasiela and seconded by Peterson
and passed unanimously.
c. Hessinger was present at this meeting.
8. In 1990, the auditors changed the manner in which compensation
was set for supervisors employed by the township.
a. They eliminated the flat salary for supervisors serving
as roadmasters.
b. An hourly rate was set for a full -time supervisor/
roadmaster.
c. A lesser hourly rate was set for part -time supervisor/
roadmaster and supervisor serving as secretary /treasurer.
9. The Summit Township Personnel Code adopted for township
employees, by the board of supervisors, effective January 1,
1981, (revised 12/1/88 and 12/27/90), delineates the following
necessary requirements for eligibility for overtime:
a. Hours of work: 5 consecutive 8 hour days, Monday through,
Friday.
b. After regular hours, if employees called in, he shall be
entitled to at least two hours overtime pay.
c. All overtime work shall be paid for at time and one half.
10. Summit Township time records confirm that Hessinger submitted
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 5
the following hours
a. 1988:
Date
08/25/88
08/26/88
08/27/88
12/28/88
6/21/89
6/23/89
6/26/89
6/27/89
7/03/89
7/06/89
7/10/89
7/13/89
7/20/89
7/26/89
7/28/89
8/02/89
8/11/89
8/24/89
8/25/89
8/26/89
6/14/90
Work Dav Hours
Thursday 3.9
Friday 3.7
Saturday 40
Wednesday 1.0
Total 1988: 12.6
Rate of pay 12.0 /hr.
Wednesday .1
Friday .5
Monday .6
Tuesday .8
Monday .3
Thursday
Monday
Thursday
Thursday
Wednesday
Friday
Wednesday
Friday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
paid
Total 1989:
Rate of pay
Thursday
to be (sic) as overtime.
Duties
Pave roads Zwilling
Rd. East & West
Pave roads, Lee Rd
and New and Dorn
Patch roads and
clean intersections
Plowed snow
Patch roads
Patch roads
Patched roads
Water Tank Rd.
Trucking gravel
(water line)
1.0 Trucking gravel
(water line)
.6 Trucking gravel
Water Tank Rd.
.1 Trucking gravel
Water Tank Rd.
.2 Truck chip -twp.
stockpile
. 2 Patch roads
. 6 Patch roads
1.0 Patch roads
.2 Patch roads
4.4 Truck stone; tar and
chip roads, clean
intersections
2.0 Truck stone, tar and
chip roads, clean
intersections
9.3 . Truck stone; tar and
chip roads; clean
intersections
21.9
7.5 /hr.
1.0
Mowed berms
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 6
8/04/90 Saturday 5.7 Paving road
maintenance
8/05/90 Sunday .4 Call in fix garage
door
8/10/90 Friday 1.0 Banking
8/11/90 Saturday 5.3 Patch roads
8/16/90 Thursday .3 Patch roads
8/18/90 Saturday 5.1 Patch roads
8/21/90 Tuesday 2.3 Water line Keystone
Dr.
8/22/90 Wednesday 1.0 Office and computer
consultant
8/24/90 Friday _` .6 Trucking gravel on
water line
8/29/90 Wednesday 2.0 Office and downloading
computer
8/30/90 Thursday 2.5 Office and downloading
computer
Total 1990: 27.2
Rate of pay 7.25/hr.
11. In 1991, the supervisors started receiving compensatory time
for hours claimed over 45 hours per week.
12. Article ITT No. 5 of the Summit Township Personnel Code (Rev.
12/31/91; eff. 1/6/92) provides as follows in regards to
compensatory time:
a. Any employee who works hours over their regular work
hours (hours to be set by the Board of Supervisors) may
be granted compensation time when directed by the Board
of Supervisors.
13. Richard Hessinger began accumulating compensatory time hours
in July, 1991, after he was appointed to a full time position
by the Board of Supervisors.
14. The Summit Township Supervisors have approved attendance at
conventions by supervisors as well as payment of expenses and
wages.
a. January 4, 1988:
Motion by Hessinger, seconded by Haaf, directing
Secretary Haaf to send in registrations for the
Pennsylvania State Association of Township Officials
Convention in Hershey; expenses to be paid by township
per township code.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 7
Vote: 3/0
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf.
b. April 4, 1988:
Motion by Messinger, seconded by Haaf, approving payment
of wages to township officials attending the annual
convention on April 17 -20, 1988.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf.
c. January 15, 1990:
Motion by Hessinger, seconded by Peterson, to approve
expenses and wages to the annual convention of township
supervisors in Hershey, PA., on April 22 -25, 1990.
Vote: Hessinger, Peterson and Wasiela voted yes.
15. Hessinger was compensated for 411.1 hours at a rate of
$5.00 /hr. in 1989 totaling $2,055.50 for road related
maintenance.
16. The township supervisors are required to approve the wages for
the employees of the park.
a. The supervisors generally follow the recommendation of
the Recreation Board regarding the salaries.
17. Cheryl Hessinger is employed as the Picnicanna Clerk.
a. Cheryl Hessinger is the wife of Richard Hessinger,
Supervisor.
b. Cheryl Hessinger held the position of Picnicanna Clerk
prior to Hessinger taking office in January, 1988.
c. The position of Picnicanna Clerk was absorbed by the
employees of the township office in 1993.
18. The minutes of the board of supervisors meetings confirm that
Richard Hessinger abstained on votes to approve the wages of
Cheryl Hessinger as a clerk at Picnicanna Park from 1988
through 1992 the following meetings:
a. January 18, 1988
b. February 1, 1988
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 8
c. January 16, 1989
d. January 15, 1990
e. January 21, 1991
19. Records of Summit Township include the following yearly
payroll records on file for Cheryl L. Hessinger.
a.
1988:
Total earnings - $1,260.00
b. 1989:
Total earnings - $1,380.00
c. 1990:
Total earnings - $1,380.00
d. 1991:
Total earnings - $1,500.00
e. 1992:
Total earnings
- $1,500.00
20. The minutes of supervisor
regularly voted to approve
Cheryl Hessinger's salary.
21. Township records confirm
September, 1989, Hessinger
to Cheryl Hessinger:
Check Date
6033
6557
6611
6690
6746
6822
6979
7324 ,
7389
meetings reflect that Hessinger
the bill listings which included
that between January, 1988, and
signed the following checks payable
February 26, 1988
September 23, 1988
October 21, 1988
November 23, 1988
December 20, 1988
January 27, 1989
April 21, 1989
August 25, 1989
September 22, 1989
Total
$ 80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
91.29
90.00
90.90
90.00
a. Rita Haaf signed all checks as secretary /treasurer;
Thomas Wasiela signed the remaining checks payable to
Cheryl Hessinger during this time.
b. Cheryl Hessinger was paid on a monthly basis.
22. Richard Hessinger, in his capacity as Township
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 9
Secretary /Treasurer, signed all checks payable to Cheryl
Hessinger between January, 1990, and December, 1992.
23. In 1990, Richard Hessinger was appointed Superintendent in
Charge of Office Operations, Public Safety and Parks and
Recreation by the Summit Township Board of Supervisors.
a. In 1991, the title was changed to Public Safety and
Administration.
24. The Summit Township Supervisors authorized the township
solicitor to represent them in the lawsuit against the
auditors.
25. In January, 1989, the township supervisors initiated legal
action in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas against the
township auditors seeking to have the wages for the township
supervisor /employees increased.
26. Minutes of the Summit Township Supervisor's meetings reflect
the following in regard to the appointment of a township
solicitor for 1989.
a. January 3, 1989:
Motion by Haaf, seconded by Wasiela, that Vedder J. White
of the firm Elderkin, Martin, Kelly, Messina and
Zamboldi, is hereby appointed Solicitor for the township
for the year 1989 at an hourly rate of $80.00. Vote:
3/0.
Present: Wasiela, Haaf and Hessinger.
27. The Summit Township Supervisors action against the auditors
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Erie County by
Township Solicitor Vedder White.
a. The civil action was filed to case no. 1705 -A -1989.
28. The Summit Township Auditors sought legal representation to
defend them in the action filed by the supervisors.
29. By way of letter dated January 31, 19889, Solicitor Vedder J.
White advised Rita Haaf, Secretary /Treasurer, that the Board
of Auditors is permitted to employ an attorney to defend them
in the action of the supervisors versus the auditors.
a. The law requires that the Board make a reasonable effort
to settle the case before hiring an attorney.
b. Rate of compensation to be fixed by the court. There
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 10
would be no objection to a rate of $80.00 per hour.
30. By way of letter dated February 2,
Auditors advised Attorney Eugene
authorized to represent them in
supervisors against the auditors.
Auditor's Samuel Eaton and William
1989, the Summit Township
Brew, Jr., that he was
the action taken by the
The letter was signed by
Matheis.
31. On February 3, 1989, Attorney Brew, of the law firm of McClure
and Miller, advised the supervisors, by letter, that the
auditors had employed him to represent them, and that the
township will be responsible for the legal fees (Ref. case
#268 -A- 1989).
32. The Summit Township Supervisors filed a post -trial motion for
relief following Judge Joyce's December 29, 1989, ruling.
33. An Opinion and Order was issued by Judge Michael T. Joyce,
dated January 9, 1990, regarding the Summit Township
Supervisors versus Summit Township Board of Auditors.
a. Joyce denied the supervisor's motion for post -trial
relief.
b. The Retroactive Application of the Wages, set in the
Court's Opinion and Order dated December 29, 1989, is not
warranted.
c. The unrecorded hours claimed by the roadmasters lacked
credibility.
34. On January 10, 1990, Judge Joyce issued an Opinion and Order
agreeing that for the year 1990, it is the auditor's sole
responsibility to set wages for the supervisors who also are
employees of the township. The court modified its order of
December 29, 1989, to the following:
a. The Auditor's Report setting compensation for
roadmasters, secretaries, treasurer and laborers shall
remain unchanged;
b. It is recommended that the 1990 compensation level be set
in a manner consistent.with this Court's Opinion dated
December 29, 1989.
35. At the January 26, 1990, meeting of the Summit Township
Supervisor's, a decision was made by the board to appeal the
decision on retroactive pay.
a. A motion was made by Wasiela, seconded by Hessinger, to
appeal the judge's decision on retroactive pay and that
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 11
the township is to pay the expense of the appeal.
Solicitor White will contact Mrs. Haaf about the appeal.
Motion by Wasiela, seconded by Hessinger, to amend (the)
previous motion, adding that a letter should be sent to
(the) auditors that we would like to meet with them and
try to resolve this matter rather than go to court, and
the Solicitor is authorized to file the necessary
documents for the appeal; legal fees paid by the
township.
Vote passed 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Peterson
36. By letter dated February 2, 1990, the supervisors advised the
auditors that the board of supervisors unanimously voted to
appeal the Court Order concerning retroactive pay.
a. The supervisors noted that they were firm in their
opinion that retroactive pay was due in 1989.
b. The supervisors believe the rate of pay set by Judge
Joyce is fair and believe it should be applied to 1989.
c. The supervisors have no alternative to appeal since this
situation is financial hardship on Supervisor Thomas
Wasiela.
d. The supervisors sought non - advertised meeting to resolve
the issue.
37. On February 26, 1990, the supervisors again requested a
meeting with the auditors to settle the retroactive pay issue,
citing the following:
a. It makes no sense to spend approximately $20,000.00 of
taxpayer money when a settlement could be made for
roughly half that amount.
b. It makes no sense to meet with attorneys and pay them
$80.00 per hour for something we can do ourselves.
•
c. Any agreement reached would have to be reviewed for
legalities.
d. If no settlement can be reached, the supervisors will be
forced to continue the Appeal.
e. The letter was signed by Thomas Wasiela, Richard
Hessinger, and Ronald Peterson, and copied to William
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 12
Matheis, Shirley King and William Graves, township
auditors.
38. On February 23, 1990, Judge Michael T. Joyce of Court of
Common Pleas of Erie County, issued an Order directing the
Summit Township Supervisors to pay McClure and Miller the sum
of $5,488.00 for legal services rendered to the Summit
Township Auditors in the within litigation ( #1705 -A- 1989).
39. An Order was issued by Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania on
January 18, 1991, denying the supervisor's application for re-
argument.
40. By way of letter dated January 25, 1991, Attorney Evan Rudert
advised Thomas Wasiela that the last option for the
supervisors would be to petition the PA Supreme Court to
permit an appeal of the Commonwealth Court Order. Rudert
further advised that the possibility of having the petition
granted was very small.
a. No petition was filed.
41. Records of Summit Township indicate the following invoices
from the township solicitor's law firm of Elderkin, Martin,
Kelly, Messina and Zamboldi, for services provided to Summit
Township, in relation to representation of the supervisors in
the compensation suit against the auditors:
a. May 1, 1989:
January, 1989
February, 1989
-Conf. w /White (application)- .50
hours
-Exam of law (Auditor's Appeal) -
2.00 hrs
- Telephone conf. w /State
Association .25 hours
- Review Auditor's Minutes- .25 hrs
- Dictate complaint and appeal- 1.00
hour
- Review and prepare complaint- 1.25
hours
- Telephone conf. w /Mathe is and
Eaton- .50 hrs.
- Telephone conf. w /Brew- .25 hours
- Review Brew's Pleading- .25 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Wasiela- .25
hours
March, 1989 - Dictate letter to Summit- .25
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 13
Total hours: 10.75 @ $80.00 /hour = $860.00
Expenses: $71.50
January 17, 1989
January 19, 1989
January 19, 1989
b. July 25, 1989:
hours
-Exam of Law (Brief)- .50 hours
- Dictate Brief- .75 hours
-Conf. w /Wasiela & White- 1.25
hours
- Revise Brief- .50 hours
- Appearance in Court- .50 hours
- Telephone conf. w /State
Association .25 hours
- Filing Complaint Fee $40.50
- Filing Service Fee $27.00
- Filing Service Fee 4.00
Total: $931.50
April, 1989 - Meeting at Summit w /Auditor's
-2.00 hours
- Telephone conf. w /White & Wasiela -
.50 hours
- Review State Assoc. documents- .50
hours
-Draft Appeal- 1.00 hour
- Meeting w /White- .25 hours
- Redraft Appeal- .50 hours
- Meeting w /White- .25 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Atty Brew- .25
hours
-Draft letter to Atty. Brew- .25
hours
- Appear in Court- 1.00 hours
May, 1989 -Draft letter to Haaf- .25 hours
- Draft reply motion- .50 hours
June, 1989 - Telephone conf. w /Brew & Nailor-
.25 hours
-Draft Deposition Notices and
letter .50 hours
-Draft Interrogatories - .75 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Wasiela- .25
hours
- Revise documents - .25 hours
-Draft status conf. Praecipe- .25
hours
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 14
Total hours: 9.50 @ $80.00 per hour = $760.00
Expenses: $43.74
Filing fee for Complaint $ 40.50
Telephone Toll 3.24
Total: $803.74
c. October 12. 1989:
July 11, 1989
July 12, 1989
July 14, 1989
July 27, 1989
August 1, 1989
August 8, 1989
August 9, 1989
August 10, 1989
- Preparation /Investigation of Law
for Depositions - .75 hours
- Telephone conference w /Nailor- .25
hours
- Attend Depositions- 1.50 hours
-Draft letter to Attorney Brew and
client- .25 hours
- Telephone conference w /witness- .50
hours
- Telephone conference w /Little- .25
hours
-Draft file memo- .50 hours
August 2, 1989 - Review Courthouse records, McKean -
1.00 hour
-Draft motion to compel- .50 hours
August 4, 1989 - Telephone conference w /Attorney
McClure .25 hours
-Draft letter to McClure- .25 hours
August 7, 1989 - Meeting w /Wasiela- .25 hours
-Exam of Law /Pennsylvania Evidence -
1.25 hours
- Telephone conference w /Wasiela-
.50 hours
- Draft Pre -Trial Narrative and
Revise- 1,75 hours
- Exam of Law Federal Evidence- 3.25
hours
-Exam of Law /Business records- 3.50
hours
-Exam of Law /Surveys- 2.50 hours
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 15
August 11, 1989
- Telephone conference w /Wasiela-
.25 hours
- Telephone conference w /Haaf- .25
hours
-Draft letter to Haaf- .25 hours
-Exam of Law Business records- 3.00
hours
- Review minutes of the meetings- .50
hours
- Review payroll information- .50
hours
-Draft Motion Trail listing- .50
hours
- Telephone conf. w /Brew- .25 hours
- Appearance in Motion Court- 1.00
hour
- Draft letter to Judge Levin- .5
hours
Total hours: 29.25 @ $80.00 per hour = $2,340.00
Expenses: $209.14
June 1, 1989 - Telephone tolls $ 23.24
July 27, 1989 - Nailor Depositions $148.25
August 15, 1989 - Copies $ 37.65
Total: $2,549.14
August 14, 1989
August 15, 1989
August 21, 1989
September 7, 1989
September 11, 1989
September 12, 1989
September 14, 1989
d. January 16, 1990:
October 13, 1989
- Review Interrogatory answers- .50
hours
- Review file and discuss- .50 hours
-Exam of Law /Business records- 1.75
hours
-Draft revision of Petition /Draft
letter to Attorney Brew- .25 hours
-Draft Certification of Service -
.25 hours
-Draft letter to Wasiela- .25 hours
- Telephone conf. w /client and
witness- .50 hours
•
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 16
October 25, 1989
October 31, 1989
November 2, 1989
November 6, 1989
November 7, 1989
November 15, 1989
November 17, 1989
November 29, 1989
November 30, 1989
December 1, 1989
December 4, 1989
December 5, 1989
December 6, 1989
December 7, 1989
December 14, 1989
December 15, 1989
-Conf. w /clerks- .25 hours
- Appearance in Court (Cert. II)-
.50 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Judge Levin- .25
hours
- Meeting w /White- .25 hours
-Draft trail memo- .75 hours
-Draft Trial Brief- 1.50 hours
- Meeting w /Supervisors- 2.25 hours
- Telephone conf. w /witnesses- .25
hours
- Review and revise file- .50 hours
-Draft letter and questions- .50
hours
- Meeting w /clients- 1.50 hours
- Telephone conf. w /witnesses- .25
hours
- Draft trial memo- 1.50 hours
- Dictate revised Trial Brief- .50
hours
- Meeting w /Attorney Brown- .50
hours - Revise Trial memo- .50
hours
- Prepare for trial- 5.00 hours
- Meeting w /Allegier- .50 hours
- Meeting w /clients- 1.00 hours
- Appearance in court- 6.00 hours
- Meeting w /White- .50 hours
- Appearance in Court- 6.00 hours
- Meeting w /Wasiela and Hessinger- --
1.00 hour
- Telephone conf. w /Haaf- .25 hours
- Review Time records- 1.00 hour
- Letter to Judge Joyce- .50 hours
-Draft hours calculated- 1.00 hour
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 17
December 18, 1989 - Revise letter- .25 hours
Total hours: 30.75 @ $80.00 per hour = $2,460.00
Expenses: $76.65
October 24, 1989
November 17 and
December 5, 1989
e. April 18, 1990
January 2, 1990
January 3, 1990
January 5, 1990
Copies $ 2.40
- Copies $74.25
Total: $2,536.65
-Conf. w /White and Markham- .5
hours
- Telephone conversation w /Wasiela-
.25 hours
- Examination of Law /Appeal- .5
hours
- Draft Certification- .25 hours
- Examination of Law /Post -trial
Motion- 1.00 hour
-Draft Post -trial Motion- 1.00 hour
- Telephone conversation w /Wasiela-
.25 hours
- Revise Post -trial Motion- .50
hours
January 11, 1990 - Examination of Law /Appeal- .50
hours
January 15, 1990 - Examination of Law /Unanimity
Appeal- .50 hours
January 16, 1990 -Draft letter to supervisors- .25
hours
January 24, 1990 - Meeting w /White and Wasiela- .50
hours
-Draft Appeal Notices- .50 hours
January 29, 1990 - Telephone conversation w /Hessinger
.25 hours
February 2, 1990 - Telephone conversation w /Hessinger
.25 hours
February 16, 1990 - Telephone conversation w /Wasiela
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 18
(Status)- .25 hours
February 19, 1990 -Draft letter to Sadler (CPA)- .25
hours
February 22, 1990 - Appearance in Court (Fee Petition)
1.25 hours
-Draft letter to Judge Joyce- .25
hours
February 23, 1990 - Examination of Law /Attorney Fees -
.50 hours
-Draft letter to Judge Joyce- .25
hours
March 2, 1990* - Telephone conversation w /Wasiela
(Order)- .25 hours
Total Hours: 10 @ $80.00 per hour = $800.00
Expenses $620.30
Copies: $ 20.55
Filing fees 80.00
f. July 24, 1990:
April, 1990
May, 1990
June, 1990
Transcript copies 519.75
Total: $1,420.30
- Exam of Law /Ct Annuity- 1.00 hour
-Draft Brief Section I & II- 3.00
hours
- Review RVW Records- .50 hours
- Draft Brief- 2.50 hours
- Revisions and Edit Brief- 4.00
hours
- Prepare report for recording- 1.00
hour
- Finalize Brief- 1.00 hour
- Draft Brief- 1.00 hour
- Prepare documents for copying -
1.00 hour
- Review Auditor's Brief- 1.00 hour
- Meeting w /clients- .50 hours
- Draft reply to brief- 2.50 hours
- Prepare reply- 1.00 hours
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 19
g •
-Draft letter to Commonwealth Court
75 hours
- Prepare exhibits- .50 hours
Total hours: 21.25 @ $80.00 per hour = $1,700.00
Expenses - $506.00
April 6, 1990 -
May 2, 1990 -
May 3, 1990 -
May 4, 1990 -
June 15, 1990 -
November 2, 1990:
August, 1990
September, 1990
h. February, 1991:
October, 1990
November, 1990
Copies
Transcript printing
Copy of Appellants Brief
Postage for brief
Copies
Postage for brief
Bindings
Total:
$ 1.50
$315.75
$ 58.72
$ 35.07
$ 60.90
$ 4.06
$ 30.00
$2,206.00
-Draft letter to clients- .25 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Wasiela- .25
hours
- Preparation of oral agreement -
1.00 hours
- Preparation for argument- 3.00
hours
Total hours: 4.50 @ $80.00 per hour = $360.00
Expenses - $.45
August 27, 1990 Copies $.45
Total:
360.45
- Appearance in court /oral argument -
8 hours •
- Preparation for argument- 2.00
hours
- Review Court Opinion- .50 hours
- Draft letter to clients- .25 hours
- Review file- .50 hours
-Draft petition /reargument- 2.50
hours
- Meeting w /Attorney Rudder- 1.00
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 20
Total -
hour
-Draft /Revise Brief- 1.00 hour
- Meeting w /Attorney Messina- .25
hours
- Telephone conf. w /Cuneo- .50 hours
- Telephone conf. w /Wasiela- .25
hours
Exam of Law /Review of Evidence -
2.75 hours
Total hours: 19.50 @ $80.00 per hour = $1,560.00
Expenses - $173.66
Travel expense to Pittsburgh $ 58.00
Copies 3.75
Advance for client 4.06
Copies 107.85
Total: $ 1,733.66
42. Byway of letter, dated January 29, 1990, the auditors advised
Attorney Brew that he was authorized to represent them in the
appeal by the supervisors.
43. The total amount of fees charged to and paid by the township,
in the legal action taken by the supervisors against the
auditors is as follows:
a. 135.5 hours at $80.00 per hour -
Expenses (filing fees, transcripts,
copies, etc.) -
$10,840.00.
1,701.44
$12,541.44
44. Invoices from the law firm of McClure and Miller, for services
provided to the Summit Township Auditors, in relation to
representation of the auditors in the compensation suit filed
by the supervisors.
a. April 25, 1989 - December 30, 1989: 68 hours @ $80.00
per hour.- $5,488.00.
b. January - October, 1990: 49 hours @ $80.00 per hour plus
expenses of $58.08 - $3,978.08.
c. Total: $10,666.08 (including $1,200.00 for expenses
incurred prior to May, 1989).
45. Minutes of the Summit Township Supervisor's meetings reflect
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 21
that payments to the Elderkin Law Firm for services as
township solicitor were approved as follows by the Board of
Supervisors:
a. June 5, 1989:
Motion was made by Wasiela, seconded by Messinger, to
approve the expenditures for May, with the exceptions of
the RAK bill, the CAMSCO bill, and the Zep bill.
Vote: 2/1. Haaf voted no.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf.
Bill list attached.
b. August 7, 1989:
Motion by Wasiela, seconded by Haaf, to approve the July
expenditures as presented, having been reviewed by all
board members.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf
Bill list attached.
c. November 6, 1989:
Motion by Haaf , seconded by Wasiela, approving payment of
the bills for October, having been reviewed by all board
members.
Vote: 3/0
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf
No bill list attached.
d. February 5, 1990:
Motion by Hessinger, seconded by Peterson, to approve
payment of the expenses for January, having been reviewed
by all board members.
Vote: 3/0
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Peterson.
Bill list attached.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 22
•
e. The above bill listings included approvals of payments
for solicitor representation in the appeal against the
auditors.
f. May 7, 1990:
g.
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Hessinger, to approve
payment of the bills for April as presented, having been
reviewed by all board members.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Peterson.
Bill list attached.
October 1, 1990:
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Hessinger, to approve
payment of the September bills as presented, having been
reviewed by all board members.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Peterson.
Bill list attached.
h. December 3, 1990:
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Hessinger, to approve
the
November bills submitted and reviewed by all supervisors.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Wasiela, Hessinger, Peterson
No bill list attached.
i. March 4, 1991:
Motion by Messinger, seconded by Wasiela, to approve
payments of the bills for February, 1991, having been
reviewed by all board members with the exception of
holding two (2) invoices (Mainline), and (RNS Sales and
Service) for further review by the supervisors.
Vote: 3/0.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 23
46. Prior to each monthly meeting, the supervisors are provided
with a list of bills which they review before the meeting.
a. Bills are voted on at the meeting following receipt of
the bills.
b. Solicitor invoices are received quarterly.
47. Summit Township records include payments to the Elderkin Law
Firm for services provided to the township as the appointed
solicitor, which included the representation of the
supervisors in the suit against the auditors over wages. The
following checks were issued to the Elderkin law firm and
approved by two supervisors:
05/01/89
07/25/89
10/12/89
01/16/90
04/18/90
07/24/90
11/02/90
02/91
Invoice
Date Check
7864
8062
8278
8477
8723
1034
1234
1432
a .
b.
c .
d.
Bill list attached.
Total
Check Date Amount
06/05/89
08/07/89
11/06/89
02/05/90
05/07/90
10/10/90
12/05/90
02/23/91
$ 7,306.99
(931.50)
5,590.55
(803.74)
5,754.24
(2,549.14)
6,778.90
(2,536.65)
5,824.35
(1,420.30)
6,126.45
(2,206.00)
20,089.46
(360.45)
14,324.04
(1,733.66)
Approved
Haaf
Hessinger
Haaf
Hessinger
Haaf
Hessinger
Wasiela
Hessinger
Peterson
Hessinger
Wasiela
Hessinger
Peterson
Hessinger
Wasiela
Hessinger
The check dates correspond with the meeting at which the
bill was approved.
The dollar figures in parentheses represent the amounts
related to the civil suit.
The checks are signed by the township secretary /treasurer
and one supervisor.
A township supervisor held the position of
Secretary /treasurer during this period.
1) Richard Hessinger has held the position since 1990.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 24
48. The Summit Township supervisors regularly attend annual
conventions of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervisors.
49. During Summit Township Supervisor's Meetings in June, 1989,
and January, 1990, discussions occurred regarding the approval
of expenses while attending conventions.
a. June 5, 1989:
Supervisor Haaf stated she does not approve of the
expenditures of Supervisor Hessinger and Wasiela while
attending the State Convention in Hershey. She indicated
we are only to pay expenditures for Supervisors to
attend, not their guest or wives. In both cases, that
was not what happened and therefore, she will not approve
payment of the bills.
Supervisor Wasiela asked Solicitor White for a ruling on
what is covered for this convention. Solicitor advised
that he would have to look into it and get back to the
supervisors on the proper procedure. Mrs. Haaf indicated
she had spoken with the P.S.A.T.S. and they advised only
expenditures of officials is allowable. She is only
concerned with the payment for the wives.
Motion was made by Wasiela, seconded by Hessinger, to
approve the expenditures for May, with the exceptions of
the RAK Bill, the CAMSCO Bill and the ZEP Bill. Vote:
Wasiela and Hessinger, yes; Haaf, no.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf.
b. June 19, 1989:
Helen Swartzentruber asked about the convention expenses
that were discussed at the last meeting as to whether
township should pay for the expenses of the wives
attending.
Supervisor Wasiela explained that was turned over to the
solicitor and he did not think anything has been brought
to the supervisors. Solicitor Messina stated that he is
in a position to say-that the township is responsible for
the expenses of the supervisors, but not their wives.
Present: Hessinger, Wasiela, Haaf.
c. January 15, 1990:
Shirley King, 8611 Peach Street, stated that last year
Mes 89 -002 -C
Page 25
there were people who took their spouses and the expenses
of the spouses were paid for by the township. This was
to be repaid to the township. She asked if this has been
done yet. Chairman Wasiela stated that it will be paid
back.
Discussion ensued on this matter in which Helen
Swartzentruber feels the township should not be paying
the expenses for the wives to go to a convention.
Supervisor Hessinger feels the spouses should go to the
convention because it is a good time for them to meet the
other spouses but he pays his own wife's expenses and the
guest charge has always been paid by the supervisors out
of their own money. It has always been done by past
practice to charge the township for paying this until it
was brought to the attention of supervisors. He has no
problem paying for his wife's expenses.
50. Township records disclose the following records of Richard
Hessinger to attend the annual convention of the Pennsylvania
State Association of Township Supervisors held from April 17,
1988, to April 20, 1988, at Hershey, Pennsylvania.
a. Hessinger's travel expense report detailed the following
expenses:
672 miles traveled at 20 cents per mile for round trip
mileage for Hessinger's car from Summit Township,
Pennsylvania to Hershey, Pennsylvania, totaling $134.40;
meals - $203.35; three nights lodging - $176.43; cash
paid for miscellaneous expenses listed as tips - $22.27.
The total expense indicated as $536.45.
b. The Township check no. 6883 issued to Hessinger on May
10, 1988 in the amount of $536.45.
c. The Township directly paid a convention (delegate)
registration fee of $60.00 for Hessinger.
d. The Township directly paid a hotel registration fee of
$85.00 for Messinger.
.e. Hotel and meal expense receipts incurred by Hessinger
while attending the convention in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
(1) Lodging at the Hershey Lodge, Hershey,
Pennsylvania, from April 17, 1988 to April 20, 1988
at $78.00 per night. The receipt indicates that
two adults were registered. The expense indicated
as $248.04 minus $85.00 pre paid by the Township
plus $13.39 in phone calls. The total expense was
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 26
indicated as .$176.43.
(2) Receipt no. 038882 from Leed's, in the amount of
$30.73, dated April 17, 1988, lists two persons
served.
51. Township records disclose the following records of Richard
Hessinger to attend the annual convention of the Pennsylvania
State Association of Township Supervisors held from April 23,
1989 to April 26, 1989 at Hershey, Pennsylvania.
a. Hessinger's travel expense report detailing the following
expenses:
704 miles traveled at 24 cents per mile for round trip
mileage for Hessinger's car from Summit Township,
Pennsylvania to Hershey, Pennsylvania, totaling
$168.96; meals - $157.20 (including tips in the amount of
$20.00); three nights lodging - $69.00. The total
expense indicated as $395.16.
b. The Township check no. 7853 issued to Hessinger on May
30, 1989 in the amount of $395.16.
c. The Township directly paid a convention (delegate)
registration fee of $60.00 for Hessinger.
d. The Township directly paid a hotel registration fee of
$90.00 for Hessinger.
e. Hotel and meal expense receipts incurred by Hessinger
while attending the convention in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
(1) Lodging at the White Rose Motel, Hershey,
Pennsylvania from April 23, 1989 to April 26, 1989
at $50.00 per night. The receipt list Cheryl and
Richard Hessinger as guests. The expense indicated
as $159.00 minus the $90.00 prepaid by the
Township. The total expense was indicated as
$69.00.
(2) Eleven meal receipts are included, plus tips.
• Total expense indicated as $157.20.
52. On January 26, 1990, Supervisor Hessinger wrote a check to the
Township for $49.27 on behalf of expenses incurred at the 1989
annual PSATS Convention by Hessinger's wife.
a. Hessinger resubmitted copies of the receipts that he
submitted to the Township for full reimbursement April
27, 1989.
Hessinger,, 89 -002 -C
Page 27
53. Hessinger made this reimbursement after township residents
challenged the payment of the supervisor's spouses expenses by
the township at monthly meetings held in 1989 and 1990.
54. On June 5, 1991, Hessinger wrote a check to the township for
$84.12, on behalf of expenses incurred at the 1988 annual
P.S.A.T.S. Convention by his wife.
a. Township receipt #5878, dated June 5, 1991, received by
Sharon Risjan, Administrative Secretary, shows that the
payment was made by check #5356.
b. The receipt indicates that the payment was for 1988
convention expense reimbursement for spouse.
55. Hessinger makes the following legal arguments:
a. The Investigative Division has not complied with the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
b. The allegations are contrary to Act 9 of 1989 in that the
findings report excludes evidence which rebuts various
findings.
c. The allegations and scope of the investigation merely
track allegations made in various township meetings.
d. The township auditors, a c.p.a. retained by the township
and the Erie Court of Common Pleas have reviewed these
allegations and found no improprieties.
B. TESTIMONY:
56. Shirley A. King was an elected auditor in Summit Township,
Erie County, Pennsylvania from 1/90 to 3/93.
a. The Township Board of Auditors set the compensation of
the supervisors who are employed in the township.
(1) Health and medical benefits were also set by the
auditors.
b. When the Township Board of Auditors considered the issue
of overtime, it concluded that overtime should be
restricted to emergencies.
c. In setting the salary of employee - supervisors, the
auditors differentiated between part -time and full -time
but not as to employment position held.
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 28
d. All three supervisors were appointed roadmasters to one
of three districts in the township.
e. Job descriptions of the supervisor - employees were
requested by the auditors but no independent verification
was made as to whether functions were being performed by
the supervisor - employees.
f. The Board of Supervisors attended and had input in some
meetings of the Summit Township Sewer Authority.
(1) Supervisors Messinger and Wasiela had input about
the amount of fees charged by the Authority.
The auditors for 1990 set the hourly rate as recommended
by the Common Pleas Court in prior litigation instituted
against the auditors by the supervisors.
(1) The rate was $8.50 for part-time and $11.00 for
full -time employees.
h. Exhibit ID -4, p54 reflects the discussion by the auditors
of overtime for extreme emergencies.
(1) The auditors approved a benefit package per the
personnel code for employees of Summit Township.
(a) Personnel Code benefits were separate from
overtime.
g.
i. Overtime is setting a rate of pay.
57. Scott Kuzma is an elected auditor in Summit Township, Erie
County, Pennsylvania from 1992 to the present.
a. In 1992, the supervisor - employees were paid an hourly
wage set by the auditors.
b. Overtime benefits were separate from medical, health and
insurance benefits.
c. Overtime was approved in 1992 for only emergency
conditions.
d. The hourly wage for township supervisors as roadmasters
did not include functions of attending meetings or
legislative functions.
58. Joyce A. Savocchio is the Mayor of Erie, Pennsylvania.
a. Savocchio is the chairperson of the Erie Area Congress of
Government (COG).
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 29
(1) Summit Township is a member of the COG.
(a) Supervisor Hessinger was an authorized
delegate of Summit Township.
(2) COG delegates must be elected officials.
(3) The COG mainly deals with legislative/
administrative matters.
b. All municipalities of Erie County comprised the Solid
Waste COG which formulates a solid waste plan.
(1) A delegate must be an elected official
(a) Supervisor Hessinger served as a delegate.
(2) The COG deals with administrative / legislative
matters as to how to implement the solid waste
plan.
The COG would deal with funding and bond issues
that relate to the solid waste issue.
(3)
(4) A municipal delegate could send a representative to
the COG.
59. William Charles Matheis was an elected auditor in Summit
Township, Erie County, Pennsylvania from 1985 to 1991.
a. The Board of Auditors set the compensation of the
supervisor - employees and amount of township bonds.
b. There was a point in time where a distinction was made
between the positions of laborer and roadmaster.
(1) An hourly rate of pay was given for working as a
laborer.
(2) A salary was given for working as a roadmaster.
c. The auditors set other benefits such as hospitalization
'and medical.
d. The auditors did not set the number of hours that could
be worked.
60. Samuel Eaton was a Summit Township Auditor from 1/88 to 1990.
a. The auditors set the compensation for the supervisor -
employees.
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 30
b. Compensation was not set for the position
superintendent.
of
c. Benefits encompassed hospitalization and insurance or
pension.
61. E. Michael Wander was a Summit Township Auditor from 1982 to
1989.
a. In 1988 and 1989, the auditors set the hourly rate for
township employees.
Prior to that time, a
by the auditors.
In that time period,
rate for overtime.
straight salary had been set
the auditors did not set a
Prior to that time, there was no overtime because
of the straight salary.
No overtime was set in 1988 and 1989.
The auditors approved benefits for the supervisors
for pension, health, and accident plans.
b. When the supervisors asked for an hourly rate of wage,
the auditors met and decided on $8.00 per hour.
c. The auditors did not look into the actual functions that
the supervisors were performing.
(1) A roadmaster meant a person actually physically
working on the roads.
d. The salary that a supervisor- employee received was in
addition to meeting pay.
62. Theodore Siegel is a member of the Summit Township Planning
Commission from 1970 to the present.
a. The planning commission makes recommendation to the
township board of supervisors.
b. In the 1980's, the planning commission rewrote the zoning
ordinances and solicited the input of the township
supervisors.
(1) The supervisors had the power to pass the zoning
ordinance.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 31
(2) The supervisors met with developers who had
development proposals before the township board of
supervisors.
c. Supervisor Hessinger was an active participation on
behalf of the Board of Supervisors as to development
proposals that came before the Planning Commission.
63. Louis Benko is a member of the Summit Township Zoning Hearing
Board.
a. The zoning hearing board rules on variances and special
exceptions.
b. Supervisor Hessinger attended certain hearing and
provided information.
64. Richard J. East is the Chairman of the Recreation Board in
Summit Township for the last eight or nine years.
a. The board oversees Picnicanna Park for the supervisors
and other recreational sporting activities.
b. Supervisor Hessinger and Wasiela have attended meetings
of the recreations board.
65. Robert Caruso is the Deputy Executive Director /Director of
Investigations of the State Ethics Commission.
a. The cases of Hessinger and Wasiela were initiated by
sworn complaint.
(1) Exhibit ID - 1 is a redacted copy of the sworn
complaint against Richard Hessinger.
(a) The complaint was time stamped as received on
1/20/89.
(1) The complaint was not being actively
pursued at that time due to sunset wind
down.
(b) As to the letter advising Richard'Hessinger of
the commencement of the investigation and the
conduct of the investigation, no Commission
member played any role in such activities.
(2) Exhibit ID - 2 is a redacted copy of the sworn
complaint as to Thomas Wasiela which involved the
same occurrences as to Richard Hessinger as to the
time and circumstances as to the investigation.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 32
(a) No Commission member played any role in the
commencement or conduct of the investigation.
b. In 10/89, preliminary inquiries were authorized and
assigned to case investigator Mary Albert.
c. Whether a case is docketed under Act 170 of 1978 or Act
9 of 1989 is determined by when the activity of the
respondent occurred or began.
d. After final documents were submitted as to the case
involving Hessinger and Wasiela, a discussion ensued
between the Director of Investigations and Executive
Director as to whether the activity was a continuing
course of conduct or not so to be reviewed under Act 9 of
1989.
(1) A decision was made to send an additional letter
advising that a review of actions under Act 9 of
1989 was being implemented.
e. There was no motion or action by Commission members to
initiate these cases.
(1) The Executive Director of the Commission initiated
these two cases.
66. Mary Albert is a special investigator for the Investigative
Division of the Commission.
a. As part of conducting the investigation as to Supervisors
Hessinger and Wasiela, Albert copied various document
such as minutes of the supervisors and auditor's
meetings, time records, payroll records, W -2's, invoices,
checks, correspondence and other documents.
(1) Various charts were prepared as to the documents
submitted into evidence by the Investigative
Division.
(a) Exhibit ID 18 characterizes actions not
related to activities of Hessinger as
roadmaster or secretary /treasurer.
(b) Exhibit ID -19 characterizes activities of
Hessinger from 1988 and 1989 as compensation
for which he was paid an hourly rate for
duties performed as roadmaster and roadmaster
related functions.
(c) Exhibit ID -20 characterizes the overtime paid
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 64
53 P.S. 05515.
53 P.S. §65512.
following:
Township Population
Not more than 4,999
5,000 to 9,999
10,000 to 14,999
15,000 to 24,999
25,000 to 34,999
35,000 or more
Annual Maximum Compensation
Fifteen hundred dollars
Two thousand dollars
Twenty -six hundred dollars
Thirty -three hundred dollars
Thirty -five hundred dollars
Four thousand dollars
Such salaries shall be payable monthly or
quarterly for the duties imposed by the provisions of
this act. The population shall be determined by the
latest available official census figures. The
compensation of supervisors shall be fixed by the
township auditors either per hour, per day, per week,
semi - monthly or monthly, which compensation shall not
exceed compensation paid in the locality for similar
services, and such other reasonable compensation for the
use of a passenger car, or a two -axled four - wheeled
motor truck having a chassis weight of less than two
thousand pounds when required and actually used for the
transportation of road and bridge laborers and their
hand tools and for the distribution of cinders and
patching material from a stock pile, as the auditors
shall determine and approve; but no supervisor shall
receive compensation as a superintendent or roadmaster
for any time he spends attending a meeting of
supervisors.
In reference to the meetings for which supervisors may-receive
compensation, the Code further provides as follows:
The township supervisors shall meet for the
transaction of business at least once each month, at a
time and place to be fixed by the board, but they shall
not be paid for more than sixteen meetings in any one
year, except for any township where, on account of the
exercise of governmental functions other than those
relating to roads, more meetings are necessary, in which
case, the number of meetings for which the supervisors
may be paid may be increased to any number, not
exceeding fifty meetings in any year which shall include
hearings by aggrieved parties under the Pennsylvania
Sewage Facilities - Act and other hearings by aggrieved
parties, hearings of a judicial or quasi- judicial
nature. Two members of any board of supervisors
consisting of three members_ shall constitute a quorum
and three members of any board of supervisors consisting
of five members shall constitute a quorum. Except as
otherwise provided in this act, an affirmative vote of
a majority of the entire board of supervisors shall be
necessary in order to transact any business. Necessary
expenses incurred in such meetings, including office
rent, stationery, light and fuel, shall be paid out of
the general township fund.
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 33
(d) Exhibit ID -21 is a chart which characterizes
the meetings that Supervisor Wasiela was
compensated at an hourly rate for duties as a
supervisor.
(e)
to Hessinger between 1988 and 1993.
Exhibit ID -22 is a chart which characterizes
the days in which Hessinger attended the state
associates conventions and was compensated as
a road worker in 1988, 1989 and 1990 years.
(1) For 1988 and 1989 Hessinger received both
the roadmaster's salary and an hourly
rate for attending the conventions.
(f) Exhibit ID -23 is a chart for Wasiela which
characterizes compensation at an hourly rate
for duties related to roadmaster.
(g) Exhibit ID -24 is a chart for Wasiela which
characterizes compensation received for
overtime hours between 1988 and 1991.
(h) Exhibit ID -25 is a chart for Wasiela which
characterizes the days Wasiela attended state
conventions and was compensated as a road
worker.
(i) Exhibit ID -26 is a chart listing compensation
and benefits fixed by the township board of
auditors for the years 1987 through 1993.
b. In 1989, Wasiela received a roadmaster salary of $5,420.
c. The board of supervisors provided for the payment of
wages and expenses for conventions in 1989 through 1990.
(1) Hessinger got paid an hourly rate when he went to
the convention in 1990.
(2) Payments involved both the roadmaster and the
laborer.
d. A second investigative notice was sent out after 60 days
of obtaining information on or about September 15, 1993.
67. David A. Skellie is the appointed director of the Department
of planning for Erie County.
a. Skellie is the treasurer and manager of the Erie County
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 34
Solid Waste Management Council.
b. As to the Erie Area Council of Government, Skellie is an
alternate.
(1) Hessinger is the representative of Summit Township.
c. Hessinger is a Summit Township representative to Erie
County Metropolitan Planning Commission.
68. Kevin R. Lenz is a Summit Township Supervisor since January,
1992.
a. The board of supervisors has given
responsibilities in the area of planning.
b. The designated roadmaster is the supervisor
charge of what transpires in the township.
c. Hessinger is the township designate on the Erie County
Metropolitan Planning Commission, Erie County Solid Waste
Council.
Hessinger
who is in
d. Elected supervisors do not receive compensation other
than a fixed fee for meetings of the Board of
Supervisors.
e. Attendance at a zoning hearing board in the township by
a supervisor was not in the capacity as a roadmaster.
(1) Attending meetings, talking to residents, taking
phone calls and reading literature is not service
as a roadmaster.
f. Time spent as to proposed revision to a master plan would
be done in the capacity of a supervisor.
(1) Such work would be in the position of supervisor
for a master transportation plan or solid waste
plan.
69. The memo by the assigned investigator to opei the case against
Wasiela as a full investigation was dated August 6, 1990.
70. The memo by the assigned investigator to open the case against
Hessinger as a full investigation was dated August 9, 1990.
71. The memoranda referenced in paragraphs 69 and 70 above would
have been received in Harrisburg within a week and a half of
the memo dates.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 35
72. Richard Hessinger is an
since 1980.
a .
b.
c.
d.
e .
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Hessinger has served
secretary /treasurer.
elected Summit Township Supervisor
as roadmaster and
In 1988, the hourly wage for roadmaster was $8.
(1) The rate was lowered to $5 per hour in 1989.
In 1988/89, Hessinger attended meetings dealing with
administrative matters.
Since 1990, Hessinger's salary as a township employee was
computed on an hourly rate.
Hessinger has served as the township delegate to various
boards.
The auditors never approved pay for a superintendent.
(1) The supervisors worked as roadmasters.
Hessinger states that he prepares specifications for bids
in the capacity as secretary.
Any routine business that people would inquire about
would be marked in the time card as roadmasters.
Hessinger asserts that planning related matters were in
his capacity as secretary.
In 1988/89 there was a two tier system of pay.
As a result of a lawsuit filed by the supervisors against
the auditors, the township paid the legal fees for the
representation of the three supervisors.
(1) The fees amounted to $12,541.44.
1. The Second Class Township Code as to the duties of the
secretary does not use the terms planning and zoning.
(1) There are no references for waste management,
subdivisions, land use, sewer, water,
transportation planning or running recreation
facilities or parks.
(2) There are no specific provisions as to the duties
of treasurer.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 36
m. The Second Class Township Code delineates certain power
to the supervisors such as ashes, garbage, rubbish and
other refuse materials.
n. Hessinger concedes that a supervisor cannot receive pay
for meeting with the solicitor.
o. Exhibit ID - 70 -34 reflects a 6.9 hour solicitor meeting
on the time card of Hessinger.
p. In 1990, the supervisors were not only appointed
roadmasters but also as superintendents.
If Hessinger did not attend the PSATS convention, he
would have been teaching school but not working for the
township.
r. Hessinger through counsel seeks a dismissal of the case.
73. Thomas R. Wasiela was a supervisor in Summit Township through
1991.
a. Wasiela stated that some items on his time cards needed
clarification.
q.
b. As to the supervisors convention in 1988, Hessinger
charged the township for Sunday attendance but Wasiela
did not.
c. On April 23, 1988 Hessinger and Wasiela were out on the
roads.
(1) Wasiela states that such action was not a semi-
annual spring check of the roads.
(a) Hessinger put on his time card for that day
five (5) hours for the spring road check.
d. On December 6 and December 7, 1989 Wasiela charged for
roadmaster pay for attending a court hearing which
challenged their salary as township employees as fixed by
the auditors.
(1) Wasiela charged the township for the .eight hours he
spent in court each day.
(2) Wasiela's meeting with the supervisors' attorney,
writing to the judge and an employee and assembly
of a pick up bed for the truck was charged as 8
hours time for compensation.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 37
e. Wasiela claims that the charge for compensation on
January 23 and January 24, 1990 for insurance involved
health insurance as to all township employees.
f. Wasiela states that a charge for compensation for
activity with Penn Valley publishers to codify all
township ordinances was roadmaster related.
Travel to Harrisburg by Wasiela to sign loan
documentation papers as to a Penn VEST loan was done in
his capacity as elected supervisor.
h. Wasiela states that the duties of a supervisor were
identical to that of roadmaster.
g.
i. It is asserted by Wasiela that the functions performed by
elected township supervisors only occur at the monthly
meeting of the board of supervisors.
j•
C. EXHIBITS:
Wasiela through counsel seeks a dismissal of the case.
74. The investigation against Hessinger was instituted based upon
the receipt of a signed sworn complaint filed with the
Investigative Division.
75. The Investigative Division supplied Hessinger with hearing
and /or exculpatory evidence as per Section 8(e) of Act 9 of
1989.
76. The Summit Township Board of Auditors set the following
compensation for the supervisors as township employees in the
following years:
a. On 01/06/87 for the 1987 calendar year.
(1) Existing benefit for pension, hospitalization and
insurance were retained.
(2) The salary for secretary /treasurer was set at $765
per month.
The salary for roadmasters was set at $5,150 per
year.
(3)
b. On 01/08/88 for the calendar year.
(1) The salary for secretary /treasurer at $9,650 per
year.
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 38
(2) The salary of roadmasters to $5,420 per year.
(a) If roadmasters work as laborers, an hourly
rate of the lowest paid man.
(3) Pension, hospitalization and insurance benefits to
continue until a meeting is held to upgrade
benefits.
(4) A supplement of $10 per hour for Wasiela and $8 per
hour for Hessinger as laborers as per a special
meeting of 01/21/88.
(a) All township employee benefits to roadmasters
whether working as laborers or roadmasters or
secretary /treasurer as per the Township
Personnel Code.
(5) On 03/24/88, action to average the bottom four
wages of township employees which equal or
approximates $8 per hour as wages for township
roadmaster when working as laborer.
c. On 01/04/89 for the 1989 calendar year.
(1) Action to approve benefits that supervisors have
for hospital, pension and insurance.
(2) The salary for the secretary /treasurer at $9,650.
(3) The salary for roadmaster at $5,420.
(4) The salary for roadmasters as laborers for the
township is $5 per hour.
d. On 01/03/90 for the 1990 calendar year.
(1) The salary of full time roadmaster supervisors is
set at $11.50 per hour.
(2) The rate of pay for a part time supervisor
roadmaster is $8.50 per hour.
(a) The above rate applied to secretary-treasurer.
(3) Benefits are approved with an increase in pension
to $1,750.
e. On 01/08/91 for the 1991 calendar year.
(1) The salary of full time wage for supervisor while
Hessinaer 89 -002 -C
Page 39
f. On 01/07/92 for the calendar year 1992.
(1) Pension for full time roadmasters at $2,060 with a
rate of 2/7 for part time supervisor roadmaster.
(2) Health and medical benefits for full time
supervisor roadmaster at $475 per month.
(3) $10,000 life insurance and disability insurance for
all three supervisor- roadmasters.
(4) Supplemental insurance of $600 per year for each
supervisor- roadmaster.
(5) $12.35 per hour full time and $9.25 part time for
roadmasters.
g.
an employee was $12.00 per hour with part time rate
of $9.00.
(2) Pension is $1,750 for full time supervisor with
part time at 62% of $1,750 per year.
(3) Routine overtime is not acceptable but overtime in
extreme emergency is approved.
(a) There was no different rate established for
overtime.
(6) At 01/21/92 meeting, hourly wage are rounded to
$12.36 and $9.26.
(7) Overtime not approved as a general practice for
roadmasters except in cases of extreme emergency.
(a) Overtime rate for the year at time- and -a -half.
On 01/05/93 for the calendar year 1993.
(1) Pension of $2,185 for full time supervisors
employed by township with proration for part time.
(2) Health medical benefit at $416.02 per month and
$439.67 per month for employee and family for full
time roadmasters with proration for part time.
(3) $10,000 life insurance and supplemental of $636 per
year approved for three roadmasters.
(4) Dental insurance for each roadmaster or $29.10 per
month or $349.20 per year.
gessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 40
Rate of $12.98 per hour for supervisors employing
themselves as roadmasters.
A statement appears that overtime is only approved
for cases of extreme emergency.
(a) No motion, second or vote is reflected.
77. At a 01/04/84 meeting of the township, a number of residents
criticized the work and salary of the supervisors who worked
as roadmasters.
78. The Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, at Docket 1705 -A-
1989 issued a decision in the case of a lawsuit by the Summit
Township Supervisors against the Summit Township Auditors on
12/29/89 which noted:
a. In 1989, the compensation was $9,650 per annum for
secretary /treasurer, $5,420 per annum for roadmaster plus
$5.00 per hour for working on the roads as laborers.
b. Supervisors may not set their own compensation which
would be an abuse of authority.
c. The Second Class Township Code does not envision a dual
compensation system with a flat salary supplemented by an
hourly rate for road work.
d. An hourly rate is appropriate for full and part time
roadmasters.
e. The full time roadmaster hourly rate is $11.50, the part
time rate for roadmaster is $8.50.
f. Supervisors when billing should not confuse duties of
supervisors with that of roadmaster.
g. The roadmaster /supervisor submitted a number of
unrecorded hours for which they seek to be paid.
(1) The roadmaster /supervisor had been paid a wage
substantially higher than now set by the court.
h. The compensation for roadmasters and secretary treasurer
should not be applied retroactively to 1989.
i. The decision was appealed by the supervisors to
Commonwealth Court which affirmed the Erie Common Pleas
Court.
79. For the years 1991 and 1993, the auditors approved overtime in
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 41
emergencies but did not change the rate from the flat hourly
rate.
a. For 1992, overtime occurred after 8 hours per day or 40
hours per week at the rate of time and one half.
b. No overtime was approved for 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990.
80. The minutes of the Summit Township Board of Supervisors
reflect the following actions:
a. On 01/05/87:
(1) Wasiela is appointed roadmaster of District 1.
(2) Wasiela is appointed voting delegate to the
Pennsylvania State Association Convention.
b. On 01/04/88:
(1) Wasiela is appointed roadmaster in District 2.
(2) Hessinger is appointed roadmaster in District 1.
(3) Hessinger is voting delegate with Wasiela
alternate, to the Pennsylvania State Association
Convention.
c. On 02/01/88:
(1) Wasiela hired as full time employee on roads at
$8.00 per hour.
(2) Hessinger hired as part time laborer on the roads
at $8.00 per hour.
d. On 04/04/88:
(1) Motion by Hessinger passed to pay the wages to
Township officials attending the annual convention
on April 17 -20, 1988 with Hessinger and Wasiela
voting in favor of the motion.
e. On 01/03/89:
(1) Hessinger appointed roadmaster of District 1.
(2) Wasiela appointed roadmaster to District 2.
(3) Hessinger is a delegate, with Wasiela as alternate
to the Pennsylvania State Association Conventions.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 42
f. On 01/07/89:
(1) Supervisors authorized to attend PSATS convention
with expenses paid according to the Code.
g. On 01/02/90:
(1) Hessinger is appointed roadmaster of District 1.
(2) Wasiela is appointed roadmaster of District 3.
(3) The supervisors are named superintendent.
(4) Wasiela is delegate, with Hessinger alternate, to
the Pennsylvania State Association Convention.
(5) Hessinger appointed as township representative to
the Erie County Planning Commission.
h. On 01/15/90:
(1) Motion by Messinger passed to approve expenses and
wages to the PSATS convention on 04/22 -25/90 with
Hessinger and Wasiela voting in favor of the
motion.
i. On 01/26/90:
(1) Motion passed to appeal decision of Court of Common
Pleas as to retroactive pay issue, with legal fees
to be paid by township, with Hessinger and Wasiela
voting in favor of the motion.
j. On 06/04/90:
(1) Expenses approved to attend semi - annual convention.
(2) Hessinger authorized to work full time during the
summer.
k. On 01/07/91:
(1) Hessinger is appointed roadmaster of District 1.
(2) Wasiela is appointed roadmaster of District 3.
(3) All supervisors are named superintendents.
(4) Hessinger is delegate, with Wasiela alternate, to
the Pennsylvania State Associates Convention.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 43
(5) Hessinger is appointed township representative to
the Erie County Planning Commission for 1991.
1. On 03/18/91:
(1) Motion by Hessinger passed to pay expenses and
wages in 1991 PSATS convention as per the Second
Class Code with Hessinger and Wasiela voting in
favor of the motion.
m. On 07/01/91:
(1) The status of Secretary Hessinger is changed from
part time to full time.
n. On 01/06/92:
(1) Hessinger is appointed roadmaster in District 1.
(2) Hessinger is appointed township representative to
the Erie County Planning Commission.
Motion by Hessinger passed to approve expenses to
attend PSATS convention in April, 1992 with
Hessinger and Wasiela voting in favor of the
motion.
(3)
o. On 01/04/93:
(1) Hessinger is appointed roadmaster in District 1.
(2) Hessinger is appointed township representative to
the Erie County Planning Commission.
(3) Motion passed to approve expenses to attend PSATS
convention in April 1993 with Hessinger voting in
favor of the motion.
81. Hessinger and Wasiela voted as supervisors to institute, with
expenses paid by the township, a lawsuit filed by the
supervisors against the township auditors regarding the
compensation of the supervisors as township employees.
a. The legal fees and expenses paid by the township on
behalf of Hessinger and Wasiela amounted to $12,541.44.
(1) The portion of the above legal fees and expenses
which related to the appeal of the decision of the
Court of Common Pleas to Commonwealth Court
amounted to $5,200.41.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 44
82. Township records in evidence reflect Hessinger received at
least the following compensation for "overtime" at a rate of
1.5 times the hourly rate authorized by the township auditors
for roadmaster work:
1988:
Date
08/25/88
08/26/88
08/27/88
Authorized Rate per hour:
Received Rate per hour:
Unauthorized Rate per hour:
Total Unauthorized Rate:
1989:
06/21/89
06/23/89
06/26/89
06/27/89
07/20/89
07/26/89
07/28/89
08/02/89
08/11/89
08/24/89
08/25/89
08/26/89
Work Dav
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Authorized Rate per hour:
Received Rate per hour:
Unauthorized Rate per hour:
Total Unauthorized Rate:
Hours Duties
3.9
3.7
Total 1988: 11.6 hrs.
Wednesday
Friday
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Wednesday
Friday
Wednesday
Friday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Total 1989: 19.9 hrs.
Pave roads Zwilling Rd.
East & West
Pave roads, Lee Rd and
New and Dorn
4.0 Patch roads and clean
intersections
$ 8.00 /hr
OT $12.00 /hr
$ 4.00 /hr
(11.6 x $4.00 /hr)= $46.40
.1 Patch roads
. 5 Patch roads
.6 Patched roads
.8 Water Tank Rd.
. 2 Truck chip -twp. stockpile
.2 Patch roads
.6 Patch roads
1.0 Patch roads
.2 Patch roads
4.4 Truck stone; tar and chip
roads, clean
intersections
2.0 Truck stone, tar and chip
roads, clean
intersections
9.3 Truck stone; tar and chip
reads; clean
intersections
$5.00 /hr
OT $7.50 /hr
$2.50 /hr
(19.9 x $2.50 /hr)= $49.75
Hessinc7er, 89 -002 -C
Page 45
1990:
06/14/90
08/04/90
08/05/90
08/11/90
08/16/90
08/18/90
08/21/90
08/22/90
Thursday
Saturday
Sunday
Saturday
Thursday
Saturday
Tuesday
Wednesday
08/29/90 Wednesday
08/30/90 Thursday
Authorized Rate per hour: $ 8.50 /hr
Received Rate per hour: OT $12.75/hr
Unauthorized Rate per hour: $4.25/hr
Total Unauthorized Rate: (25.6 x $4.25/hr)= $108.80
1991:
06/18/91
07/05/91
Authorized Rate per
Received Rate per
Unauthorized Rate per
Total Unauthorized
Total 1990: 25.6 hrs.
Tuesday
Friday
Total 1991:
Authorized Rate per hour:
Received Rate per hour: OT
Unauthorized Rate per hour:
Total Unauthorized Rate: (2.6
1993:
02/13/93 Saturday
'Total 1993:
Totals: 1988 - 46.40
1.0 Mowed berms
5.7 Paving road maintenance
.4 Call in fix garage door
5.3 Patch roads
.3 Patch roads
5.1 Patch roads
2.3 Water line Keystone Dr.
1.0 Office and computer
consultant
2.0 Office and downloading
computer
2.5 Office and downloading
computer
.5 Patch roads
2.1 Traffic signal
2.6 hrs.
$12.00 /hr
$18.00 /hr
$ 6.00 /hr
x $6.00 /hr)= $15.60
2.0 Meeting traffic signal
Willis, Whitebread, Relco
2.0 hrs.
hour: $12.48 /hr
hour: OT $19.47/hr
hour: $ 6.49/hr
Rate: (2.0 x $6.49/hr)= $12.98
Totals: 1990 - 108.80
Date
1990
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 46
83. Hessinger received compensation both as a township employee
roadworker and laborer for attending the following State
Association Conventions of elected township supervisors for
the years 1988 and 1989:
1988:
04/17/88
04/18/88
04/19/88
04/20/88
1989:
04/24/89 PSATS Convention
04/25/89 PSATS Convention
04/26/89 PSATS Convention
Total
1990:
04/22/90
04/23/90
04/24/90
04/25/90
Totals:
1989 - 49.75
96.15
Hours Rate of Pav
PSATS Convention 8.0
PSATS Convention 8.0
PSATS Convention 8.0
PSATS Convention 8.0
Total $32.0 /hrs. $256.00
1991 15.60
1993 - 12.98
137.38
$8.00 /hr.
Hours Rate of Pay
8.0
8.0
8.0
$24.0 /hrs. $120.00
$5.00 /hr.
Roadmaster
Salary
$5,420/yr.
Roadmaster
Salary
$5,420/yr.
Roadmaster
Hours Rate of Pay Salary
PSATS Convention 4.0 $8.50 /hr. N/A
PSATS Convention 4.0
PSATS Convention 4.0
PSATS Convention 4.0
Total $16.0 /hrs. $136.00
1988 - $ 256.00 Totals: 1990 - $ 136.00
1989 - 120.00
$ 376.00
84. Hessinger submitted time sheets and received and accepted
compensation as a working township employee for the following
duties which were encompassed within the functions
of an elected township supervisor:
Purpose of Meeting
01/04/90 Water authority meeting
01/08/90 Planning Commission meeting
01/10/90 Office hours /Recreation meeting
No. of
Hours
2.0
2.4
3.8
Rate
$ 8.50
Total
01/15/90 East COG meeting fire control
01/30/90 County meeting
02/08/90
02/12/90
02/14/90
02/19/90
03/06/90
03/08/90
03/12/90
03/14/90
03/26/90
03/28/90
04/03/90
04/04/90
05/01/90
05/30/90
06/27/90
07/10/90
07/11/90
07/19/90
07/23/90
07/24/90
07/25/90
07/27/90
08/06/90
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 47
Erie County Planning Comm.
Planning Commission meeting
Recreation Board meeting
COG meeting - fire committee
for new fire control
Water meeting
Erie C. Planning meeting
Planning meeting
Recreation Board meeting
Solid waste COG meeting
East County COG meeting
Zoning Hearing Board
Erie County Planning
Water meeting
Penvest Closing /Harrisburg,
only took part of day.
January total: 12.5
April
May total:
Solid Waste Council meeting
June total:
Recreation Board meeting
Meeting with Susol Devel
Office /Met with Dave Sadale
Summit Towne Center
Mtg. with attorney /meet
with superintendents
Meeting with Baldwin & Company tour
of site review of Dev. agreement
Superintendents meeting
Superintendent meeting
1.8
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
Z
February total: 7.6
3.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
March total: 14.0
1.0
2.5
total: 3.5
2.5
5.0
7.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.8
5.0
.4
.6
July total: 13.8
Meeting with solicitor- Summit Towne 2.0
.5 •
2.5
$106.25
$ 64.60
$119.00
$ 29.75
$ 63.75
$ 17.00
$117.30
08/07/90
08/07/90
08/10/90
08/10/90
08/13/90
08/14/90
09/10/90
09/13/90
11/06/90
11/12/90
11/14/90
12/04/90
12/10/90
1991
01/14/91 Planning
02/05/91
02/11/91
02/14/91
02/21/91
02/27/91
03/05/91
03/11/91
03/14/91
03/20/91
03/21/91
03/30/91
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 48
Meeting with Baldwin - Summit Towne
Water meeting
Meeting with solicitor -
Summit Towne Center
Meeting superintendent
Meeting with Planning Comm.
Meeting with superintendents
Computer data - Planning mtg.
County Planning
Meeting with Econoline Den.
Planning Commission
Recreation Board
September total:
November total:
Meeting with Water Authority
Planning meeting
Erie County CBDG Meeting
Harold - Darrell Osborn TR:
subdivision Elk Creek Road
Recreation Board
Ennis Subdivision Tower Road
4.4
3.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
August total: 16.4
2.4
4.4
2.0
2.0
3.0
7.0
Meeting water authority -
superintendent 2.0
Office /Planning mtg. 6.1
December total: _ 1
1990 totals 96.8
1.9
January Total: 1.9
Prepare for water meeting
and water meeting 6.0
Planning Commission 3.0
Erie County Planning 2.8
Meet with Recreation Board 4.5
Conference with Sewer Authority 2.3
February total: '18.6
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.6
2.5
2.0
2.0
$ 9.00
$139.40
$ 37.40
$ 59.50
$ 68.85
$822.80
$ 17.10
$167.40
04/18/91
04/24/91
04/25/91
05/06/91
05 /07/91
05/13/91
05/16/91
06/14/91 Township meeting
07/15/91
07/18/91
08/07/91
08/21/91
08/26/91
09/04/91
09/05/91
09/16/91
09/19/91
09/23/91
09/24/91
10/01/91
10/02/91
10/03/91
10/07/91
10/10/91
10/10/91
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 49
March total:
Meeting Recreation Board
Meeting at Millcreek, PUC complaint
Met with attorney for water PUC
hearings and city officials
April total:
Meet at site traffic plan
Water meeting
Planning meeting
Recreation Board meeting
May total:
June total:
Susol, Summit Town Center -
traffic plan
Recreation Board meeting
July total:
Traffic signal design -
Urban (engineer) Peach & 90
Meetings - water line -
Water Authority
Deposition Harvey Case, roadmaster
August total:
Hamot Estate - Urban
Sewer Authority
Meeting city - Mayor
Office and Rec. Board mtg.
Recycle program Harbor Creek
Recycle program Millcreek
September Total:
Water meeting
Millcreek operating system
Traffic signals, G. Willis and
J. Sadler
Meet developer and Keystone Drive
coordination
Police Seminar, E.C. Planning
EPM Certification
12.1
1.5
1.5
5.0
8.0
1.0
3.0
1.7
2.6
8.3
1.0
1.0
4.0
1.4
5.4
4.0
1.5
9.8
15.3
2.4
2.6
2.0
5.1
3.5
3.5
19.1
.7
2.5
4.1
4.0
2.0
2.0
$ 12.00
$ 12.00 $ 64.80
$108.90
$ 72.00
$ 74.70
$ 9.00
$183.60
$229.20
10/17/91
10/22/91
10/23/91
10/28/91
10/31/91
11/06/91
11/07/91
11/14/91
11/18/91
11/19/91
11/23/91
11/25/91
12/09/91
12/11/91
12/19/91
12/19/91
12/23/91
12/24/91
12/26/91
12/27/91
1992'
01/10/92
01/13/92
01/13/92
01/16/92
01/20/92
01/22/92
01/22/92
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 50
Recreation Board meeting
Meet with CPM Officials
Police seminar
Solicitor - Court case for
Harvey accident
Hill Engineering, Penelec
October total:
Water meeting
Erie County Solid Waste Council
Erie County Planning Meeting
Code Administrator's job description
Twp. Transportation Plan mtg. with
Penndot Engineer
Meeting with Attorney Migner for the
Harvey Suit
Meet with chiefs
November total:
Staff meeting, (correspondence)
Transportation plan for Wegmanns
Planning Commission Meeting
Recreation Board Meeting
Meeting with Kevin Lenz
Attend Erie Area Transportation
Committee
Meet with Chris Baldwin re:
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
31.3
2.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
6.5
2.0
2.0
19.5
Meet with Nick Scott, inspect sign 7.5
Computer System Engineer Plan to
expand system. Sewer Auth.
Construction meeting." 8.0
Landfill visit 2.0
Zoning Meeting 2.0
Pitol Oil Development meeting,
recycling bids 5.0
Staff meeting 2.8
Mtg. - Board Appts., Apps.,
Gen. Ledger 5.4
Inspect McDonald's site plan 2.0
December total: 34.7
1991 total: 175.2
January -June 14, @ $9.00 per hr., 49.9 hrs = $449.10;
July- December, @ $12.00 per hr., 125.3 hrs = $1,503.60
3.0
2.5
2.9
3.0
2.7
2.0
$12.35
$12.36
$375.60
$234.00
$416.40
$1,952.70
01/24/92
01/24/92
01/31/92
02/07/92
02/10/92
02/12/92
02/13/92
02/17/92
02/20/92
02/26/92
02/26/92
02/27/92
02/28/92
03/09/92
03/10/92
03/19/92
03/19/92
03/23/92
03/30/92
03/31/92
04/09/92
04/14/92
04/14/92
04/16/92
04/23/92
04/23/92
04/23/92
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 51
99 Interchange
Meet G. Willis for transportation
plan, etc.
Staff meeting
Meeting D. Skellie Erie
County Planning
Staff meeting
Planning meeting
Arlen Spector
Erie County Planning Commission
Meet with roadmasters and solicitor
Zoning questions /Recreation Board
Erie Area Transportation Committee
Meeting with Urban (engineers)
Mapping of photos
Meeting with K. Lenz
zoning problem
Meeting with Urban engineers
Planning meeting
Traffic signal meeting
Meet at landfill - sweeper
Recreation Board meeting
Zoning Hearing Board meeting
PennDOT Transportation meeting
Meet with Weggmans Avon Drive
shop meeting recycle truck
Mtg. Zoning Board Update, General
Office Duties, etc.
Meeting with HoJo Consultant
Meeting with Rec Board
Meeting with Water Authority and
roadmasters - water extensions
Summit Town Center -
Urban Engineering
Traffic plan - Urban Engineering
Tennis Court - Rec Board -
Urban Engineering
April total:
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
January total: 11.4
14.2
25.6
3.0
3.7
.5
2.8
3.2
1.0
1.0
5.0
2.0
4.9
February total: 27.1
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
March total: 15.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.6
1.0
1.0
2.0
$12.35 $140.79
$12.36 6175.51
Subtotal $316.30
$334.96
$191.58
11.6 $143.38
05/05/92
05/11/92
05/11/92
05/12/92
05/13/92
05/21/92
05/21/92
06/02/92
06/04/92
06/04/92
06/08/92
06/11/92
06/17/92
06/22/92
06/23/92
07/01/92
07/23/92
07/28/92
07/28/92
07/30/92
08/10/92
08/11/92
08/12/92
08/12/92
08/12/92
08/13/92
08/19/92
08/20/92
08/24/92
08/25/92
08/25/92
08/25/92
09/02/92
09/09/92
09/10/92
09/14/92
09/17/92
Hessinaer,
Page 52
89 -002 -C
Meeting with PennDOT - Pilot Oil 3.0
Meeting with Joe Messina (Solicitor) 3.5
Planning 2.0
911 Planning 2.3
Pilot Oil Road Planning 2.0
Rec. Board meeting 2.0
Water Authority meeting 2.4
Solicitor meeting
Sewer Authority meeting
Fire control meeting
Planning meeting
PA Travel Council meeting
Meeting Willis - Pilot Oil
Planning meeting
Weggmans
Rec Board meeting
Meet with solicitor
Sewer meeting
Water Authority meeting
Solicitor meeting
May total: 17.2
Planning Commission Meeting
Vo -Tech School water line
Traffic Controller 19 & 90
Meeting with Millcreek - PennDOT
Hershey light (officer)
Meeting with solicitor
Meeting with Fette Trans.
Plan Sun TV
Developers Meeting
Pilot Oil, Ryder and IBEW, inspect
storm water
Erie Transportation Committee
Weggmans - construction meetings
Office- Staff Mtg.
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
Road 3.0
1.9
1.5
June total: 16.2
July total: 20.2
2.3
5.0
3.0
3.0
6.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
1.6
6.4
4.0
3.0
August total: 39.0
Sewer Authority meeting 2.6
Meeting Erie County Exect. planning 2.0
Water meeting 1.0
Planning meeting 3.0
Meeting Jim Welka subdivision 3.6
4.0
2.5.
2.5
5.0
$212.59
$200.23
$249.67
$482.04
09/21/92
09/22/92
09/29/92
09/30/92
10/01/92
10/02/92
10/05/92
10/05/92
10/07/92
10/12/92
10/13/92
10/14/92
10/20/92
10/21/92
10/22/92
10/22/92
10/26/92
10/26/92
10/27/92
10/28/92
11/04/92
11/09/92
11/11/92
11/12/92
11/13/92
11/18/92
11/18/92
11/19/92
11/24/92
11/25/92
12/01/92
12/Q1/92
12/03/92
12/03/92
12/08/92
12/10/92
inner, 89 -002 -C
53
Hess
Page
Meet with Developers
Meeting Water Authority, Pilot Oil,
roads and mines
Meeting planning work session
Inspect and tour D &K Warehouse
Mr. Wakulich, Elmo Mtg.
Police Department information -
Vernon Township
Ryder Truck site inspection
storm water
Sun TV site inspection storm water
Mercyhurst CEO Metro COG meeting
Planning meeting
Fire Control meeting
Building Committee
Sewer Authority Work Session
Recreation Board Meeting
Fire Control Management
Newton Building inspect building
G. Willis
Planning Work Session
Zoning Hearing Meeting
Millcreek Fire Control
Fire Control
Water Authority meeting
Planning Meeting
Fire School Meeting
Meeting with solicitor
Meeting with N. Scott
Meeting with Weggmans, meeting with
Kaiser dev.
Meeting with Recreation Board
Meeting with Weggmans
Meeting Microtel Weggmans - sup.
Building Committee meeting
•
Meeting with developers
Water meeting
Senior citizens
Meet with fire company
Road plan Downs Drive
meeting with G. Rabino
Meeting Downs Drive extension
5.0
2.0
3.7
2.0
September total: 24.9
2.0
5.8
1.0
2.0
2.7
2.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
1.1
1.1
3.0
1.9
5.0
4.0
October total: 42.1
2.6
2.6
4.0
2.5
1.0
6.64
2.32
2.0
4.0
3.75
'November total: 31.41
3.3
2.5
1.0
2.92
1.25
2.0
$307.76
$520.36
$388.23
12/14/92
12/14/92
12/15/92
12/16/92
12/18/92
12/22/92
12/23/92
12/28/92
12/30/92
12/30/92
12/30/92
1993
01/04/93
01/06/93
01/08/93
01/08/93
01/11/93
01/11/93
01/12/92
01/14/93
01/14/93
01/±9/93
01/20/93
01/20/93
01/21/93
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 54
01/25/93
01/26/93
01/26/93
01/27/93
Developer N. Scott Applebee S.A.
Chairman on bill
Planning Commission
Water line easement Woods and Howe
Easement - Wood
Staff meeting
Water line inspect for easement
Transportation plan
Meeting with Paul for wages and
secretaries
Meeting at Hamot Road
Meeting with solicitor
Township meeting
December total:
1992 Total:
4.0
2.74
.9
1.0
1.0
.3
1.0
office
2.0
.5
1.0
1.0
28.41
304.12
(11.4 hrs., @ $12.35/hr. = 140.79; 287.82 hrs.
@ $12.36 /hr. = $3,557.45; Total: = $3,698.24)
Meeting with Landfill manager 2.0
Court hearings and meetings with
solicitor for pump station 5.96
Meeting Urban Engineering Senior
Citizen - Townhall subdivision 3.5
Meeting with Viveralli
restaurant owner .27
Meeting Hamot residents 1.0
Planning meeting 2.0
Meeting J. Welka & Weggmans,
Kaiser Estate 2.0
G. Miller - Doolittle
Transportation plan 2.0
B. Crowner - Building plans 2.0
Meeting with Pilot Oil 3.32
Traffic Demonstration 3.0
Meeting with Pathmaster Rep 1.0
Meeting with 2) G. Willis -
storm water Glenmar - 3) Townhall
Subdivision 3.54
Bid opening water line 1.0
Pilot Oil Inspection 2.0
Storm water plan, office duties 4.46
Meeting Down Drive improvements
Prepare ltr. for dev. 2.5
$12.98
$351.14
$3,698.24
January total: 41.55 $539.32
02/02/93
02/05/93
02/05/93
02/08/93
02/08/93
02/08/93
02/10/93
02/12/93
02/12/93
02/18/93
02/22/93
03/01/93
03/02/93
03/04/93
03/05/93
03/08/93
03/08/93
03/12/93
03/12/93
03/15/93
03/I7/93
03/19/93
03/24/93
03/25/93
03/29/93
03/31/93
03/31/93
04/08/93
04/08/93
04/12/93
04/14/93
04/14/93
04/15/93
04/15/93
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 55
Water Authority work session
Meeting with Erie County
Planning Commission
Meeting with Kay Haibach,
subdivision
Meet with Rover Sound
Meet with Pilot Oil Sign
Planning meeting
Travel townships - architect
Meeting G. Willis, Mr. Hue -
storm water
Zoning BK., Willis, Steva
Planning sewer /water
Meeting with C. Rose building plans
Meeting with Penelec
Water meeting
Meeting PennDOT engineer
Erie County Planning meeting
Meet with solicitor
Planning meeting
Meet with G. Rabino for
Weggman's storm water
Meeting G. Willis Townhall Village
Meeting with N. Scott -
Welka Applebees
Meeting with water/
sewer authorities
Meeting T. Hoffman -
Transportation
Meeting PennDOT officials
Meeting G. Willis, Townhall
& Peach Street traffic signals
Meeting with Sewer Authority -
bill sewer line
Meeting E. Goelher -
Picnicanna RR
Meeting solid waste COG
February total: 21.73
1.0
1.56
2.82
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
1.5
2.12
5.0
2.0
1.5
4.2
2.0
1.5
2.5
March total: ' 36.7
Meeting Borgio Development
Meeting G. Willis PennDOT J. Welka
Planning meeting
Meeting with N. Scott, G.
Rabing J. Welka
Meeting with Solicitor Messina
Erie County Courthouse - Lynch
Erie County Planning
1.48
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
office 2.5
1.5
3.0
4.25
1.0
2.5
1.0
3.4
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
$282.05
$476.37
04/16/93
04/20/93
04/21/93
04/21/93
04/22/93
04/27/93
04/28/93
05/04/93
05/04/93
05/05/93
05/07/93
05/10/93
05/10/93
05/10/93
05/13/93
05/14/93
05/19/93
05/19/93
05/21/93
05/25/93
05/26/93
05/
05/27/93
06/.01/93
06/02/93
06/08/93
06/09/93
06/09/93
06/1:0/93
06/11/93
06/14/93
06/14/93
06/15/93
Hessincxer,
Page 56
89 -002 -C
M. Wakulich, Steve Mahour
Kaiser Estate
T. Hoffman MPO
Rec Board meeting
Peach Tree Park
Kaiser Estate
Rec Board meeting
April total:
Joint session Millcreek, - Fairview,
Summit sewer
Water Authority meeting
Peach Tree Place meeting/
traffic signal
Meeting D. Borgio Townhall
subdivision
Andy Z - Peach Tree homes
J. Welka - Western Auto
Planning mtg.
Integra Bank
Meeting with Solicitor
Meeting PennDOT
Meeting Rec Board
J. Renauld -
Oliver Road project
Integra Bank
G. Willis - Storm water, add specs,
traffic signal
Site visit Peach Tree, Microtel-
Western Auto and Weggmans
PennDOT - Hershey Road
5.46
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.08
32.44
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
4.88
3.5
.28
May total: 36.66
Work session sewer authority
Meeting Metro COG
Water Authority meeting
On site meeting Western Auto
- Weggmans 1.0
qn site Integra Bank - Susol 1.5
Meeting Douglas Drive 1.3
Meeting storm water retention, •
Messina, Willis, & Welka 4.0
Planning Commission meeting 3.3
Meeting with Grossmans transportation
plan and Starr Homes storm water 5.52
On site meeting Western Auto -
Rotunda Drive, Haibach - Hamot
Estates, Solicitor - developer's
agreement
2.24
3.88
4.0
3.14
$421.07
$475.85
Page
06/16/93
06/23/93
06/24/93
06/24/93
06/25/93
1988:
04/23/88
04/30/88
05/07/88
11/19/88
04/15/89
04/22/89
04/22/89
06/10/89
06/20/89
08/22/89
Messinger,
57
Totals - 1990
1991
1992
1993
89- -002 -C
Recreation Board meeting 2.0
Meeting with Messina for storm
water, W.A., Weggmans Susol, Star
Homes, and leasing 10.21
Meeting with Messina - W.A. 4.36
Meeting with Zapporilas - Peach Tree 1.5
Peach Street Place, B. Crowner
- architect
$ 822.80
1,952.70
3,698.24
2,901.42
$9,375.16
6.5
June total: 54.45
1993 Total: 223.53
5706.76
$2,901.42
85. Hessinger submitted time sheets and received and accepted the
following compensation as a township employed laborer at an hourly
rate for hours during which he did not perform duties as a laborer
but rather performed such actions as a township employed roadmaster
for which he received a fixed yearly salary:
Rdmaster
Hours Rate Salary
Road checks 5.0 $ 8.00 $5, 420.00 /yr.
Road check (week ending) 5.5
Road check (week ending) 4.1
Budget (week ending) 6.5
1988 Total: 21.1 $168.80
Rdmaster
Hours Rate Salary
Road Insp. 5.8 $ 5.00 $5,420.00/yr
Road Inspection 3.5
'Inspect gravel pit 2.0
Road Inspection 3.0
Inspect roads and garage 5.4
Road inspection to 8,0
determine what needs to
1989 Total:
1988 Total:
27.7 $138.50
S168.80
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 58
III. DISCUSSION:
$307.30
86. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
concluded each stage of the investigative process as to
Hessinger before the statutory deadlines of Act 9 of 1989, 65
P.S. 408, passed.
As a Supervisor for Summit Township, Erie County, Richard
Messinger, hereinafter Hessinger, 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:
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 both before and
after the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply
the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989 to determine
whether the Ethics Act was violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 quoted in the
allegations, 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 the 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).
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted in the allegations,
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 59
a public official /employee shall not engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
The issues before us are whether Hessinger violated Section
3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 or Act 9 of 1989 as to the receipt of the
following: overtime at a 150% rate of pay, payments for attending
the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS)
conventions, payments as a township employee for performing
administrative duties of an elected township supervisor, double
payments as roadmaster and laborer for performing the same duties
and township paid legal fees and expenses as to a lawsuit filed by
the supervisors against the township auditors on the issue of the
supervisors' compensation as township employees.
Procedurally, a signed sworn complaint was received against
Hessinger in January, 1989. Due to a then perceived application of
the Sunset Act for wind up, no action was taken by the
Investigative Division until October, 1989 when a preliminary
inquiry was authorized. Investigations were opened and Hessinger
was notified by letter of August 31, 1990 regarding various actions
which were alleged to be in violation of Act 170 of 1978.
During the course of the investigation, additional information
was obtained as to which Investigative division sent out a second
investigative notice of actions which were alleged to be in
violation of Act 9 of 1989. The second notice was sent on November
10, 1993 which was within the sixty (60) days of obtaining the
additional information. Thereafter, a Findings Report
(Investigative Complaint) was issued on January 11, 1994, as
amended on March 11, 1994.
Factually, Hessinger served as a supervisor in Summit Township
from 1988 to the present. For the years in issue, Hessinger was
appointed to a position of employment with the township. For the
years 1988 and 1989, the township auditors approved a yearly salary
of $5,420.00 for supervisors working as roadmasters and also an
hourly rate for a laborer at $8.00 in 1988 and at the rate of $5.00
per hour in 1989. The board of supervisors passed a. motion, with
Messinger and Wasiela voting in favor of the motion, to institute
suit against the auditors challenging the hourly rate set for the
supervisors in 1989 as working township employees. The legal fees
and expenses for the lawsuit were paid by the township.
The Erie Court of Common Pleas in a decision of December 29,
1989, filed at civil docket 1705 -A -1989, after reviewing the dual
payment system of roadmaster with both a yearly salary and an
hourly rate of pay as laborer, noted:
It is equally clear that the purpose in not allowing the
supervisors to set their own compensation is to prevent an abuse of
their authority by arbitrarily setting their own compensation.
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 60
However, it appears that certain supervisors / roadmasters have used
their authority as supervisors to set their own compensation by
adjusting their hours to fit their particular schedules, which
resulted in performance of tasks, such as cleaning a storage room,
which are equivalent to that of a common laborer for which they now
expect to be paid a roadmaster wage.
This situation is one which the spirit of the code charges the
auditors with avoiding and thus the auditors, in good faith, set an
hourly rate at $5.00 to create a disincentive for this practice.
This point of contention between the parties can be easily
eliminated by precluding a dual compensation system. The code does
not visualize a compensation system of a flat part -time salary
supplemented by an hourly rate for road work. Nor is it appropriate
given the disparities in experience, physical capabilities and
number of hours worked between the supervisors/ roadmasters.
Therefore, upon careful consideration of the differences and a
thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that an hourly
rate is more appropriately set for both a full -time roadmaster and
a part -time roadmaster.
A full -time roadmaster, as the one in Summit Township, must
possess hands -on experience with various equipment and experience in
the maintenance of the roads so as to allow meaningful supervision
of the road crew on a daily basis. An hourly rate commensurate with
such experience and responsibility is $11.50. A part -time
roadmaster will be paid an hourly rate of $8.50. The
township /secretary should also be paid an hourly rate of $8.50. All
of which are consonant with the same positions in similar size
townships throughout the Commonwealth, as reflected in the 1988 Wage
and Salary Survey compiled by the Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors. Therefore, an hourly rate which is
commensurate with the work being performed allows an equitable
solution to the conflicting points of view.
This Court would also like to note that, although not an issue
before the Court, the supervisors should not take lightly their
responsibility to employ individuals who are capable of performing
the tasks required of the position. Also, the supervisors, when
billing their hours to the township, should not confuse the duties
of a supervisor with those of a roadmaster.
In attempting to retroactively apply the hourly wages set
forth in this opinion to the 1989 hours claimed by each of the
roadmaster /supervisors, this Court encountered great difficulty.
Each roadmaster /supervisor submitted a number of unrecorded hours
for which they now seek to be paid the hourly wage this Court is
setting. However, considering that these hours have been paid for
by the Township by the flat salary of $5,420.00, it appears each
roadmagter /supervisor has been paid a wage substantially higher than
that which the'Court is now setting, as by the following
table:
Roadmaster /Supervisor Salary Unrecorded Hours Hourly Rate
Wasiela $5,420.00 + 355.9 hrs. - $ 15.23
Hessinger $5,420.00 + 590.5 hrs. a $ 9.18
Haaf $5,420.00 + 600.0 hrs. $ 9.04
It was suggested by Roadmaster /Supervisor Hessinger that the
salary of $5,420.00 was paid for being on call 24 hours a day and
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 61
the inconvenience generated by his position. Although this court
realizes that public office carries with it a multitude of problems
which follow a public servant home, it is this Court's belief that
all public officials, particularly those holding a local public
office such as supervisor, are aware of these responsibilities and
are still willing to run for office, knowing full well that the
compensation will most likely be inadequate and there will be many
uncompensated intrusions on their personal time.
In summary, this Court feels that it is entirely fair and
equitable that the roadmaster /supervisors receive no compensation
for these unrecorded hours other than the salary of $5,420.00 they
received. Further, that this salary offsets any retroactive
increase in the hourly wage paid for recorded hours during 1989.
Slip Opinion at 2,5.
In an Order dated December 29, 1989, the Court ordered the
compensation to be set for 1990 in accord with its opinion with no
retroactive application to 1989. By Order dated January 9, 1990,
the Court denied retroactive application of wages finding "that the
unrecorded hours claimed by the roadmasters to be lacking in
credibility ". Following review of a post trial motion, the Court
by order dated January 10, 1990 modified its prior order whereby
the compensation for 1989 would remain unchanged from the rate as
set by the auditors and the compensation for 1990 would be
recommended at the rate consistent with the Court's opinion.
On or about January 26, 1990, the supervisors passed a motion
to appeal the above decision which motion passed with Hessinger and
Wasiela voting in favor of the motion. Once again the legal fees
and expenses as to the appeal to Commonwealth Court were paid by
the township. Commonwealth Court affirmed the lower court decision
by Order of November 16, 1990 filed at Docket 221 CD 1990.
The total amount of legal fees paid by the township for the
supervisors amounted to $12,541.44 with $7,341.03 attributable to
the action in Common Pleas and $5,200.41 attributable to the appeal
to Commonwealth Court.
During 1988 and 1989 when the "dual compensation system" was
in place, a review of the record reflects that Hessinger did
perform road related duties for which he received the yearly
roadmaster salary but nevertheless billed the township through time
records for those same functions as a laborer. Thus in addition to
the roadmaster salary, Hessinger received payments totaling $307.30
as a laborer in 1988 and 1989 for performing roadmaster duties.
We also note that Hessinger billed the Township as per time
records for varied activities which are clearly not related to the
position of a working township employee but rather to the position
of elected township supervisor. We find these activities which are
delineated in Fact Finding 84 to be administrative duties.
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 62
As to the matter of the annual convention of PSATS, Hessinger
and Wasiela were authorized delegates to the yearly conventions.
For the years 1988 and 1989, Hessinger received double payment for
attending the convention consisting of the yearly salary of
roadmaster plus payment at the hourly rate for a township employee
laborer.
Further, for the 1990 PSATS Convention, Hessinger as an
authorized delegate attended and was only paid at the hourly rate
set by the auditors for working township employees.
Finally, Hessinger received payment for overtime work at a
rate of 150% of the yearly hourly rate set by the auditors. The
township board of auditors did authorize overtime under certain
circumstances, such as in emergency situations for the years 1991
through 1993. However, the auditors did not raise the rate for
overtime but merely authorized the working of additional hours
beyond the standard work day or week at the authorized flat rate
with the exception of the 1992 year wherein they approved overtime
at time and one half. The particulars of the overtime which
Hessinger received are delineated in Fact Finding 82.
Having highlighted the facts and the issues, we preliminarily
must address a motion filed by Hessinger. Hessinger has filed a
Motion to Terminate and Dismiss Investigation wherein the following
five issues are raised: sunset, compliance with time deadlines of
Act 9 of 1989, hearing in Pittsburgh, due process and laches.
Sunset is no longer a viable issue since the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court declared that Act unconstitutional in West Shore
School District v. Pa. LRB, _ Pa. , 626 A.2d 1131 (1993).
Without the Sunset Act in existence, any argument about the
application of that Act fails. See also Zontek et al v. SEA,, filed
in Pennsylvania Supreme Court at 82 M.D. 1992 on February 15, 1994.
As to due process, there has been notice and an opportunity to
be heard at the hearing which occurred in Pittsburgh. See Baker v.
HRC, 507 Pa. 325, 489 A.2d 1354 (1985).
As to the matter of a hearing in Pittsburgh, that and other
issues were raised in John Doe 1 and 2 v. SEC filed by Hessinger
and Wasiela in Commonwealth Court at 120 M.D. 1994. Said issue
were resolved by Order dated March 10, 1994 by Senior Judge Della
Porta.
Regarding laches there has not been a showing of an
inexcusable delay by the Investigative Division which resulted in
prejudice or injury to Hessinger. See Loverich v. Warner Co., 118
F.2d 690 (1940), cert. den. 313 U.S. 577 (1940); Bianco v. Pullo,
195 Pa. Super 623, 171 A.2d 620 (1961); Rebottini et al v. SEC, _
Pa. Commw. Ct. _ , 634 A.2d 743 (1993).
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 63
The main thrust of the Motion is developed as to the Act 9
time deadlines and is based upon the general premise that these
time deadlines relate back and have application to those actions
which are governed by Act 170 of 1978. The theory is that when Act
9 of 1989 amended and added Act 170 of 1978, the time constraints
of Act 9 applied to the prior Act, Act 170 of 1978. The argument
is spurious for two reasons. First, Act 9, as quoted above,
directs that it has no application to violations committed prior to
the effective date of Act 9 and the prior law, Act 170 of 1978,
continues in effect as if Act 9 were not in force. Thus, the clear
and explicit language of Act 9 defeats argument. Second, such
a construction would result in an ex post facto application.
Therefore, since the arguments in the Motion have no validity,
we deny the Motion.
The first question we must address in applying the Ethics Law
concerns the appropriate application of Act 170 of 1978 or Act 9 of
1989 as to the foregoing chronology of events which have a time
span between 1988 and 1993. We are concerned about the amendatory
language.of Section 9 of Act 9 of 1989 vis -a -vis any ex post facto
application to Act 170 of 1978 relative to violations committed
prior to the effective date of the Act. Although such a decision
may be extremely difficult in cases on the issue of whether any
element of the violation occurred prior to the effective date of
Act 9 of 1989, such is not the case in the instant matter for the
following reason. In January of each year, a second class township
will have a reorganizational meeting of the supervisors (and
auditors) wherein any new officials will take office followed by
appointments to working township employee positions with an hourly
rate as set by the auditors. The supervisors will operate
accordingly during the remainder of that particular year. Hence,
in this case, it is clear that the activities in 1988 and 1989 were
governed by Act 170 of 1978 while the activities for the years 1990
and following are governed by Act 9 of 1989.
In determining whether the actions of Hessinger violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, we must review the pertinent
provisions of the Second Class Township Code. Although we do not
have jurisdiction to make rulings under the Second Class Township
Code, it is necessary to review those provisions of law in order to
make a determination as to whether, the financial gain was
compensation other than provided for by law under Section 3(a) of
Act 170 of 1978 or a private pecuniary benefit under Act 9 of 1989.
The Second Class Township Code, as amended, provides that
township supervisors shall receive the following compensation:
Compensation of Supervisors -- Supervisors may
receive from the general township fund, as compensation,
an amount fixed by ordinance not in excess of the
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 65
The duties that a supervisor is responsible for performing are
regulated by statute. The compensation to be paid for a supervisor
who is not otherwise employed by the township is strictly regulated
by the Second Class Township Code. A supervisor may only receive
compensation for supervisor meetings regarding the transaction of
township business. The type of meeting for which a township
supervisor may be compensated must be one at which official
township business is transacted. Additionally, the Second Class
Township Code provides for compensation at the specific meetings as
outlined in 565512 above. The Code does not appear to permit the
compensation of a township supervisor for attending other types of
meetings or for performing the administrative functions of his
office. Any such other compensation must be earned as part of the
services performed while serving in one of the statutorily
authorized positions. Thus, if township supervisors were to award
to themselves compensation for attendance at meetings that are not
official township meetings of the board of supervisors as per
Section 515 of the Code, or for performing duties not authorized by
law, such would violate the provisions of the State Ethics Law as
such payments would not be authorized in law. The above
interpretation of the Second Class Township Code is a view that has
also been expressed by PSATS which specifically indicated that
supervisors may not be compensated for meetings with engineers,
solicitors, planning commissions, authorities, or recreation
boards. See, Township News, May, 1985, Page 66. In the Township
News, June, 1993, page 90, it is stated that supervisors may not be
compensated for time spent responding to citizen concerns, phone
calls, and such administrative functions. Further, a supervisor -
employee may not use "employee" time to deal with official
supervisory duties on non - road - related activities.
The Second Class Township Code sets forth clearly when
supervisors may receive compensation other than as set forth above.
Generally, a township supervisor may be employed by the township as
a roadmaster, laborer, or secretary /treasurer. 53 P.S. S65410.
The compensation to be paid to supervisors working in such
positions is to be fixed by the township board of auditors. 53
P.S. 5565515, 65531, 65540. Township supervisors may not receive
any other compensation except as provided above. In Coltar v.
Warminister Township, 8 Pa. Commw. Ct. 163, 302 A.2d 859 (1973),
the Commonwealth Court held that a second class township supervisor
may not appoint himself to positions other than those set forth in
the Township Code (roadmaser, laborer, or secretary /treasurer),
and receive compensation therefore. See also, Conard v. Exeter
Township, 27 D &C.3d 253 (Berks 1983). It is clear, therefore, that
the duties for which a township supervisor may be compensated are
strictly regulated by the Second Class Township Code, and when
performing in the positions set forth in the Code, the supervisor's
compensation must be specifically set forth by the township board
of auditors.
Messinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 66
The Second Class Township Code, as amended, provides as
follows regarding the expenses and mileage and compensation a
township supervisor may receive -for attending the PSATS convention:
The expenses allowed the delegates attending the annual
meeting shall be limited to the registration fee, mileage for use of
a personal vehicle or reimbursement of actual transportation expense
going to and returning from such meeting plus all other actual
expenses that the township board of supervisors may have agreed to
pay. Every delegate attending the annual meeting shall submit to
the township board of supervisors an itemized account of expenses
incurred thereat. The township board of supervisors may authorize
township employees to be compensated at their regular employee rate
during their attendance at the annual meeting. No delegate shall
receive expenses for more than four days including the time employed
in traveling thereto and therefrom, together with mileage going to
and returning from such meeting.
53 P.S. 65612.
We will now consider seriatim the above five issues in the
context of the conduct of Hessinger to determine whether the
payments he received were authorized in law so as to be in
compliance with Sections 3(a) of the Ethics Law, Act 170 of 1978
and Act 9 of 1989.
In applying the above provisions of law to the instant matter,
we find that Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law as
to all of the above issues, except as to the compensation received
for attending the 1990 PSATS Convention and for the overtime
received in 1992. Hessinger used the authority of public office to
obtain payments which constitute a private pecuniary benefit and a
financial gain other than compensation provided by law. The
foregoing payments received by Hessinger were not authorized under
the Second Class Township Code. The lack of any authorization in
law for the payments Hessinger received as to the five areas in
issue is clear.
As to the first issue of the township paid legal fees and
expenses as to the lawsuit filed by the supervisors against the
auditors regarding the hourly rate which was set for the
supervisors as township employees, it is clear that such legal
representation was not on behalf of the three supervisors as
elected public officials but as township employees. The foregoing
statement is significant because litigation involving the
supervisors acting in their official capacity as elected public
officials, with no element of wrongdoing, warrants representation
at township expense. See Kuhlman, Order 752. See also Silver v.
Davis, 493 Pa. 50, 425 A.2d 359 (1981). However, when a supervisor
is not acting in the capacity of elected public official but is in
fact acting as a township employee to challenge the hourly pay rate
set by the auditors, such action is private in nature and not
entitled to paid township legal representation unless expressly
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 67
ordered by Court. The Erie Common Pleas Court did order that the
legal fees of the township auditors be paid in the amount of
$5,488.00. See Synoski v. Hazle Township, i Pa. Commw. Ct. ,
500 A.2d 1282 (1985). See Szvmanowski, Opinion 87 -002; Borland,
Order 785 -R; Sanders, Order 786 -R. See also In re: Roofner's
Appeal, 81 Pa. Super 482 (1923).
Since the supervisors in this case obtained township paid
legal representation to challenge the hourly rate of wages as
township employees, such action was a use of office to obtain a
financial gain other than compensation provided by law. Therefore,
the action taken by Hessinger to institute the lawsuit in 1989 in
Erie Common. Pleas Court violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978.
Haaf, Order 914.
After the decision of the Erie Common Pleas Court was issued
in December, 1989 and post trial notices were filed, the
supervisors then took another separate action to appeal that
decision to Commonwealth Court. That appeal would not have been
filed but for the action of the supervisors. Hessinger voted in
favor of the motion on January 26, 1990 to authorize the filing of
that appeal. Once again, the township paid the legal expenses and
fees incurred in prosecuting that appeal before Commonwealth Court
which affirmed the decision of the Erie Common Pleas Court. The
use of authority of office by Hessinger resulted in a pecuniary
benefit to the extent that Hessinger had no out of pocket expenses
as to the appellate ligation which were paid by the township. The
pecuniary benefit was private in that the action, as noted above,
involved the supervisors in a private capacity challenging their
wages as township employees. The private pecuniary benefit
received by Hessinger and the other two supervisors amounted to
$5,200.41. One third of that amount or $1,733.47 was received by
Hessinger. Such action constituted a violation of Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989.
The second issue concerns the receipt by Hessinger of double
pay, both as a roadmaster for which a yearly salary was received
and also as a laborer paid at an hourly rate, for performing road
related work. In the years 1988 and 1989 Hessinger received a
yearly roadmaster salary plus an hourly rate for working as a
laborer. Fact Finding 85 reflects that Hessinger performed road
related duties for which both the roadmaster salary and laborer
hourly rate was received for performing ttie same duties. The
turning in of the time cards and acceptance of the double payment
by Hessinger was a use of office to obtain a financial gain. The
said financial gain was compensation other than provided by law
because the auditors did not authorize the supervisors to receive
compensation twice as working township employees. What the
auditors authorized was a yearly salary for roadmaster work and an
hourly rate for laborer work which by definition is separate from
roadmaster related work. Obviously, if a working supervisor would
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 68
perform laborer work which was road related, he could not receive
an hourly rate of pay since he would be receiving his yearly salary
as roadmaster for such work. In this case, Fact Finding 85
reflects the instances where Hessinger received and accepted
payment at an hourly rate for roadmaster work which was not
authorized by the auditors; such compensation was other than
provided by law. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of
1978 in receiving double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as an
hourly paid laborer for performing road related work. Cohen, Order
610 -R. The amount of financial gain received by Messinger in the
years 1988 and 1989 amounted to $307.30.
The third matter involves the payments received by Hessinger
as to administrative supervisor duties. There is a fundamental
distinction which exists between a township supervisor in the
capacity as an elected public official and as a paid township
employee. The compensation which the supervisor as elected
official receives is limited by Section 515 of the Township Code,
supra. As noted above, any legislative or administrative duties
are encompassed within the duties of elected supervisor for which
the supervisor may not receive any additional compensation from
that authorized in Section 515. As a working township employee,
the supervisor may be compensated at the hourly rate or salary set
by the auditors for performing duties which are employee related.
The above distinction between the dual roles of the supervisor
is delineated in the Township Code and in decisional law as noted
above. In fact, even PSATS acknowledges that a supervisor may not
claim a pecuniary gain as a township employee for administrative
duties of an elected township supervisor. The Pennsylvania
Township News has provided the following commentary:
"However, it is not appropriate for a supervisor employed
as a roadmaster to use "employee" time to receive or
respond to official supervisory duties on non -road-
related activities.
supra.
Supervisors may not be compensated as employees for
duties related to their elected role and may only be
compensated for their elected duties as outlined in
Section 515 of the Township Code."
•
Encompassed within such administrative duties for which a
supervisor may not be compensated are attending various board and
commission meetings and spending time on local agency business.
Pennsylvania Township News, May, 1993 at 82 and April, 1994 at 78.
It is not a question of the obligations of the supervisors or
the delegation of duties by the supervisors to themselves as
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 69
township employees but rather a question of what is allowable as
compensation to supervisors as working township employees. We
expressly reject the view that the duties of a supervisor are
identical to that of a roadmaster. Further, a supervisor as a
township employee may only be compensated for working as a
superintendent, secretary /treasurer, laborer or roadmaster and
nothing else.
Although the law is well established that supervisors may not
receive compensation as a township employee for performing such
administrative functions, that is precisely what Hessinger did in
this case. Matters such as consulting with the solicitor or
engineer, meetings with constituents, attending meetings of other
municipal bodies, and similar matters are administrative functions.
All of the administrative functions, encompassed within the duty-of
an elected public official for which Hessinger received
compensation as a township employee, are enumerated in Fact Finding
84.
Therefore, Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
for the years 1990 through 1993 when he received compensation as a
township employee for performing administrative duties which
payments were not authorized in law in that such duties were
encompassed within the functions of elected township supervisor.
Henderson, Order 818. On this issue, the private pecuniary benefit
realized by Hessinger in violation of Act 9 of 1989 was $9,375.16.
See Fact Finding 84.
Parenthetically, as to the time records which are in some
instances difficult to discern, we have attempted to resolve any
questions in favor of Hessinger. For example, as to the time
allotments for administrative activities performed, a proffered
lengthier time was rejected while a proffered shorter time was
accepted.
The fourth issue concerns attendance at the annual PSATS
conventions for which Hessinger received payment. As quoted above,
Section 612 of the Township Code does empower the board of
supervisors to authorize township employees to be compensated at
their regular employee rate during attendance at the PSATS
convention. However, what occurred in this case was that Hessinger
in the years 1988 and 1989 was doubly-compensated for attending the
• convention in that he received his annual salary as a roadmaster
plus the hourly rate for a township laborer. Fact Finding 83.
Such double compensation was not authorized in Section 612 of the
Township Code and hence was compensation other than authorized by
law; consequently, the receipt of such compensation was violative
of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978. Mathis, Order 911. On this
issue, the financial gain received by Hessinger in violation of
Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 amounted to $376.00. See Fact
Finding 83.
Hessincer, 89 -002 -C
Page 70
However, as to Hessinger, there was no violation of Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for attending the PSATS convention in 1990 in
that Hessinger was singularly paid at the hourly rate authorized
for a working township employee. Although it is true that
Hessinger would not have been working for the township at the time
of the PSATS convention, given his private employment, Section 612
sets no such condition. Accordingly, Messinger received a
pecuniary benefit which was authorized for his attendance at the
1990 convention and no violation of the Ethics Law occurred for
that year's attendance.
The fifth issue before us involves the matter of overtime
received by Hessinger. The issue is not whether the auditors did
or did not authorize overtime in certain years but rather what was
the hourly wage rate and the overtime rate when and if set by the
auditors. From the minutes of the meetings of the board of
auditors, it is clear that in the years 1991 and 1993 the auditors
took action to authorize overtime which, according to the auditors,
meant that the supervisors, as township employees, could receive
compensation at an hourly rate beyond a normal work day or normal
work week under certain conditions. Parenthetically, we raise
question about limitations imposed by auditors as to the number of
hours worked; we have no such concerns about auditors setting
limitations on the hourly rate of pay. The auditors did not set a
different rate for overtime, such as time and a half or double
tune, for 1991 and 1993; hence the overtime rate for these two
years was at the flat rate. The auditors did authorize a rate of
overtime in the 1992 calendar year at time and one half.
This is not an issue of what the Board of Supervisors
established in the Personnel Code for other township employees but
of what the auditors authorized as a rate of pay for the
supervisors as working township employees.. However, except for the
1992 year, what Hessinger did was to compensate himself at a rate
of one and one half the rate authorized by the auditors. Since
such a rate was not authorized by the auditors, as evidenced in the
minutes, the receipt and acceptance by Hessinger of "overtime" at
an unauthorized higher hourly rate of pay was contrary to law and
in violation of the Ethics Law. In particular Hessinger violated
Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 for receiving "overtime" at a rate
of one and one half the rate set by the auditors for the years 1988
and 1989 and violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for similarly
receiving "overtime" at that higher unauthorized rate for 1990,
1991 and 1993. Smeal, Order 812. No violation occurred as to the
1992 year since the auditors did authorize overtime at a rate of
time and a half. On this issue, the financial gain received by
Hessinger in violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 amounted
to $96.15; the private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
violation of Act 9 of 1989 amounted to $137.38. Fact Finding 82.
The minutes of the board of auditors rather than the
Hessinaer, 89 -002 -C
Page 71
recollection or commentary of the auditors is the best evidence of
the hourly pay rate which was approved by the passage of motions by
the auditors. As noted above, compensation and in particular
overtime is not a question of authorizing hours of work but is a
question of an authorized rate as approved by the board of
auditors. Any other result leads to the conclusion that elected
supervisors may set their own compensation as working township
employees which is contrary to the Second Class Township Code, the
Ethics Law and the long standing common law that an elected public
official may not set his own compensation.
Having dealt with the above five issues, we will now consider
the issue of restitution. For cases or issues that are controlled
by Act 170 of 1978, there is currently a question as to whether the
Commission has the power to impose restitution. Commonwealth Court
in Rebottini et al v. SEC, supra, held that this Commission has no
statutory power to impose restitution under Act 170 of 1978. A
petition for allocatur from that decision is currently pending in
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Of course, under Act 9 of 1989,
the statutory authorization for restitution is clear and explicit.
65 P.S. 407(13).
Given the current uncertainty as to the status of restitution
power under Act 170 of 1978 and considering the totality of the
facts and circumstances of this case, we will exercise our
discretion and not impose restitution as to these violations which
occurred under Act 170 of 1978 but will impose restitution for
those violations that are governed by Act 9 of 1989. In this
regard, we note that the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of
Erie County which was issued in December 29, 1989 specifically put
the supervisors on notice so as not to "confuse the duties of a
supervisor with those of a roadmaster" "when billing their hours to
the township ", as well as issues of submitting "a number of
unrecorded hours for which they now seek to be paid the hourly wage
... ". Id. at 4. The foregoing decision was appealed to
Commonwealth Court which affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Although intent is not a prerequisite to establishing a
violation of the Ethics Law to impose restitution, there is no
escaping the fact that Hessinger knew as of December 29, 1989 that
he could not bill as a township employee for duties encompassed
within the positions of elected township supervisor and that he
could not bill for time to which he was not entitled; however, this
is precisely what Hessinger did. Such action was contrary to the
Township Code, the Common Pleas decision as affirmed by
Commonwealth Court and for our purpose, the Ethics Law. We
therefore conclude that restitution of the private pecuniary
benefit received by Hessinger from January 1990 forward is
appropriate and warranted under the facts of the case.
Hessinger is ordered to make timely restitution through this
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 72
Commission payable to the order of Summit Township in the amount of
$11,246.01. Failure to make restitution will result the
institution of an order enforcement action.
IV. OC NCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Messinger, as a Summit Township Supervisor, is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 as added
and amended by Act 9 of 1989.
2. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he
received overtime at the rate of 150% of the hourly rate set
by the township auditors in the calendar year 1988 and 1989.
3. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he
received overtime at the rate of 150% of the hourly rate set
by the township auditors in the calendar year 1990, 1991 and
1993.
a. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger
as to overtime at a rate, which was 50% higher then
the rate set by the auditors, was $108.80 in 1990,
$15.60 in 1991, and $12.98 in 1993 with a total for
the three years of $137.38.
4. Hessinger did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to
overtime at a rate of time and one half in 1992 which was
approved by the township auditors.
5. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he
received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a paid
laborer at an hourly-rate for attending the PSATS's Convention
in 1988 and 1989.
6. Hessinger did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for
receiving compensation authorized by the township board of
supervisors limited to four days at the hourly rate as set by
the auditors for supervisor employees for attending the 1990
PSATS Convention.
7. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for receiving
payment, at the hourly rate set by the township board of
auditors for a working township employee, as to duties whigh
were encompassed within the functions of elected township
supervisors for the calendar years 1990 through 1993.
a. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1990 was $822.80.
b. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1991 was $1,952.70.
Hessinger, 89 -002 -C
Page 73
c. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1992 was $3,698.24.
d. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1993 was $2,901.42.
e. The total private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger
for the years 1990 through 1993 for being paid at an
hourly rate for performing administrative duties of
elected supervisor amounted to $9,375.16.
8. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 in 1988 and
1989 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster
and as a laborer at an hourly rate for performing road related
duties.
9. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he
acted to cause the filing of a lawsuit, with the legal fees
and expenses paid by the township, against the township
auditors to challenge the hourly rate set by the auditors for
the supervisors as working township employees.
10. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he acted
to cause the filing of an appeal, with the legal fees and
expenses paid by the township, to Commonwealth Court from the
decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on the
lawsuit filed by the supervisor to challenge the hourly rate
set by the auditors for the supervisors as working township
employees.
a. The private pecuniary benefit received by the supervisors
as to the Commonwealth Court appeal paid by the township
amounted to $5,200.41.
b. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger as
one of the three supervisors amounted to $1,733.47.
In Re:
Richard Hessinger = '' = ' Pike bocket: 89- 002-C
. Date Decided: 06/23/94
. Date Mailed: 06/30/94
ORDER NO. qgi
1. Hessinger, as a Summit Township Supervisor, violated Section
3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he. received overtime at the rate
of 150% of the hourly rate set by the township auditors in the
calendar year 1988 and 1989.
2. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he
received overtime at the rate of 150% of the hourly rate set
by the township auditors in the calendar year 1990, 1991 and
1993.
a. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger
as to overtime at a rate, which was 50% higher then
the rate set by the auditors, was $108.80 in 1990,
$15.60 in 1991, and $12.98 in 1993 with a total for
the three years of $137.38.
3. Hessinger did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to
overtime at a rate of time and one half in 1992 which was
approved by the township auditors.
4. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he
received double payment as a salaried roadmaster and as a paid
laborer at an hourly rate for attending the PSATS's Convention
in 1988 and 1989.
5. Hessinger did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for
receiving compensation authorized by the township board of
supervisors limited to four days at the hourly rate as set by
the auditors for supervisor employees for attending the 1990
PSATS Convention.
6. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 for receiving
payment, at the hourly rate set by the township board of
auditors for a working township employee, as to duties which
were encompassed within the functions of elected township
supervisors for the calendar years 1990 through 1993..
a. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1990 was $822 :80.
b. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1991 was $1,952.70.
c. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger in
1992 was $3,698.24.
d. The private pecuniary benef received by Hessinger in
1993 was $2,901.42.
e. The total private pecuniary benefit received by
for the years 1990 through 1993 for being paid at an
hourly rate for performing administrative duties of
elected supervisor amounted to $9,375.16.
7. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 in 1988 and
1989 when he received double payment as a salaried roadmaster
and as a laborer at an hourly rate for performing road related
duties.
8. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he
acted to cause the filing of a lawsuit, with the legal fees
and expenses paid by the township, against the township
auditors to challenge the hourly rate set by the auditors for
the supervisors as working township employees.
9. Hessinger violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he acted
to cause the filing of an appeal, with the legal fees and
expenses paid by the township, to Commonwealth Court from the
decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County on the
lawsuit filed by the supervisor to challenge the hourly rate
set by the auditors for the supervisors as working township
employees.
a .
The private pecuniary benefit received by the supervisors
as to the Commonwealth Court appeal paid by the township
amounted to $5,200.41.
b. The private pecuniary benefit received by Hessinger as
one of the three supervisors amounted to $1,733.47.
10. Hessinger is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this Order to submit restitution in the amount of
$11,246.01 to this Commission payable to the order of Summit
Township.
11. Failure to comply with Paragraph 10 will result in the
institution of an order enforcement proceedings.
•
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY, IR
Commissioner Austin M. Lee abstained as to the decision of this
matter.