HomeMy WebLinkAbout935 FritzBefore:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In Re: Jesse Fritz File Docket: 93- 080 -C2
Date Decided: 09/12/94
Date Mailed: 09/14/94
James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State
Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et seq. Written notice, of
the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the
investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon
completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by
the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was
deemed waived. The record is complete. This adjudication of the
Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual
Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and
Order.
This adjudication is final and will be made available as a
public document fifteen days after issuance. However,
reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of
this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission.
A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the
finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and
must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why
reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code
§21.29(b).
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
'with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §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. §409(e).
Fri, 93- 080 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Jesse Fritz, a public official /public employee, in his
capacity-as a Supervisor for Sugarloaf Township, Columbia County,
violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he
received excess compensation for attending annual conventions of
the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors in 1989,
1990, 1991 and 1992 and participated in approving payments of said
compensation.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
65 P.S. 6403(a).
II. FINDINGS:
1. Jesse Fritz served as a Sugarloaf Township Supervisor in
Columbia County, Pennsylvania, from 1977 to June, 1992.
a. Fritz was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from 1979
to December, 1990 and from August, 1991 to June, 1992.
2. During the period from January, 1977 through January, 1992,
Sugarloaf Township Supervisors were routinely appointed either
roadmaster or part -time laborers for the Township at annual
reorganization meetings.
a. Jesse Fritz never served as a roadmaster or part -time
laborer from 1977 to June, 1992.
b. He never served as an employee of the Township during the
period 1977 to June, 1992.
3. At the annual budget meetings in December, the Supervisors
approved proposed amounts to be spent on attendance at county
and state conventions during the following year.
4. Minutes of the Township Supervisors' meetings reflect no
approval for attendance of any persons at a state convention
during 1989 to 1992.
5. Jesse Fritz attended conventions of the Pennsylvania State
Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) from 1979 to 1992.
a. Fritz attended in his capacity as a Township Supervisor.
6. Fritz was the only Sugarloaf Township Supervisor to attend the
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 3
PSATS conventions from 1979 through 1992.
a. The other Supervisors had employment or personal
priorities.
7. Fritz attended PSATS Conventions as follows:
a. 1989: April 23 to April 26, 1989 at Hershey, PA.
b. 1990: April 22 to April 25, 1990 at Hershey, PA.
c. 1991: April 7 to April 10, 1991 at Hershey, PA.
d. 1992: April 5 to April 8, 1992 at Hershey, PA.
8. Fritz submitted for reimbursement expenses and wages to the
township for his attendance at annual PSATS Conventions.
YEAR MEALS LODGING MILEAGE WAGES TOTAL
a. 1989 $65.85 $137.37 $57.00 $456.25 $713.47
b. 1990 $59.51 $147.44 $65.50 $474.50 $746.95
c. 1991 $58.42 $ 38.93 $84.25 $558.00 $739.60
d. 1992 $65.73 $191.97 $74.25 $511.00 $842.95
9. The wages claimed by Fritz for reimbursement in Finding No. 8
were for the following hours:
a. 1989: 73 hrs. x $6.25/hr. = $ 456.25 (4/23/89 to 4/26/89)
b. 1990: 73 hrs. x $6.50 /hr. = $ 474.50 (4/22/90 to 4/25/90)
c. 1991: 72 hrs. x $7.75/hr. = $ 558.00 (4/7/91 to 4/10/91)
d. 1992: 73 hrs. x $7.00 /hr. = $ 511.00 (4/5/92 to 4/8/92)
$1999.75
10. The hourly wages claimed by Fritz in 1989, 1990 and 1992 of
Finding No. 9 were the wages approved by the Township Auditors
for a Supervisor serving in the position of Township laborer.
a. The hourly wages claimed in Finding No. 9c was the rate
set for a Township Supervisor serving as Roadmaster.
b. Fritz did not serve in either of those positions.
11. The hourly wages claimed by Fritz (See Finding No. 9) for
attendance at PSATS Conventions were from the time he departed
the Township until his return three days later.
12. Payments were made to Fritz from the Township General Fund:
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 4
Year Amount Check
a. 1989 $713.47 4306
b. 1990 $746.95 4538
c. 1991 $739.60 4744
d. 1992 $842.95 4927
13. None of the payments to Fritz in Finding No. 12 were listed in
the monthly bills to be paid at Township Supervisor's
meetings.
a. Fritz routinely made motions and voted to approve the
payment of bills.
b. As a Supervisor, Fritz had the authority to sign Township
checks.
14. Fritz signed check no. 4927 dated April 10, 1992 in the amount
of $842.95.
a. The payee on this Township check was Jesse E. Fritz.
b. This check was deposited on the date of issuance, April
10, 1992.
c. The Supervisor's meeting of April, 1992 was held on April
13, 1992.
d. The amount of $842.95 included $511.00 for hourly wages.
15. On October 3, 1993, the Township Auditors wrote Fritz
requesting repayment of the wages collected by Fritz for
attending the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 PSATS Conventions.
The letter provided as follows:
a. It has been brought to the attention of the Sugarloaf
Township Board of Auditors that only township supervisors
who work for the township may get reimbursed for their
hourly wages for attending the state convention if
authorized by the board of supervisors. Under Section
612 of the Township Code, non - employee supervisors may
• only reimbursed for their mileage, registration fees,
and other expenses, such as lodging and meals as decided
by the township.
b. After a careful review of information received from the
State Association of Township Supervisors and
consultation with the Sugarloaf Township Solicitor, Jack
Mihalik of James & Mihalik, we have determined that,
since you were not on the township payroll records as an
employee during the four years in question and there is
not record in the minutes of the township secretary to
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 5
indicate that you were hired as an employee, there is no
recourse but to request that the Sugarloaf Township
General Fund be reimbursed by you for the following
amounts:
April 23 thru 26, 1989, 73 hrs. 06.25 per hr. $456.25
April 22 " 25, 1990, 73 " (116.50 " 474.50
April 7 " 10, 1991, 72 " @7.75 558.00
April 5 " 8, 1992, 73 " 007.00 " " 551.00
Total Payments $2,039.75
c. Further review of the minutes of the township secretary
during the board of supervisors monthly meetings relative
to the four years involved failed to reveal any recording
of approval by the board for attendance of any person at
the State Convention.
d. The letter requested a reply by October 31, 1993.
16. Fritz did not reply and declined to reimburse the Township.
17. Former Supervisor Zane Hartman, who served from 1987 to
August, 1991, verbally approved Fritz's attendance at PSATS
Conventions.
a. He was uncertain as to whether he knew that Fritz was
receiving an hourly wage . from the Township beginning with
Fritz's departure and until his return from the
conventions.
18. Former Supervisor Barbara Niedzwiecki, who served from August,
1991 to December, 1993, verbally approved Fritz's attendance
at the PSATS convention of April, 1992.
a. At the time, she was not aware that Fritz received an
hourly wage from the Township beginning with his
departure and until his return from the convention.
19. Sugarloaf Township records reflect that Jesse Fritz filed
Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1979,
1980, 1991 [sic], 1982, 1983 and 1988.
a. These filings were made as a Township Supervisor or
candidate for Township Supervisor.
b. Fritz's filings reflect his occupation as self - employed.
c. Said filings for 1979 and 1983 reflect direct or indirect
sources of incomes from Amway Corporation, Ada, Michigan.
d. As of July 12, 1994, no filings by Fritz are recorded in
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 6
III. DISCUSSION:
Township records for the 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992
calendar years.
As a Supervisor for Sugarloaf Township, Columbia County, Jesse
Fritz, hereinafter Fritz, is a public official as that term is
defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. §402. 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 after the
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the
provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was
violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted in the allegations,
a public official /employee shall not engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989
as follows:
Section 2. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public official or public employee of
the authority of his office or employment or
any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for
the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a
member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict
of interest" does not include an action having
a de minimis economic impact or which affects
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 7
to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an
industry, occupation or other group which
includes the public official or public
employee, a member or his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402.
The issue before us is whether Fritz violated Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989, the conflict provision, by receiving excess
compensation for attending annual Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors (PSATS) Conventions in 1989 through 1992 and
by approving such compensation.
Fritz served as a Sugarloaf Township Supervisor from 1977 to
June 1992 and as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from 1979
through December, 1990 and from August, 1991 to June 1992. During
the period of Fritz's service on the Board, the Sugarloaf Township
Supervisors routinely appointed township roadmasters or part time
laborers at the annual reorganizational meetings. Fritz, however,
never served as a roadmaster or part time laborer. The Township
Board also approved proposed amounts at the annual budget meetings
for attendance at the PSATS Convention. The minutes of those
meetings reflect no approval for attendance of any particular
person at the PSATS Conventions for the years 1989 through 1992.
Fritz attended the PSATS conventions from 1979 through 1992;
the other Township Supervisors did not attend since they had
employment or personal priorities.
For the activity at the April, 1989 PSATS Convention, as to
which Act 9 of 1989 does not apply, and for the 1990, 1991 and 1992
Conventions, as to which Act 9 of 1989 does apply, Fritz submitted
reimbursement for expenses and wages for his attendance. Fact
Finding 8. As to the wages, Fritz submitted a claim for wages for
the years 1990 through 1992 totalling $1,543.50. Fact Finding 9b-
d. The hourly wages claimed by Fritz were based upon an hourly
rate for a township supervisor serving as a roadmaster or township
laborer. Fact Finding 10. In addition, Fritz claimed wages for 72
or 73 hours which was computed at the rate of 24 hours per day for
the three days of the PSATS conventions. Fact Finding 11.
•
As to the payments received by Fritz, Fritz routinely made
motions and voted to approve the payments of bills. In addition,
Fritz had the authority to sign and did in fact sign one Township
check made payable to himself.
On October 3, 1993 the Township Auditors wrote to Fritz
seeking repayment of the wages collected. The Auditors reasoned
that since Fritz was not a Township employee, he was not entitled
to such wages. Although the Auditors requested a reply by October
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 8
31, 1993, Fritz did not reply and did not reimburse the Township.
Former Supervisor Zane Hartman and Barbara Niedzwiecki have
stated that they approved Fritz's attendance at the PSATS
convention. Hartman gave a verbal approval for the 1989 through
1991 years and Niedzwiecki gave verbal approval for the 1992 year.
Lastly, the records of Sugarloaf Township reflect that Fritz
has not filed Financial interest Statements (FIS) for the 1989,
1990 and 1992 year. Township records do reflect that he filed for
the calendar years 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1988. The record is
unclear as to whether Fritz filed for the 1991 year.
In determining whether the action of Fritz 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 interpret the provisions of the Second Class
Township Code, it is necessary to review those provisions of law in
order to make a determination as to whether the pecuniary benefit
received was private as unauthorized by law.
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.
In applying the above provisions of law to the instant matter,
we find that Fritz violated Section 3 (a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the
receipt of wages for attending the 1990 through 1992 PSATS
Conventions. Fritz used the authority of public office to obtain
$1,543.50 in wages which constitute a pecuniary benefit. The
foregoing compensation received by Fritz was not authorized under
the Second Class Township Code. Two supervisors gave approvals for
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 9
Fritz to attend the PSATS conventions but they did not, nor could
not, approve wages for attending the conventions since Fritz was
not a working township employee. Hence the pecuniary benefit
received_was private. Hessinaer, Order 931. Accordingly, Fritz is
ordered to make timely restitution through this Commission payable
to the order of Sugarloaf Township in the amount of $1,543.50.
Failure to make restitution will result in a directive of the
Commission to institute an order enforcement action. We find no
violation by Fritz as to the receipt of wages for the 1989 PSATS
Convention for the reason that such activity predated Act 9 of
1989.
We also find that Fritz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
regarding his participation in approving payments of his own
compensation. The record does reflect that Fritz made motions and
voted to approve payments of bills to himself; in one case, Fritz
signed the check which was made payable to himself. Such actions
are a use of authority of office. See Juliante, Order 809. Such
uses of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit
to Fritz consisting of the receipt of wages which were not
authorized in law; hence such wages were a private pecuniary
benefit. Weaver, Order 920.
As to the matter of the Financial Interest Statements, it is
clear from the record that Fritz did not file FIS's for the
calendar years 1989, 1990 and 1992. In light of the above, we
accordingly direct Fritz to file FIS's for those years.
Parenthetically, the record is unclear as to whether Fritz filed
for the calendar year 1991. See fact Finding 19. As to that year,
we are limited by the record before us and on that basis we will
give Fritz the benefit of the doubt and conclude that a 1991 PIS
was filed by him.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Jesse Fritz as a Sugarloaf Township Supervisor is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Fritz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 by receiving a
private pecuniary benefit consisting of the wages for
attending 1990 through 1992 PSATS conventions which wages were
not authorized in law.
3. The private pecuniary benefit received by Fritz for collecting
wages for the 1990 through 1992 PSATS conventions was
$1,543.50.
4. Fritz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 by using the
authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for
himself in approving his on compensation.
Fritz, 93- 080 -C2
Page 10
5. Fritz did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding
the receipt of wages for attending the 1989 PSATS convention
in that such activity predated Act 9 of 1989.
In Re: Jesse Fritz
ORDER PTO. 935
File Docket: 93- 080 -C2
Date Decided: 09/12/94
Date Mailed: 09/14/94
1. Jesse Fritz as a Sugarloaf Township Supervisor violated
Section 3 (a) of Act 9 of 1989 by receiving a private pecuniary
benefit consisting of the wages for attending 1990 through
1992 PSATS conventions which wages were not authorized in law.
2. The private pecuniary benefit received by Fritz for collecting
wages for the 1990 through 1992 PSATS conventions was
$1,543.50.
3. Fritz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 by using the
authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for
himself in approving his own compensation.
4. Fritz did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding
the receipt of wages for attending the 1989 PSATS convention
in that such activity predated Act 9 of 1989.
5. Fritz is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this order to make restitution in the amount of
$1,543.50 to this Commission payable to the order of Sugarloaf
Township.
6. Fritz is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this order to file Financial Interest Statements
for the 1989, 1990 and 1992 calendar years.
7. Failure to comply with paragraphs 5 and 6 will result in the
directive of this Commission to institute order enforcement
proceedings.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HO IR