HomeMy WebLinkAbout951 ShetlerIn Re: Dio M. Shetier
Before:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 93- 047 -C2
Date Decided: 12/15/94
Date Mailed: 12/27/94
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
conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the
State Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq.
Written notice of the specific allegation(s) was served at the
commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued
and served upon completion of the investigation which constituted
the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was not
filed and a hearing was waived. A consent agreement was submitted
by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was
subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is
hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings
of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order.
This adjudication is final and will be made available as a
public document fifteen days after issuance. However,
reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of
this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission.
A request for reconsideration 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). Any person who violates
confidentiality of the Ethics Law 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). Confidentiality does not
preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Dio M. Shetler, a Supervisor for Anthony Township,
Montour County violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9
of 1989) when he purchased a private health and accident insurance
policy which was paid for with public funds and when he
participated in approving payments of said premiums; and when his
company contracted with the township to provide heavy equipment
without an open and public process.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
II. FINDINGS:
(f) No public official or public
employee or his spouse or child or any
business in which the person or his spouse or
child is associated shall enter into any
contract valued at $500 or more with the
governmental body with which the public
official or public employee is associated or
any subcontract valued at $500 or more with
any person who has been awarded a contract
with the governmental body with which the
public official or public employee is
associated, unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process,
including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered
and contracts awarded. In such a case, the
public official or public employee shall not
have any supervisory or overall responsibility
for the implementation or administration of
the contract. Any contract or subcontract
made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction
if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the
making of the contract or subcontract. 65
P.S. §§403(a), (f) .
1. Dio Shetler has served as
Township, Montour County,
a. He has also served as
1983.
a Township Supervisor for Anthony
Pennsylvania since January, 1983.
Township Roadmaster since January,
2. Shetler was annually appointed Roadmaster at reorganization
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 3
meetings of the Anthony Township Board of Supervisors.
3. Shetler's hours worked as roadmaster are on a part -time basis.
a. His duties consist of working on the roads repairing
equipment as well as directing a part -time road crew.
b. The other two township supervisors also work on the roads
on a part -time basis.
4. Anthony Township does not employ full -time employees to work
on township roads.
a. The township employs part -time road workers on an as-
needed basis for snow removal and road repair projects.
5. The Anthony Township Board of Auditors have set compensation
for supervisors employed by the township as follows:
a. 2/27/92
b. 2/22/93
c. 1/11/94'
- Roadmaster - $8.50 /hour
Supervisor - $8.15 /hour
Roadmaster - $8.50 /hour
Supervisor - $8.15 /hour
- All supervisors - $8.50 /hour
6. During the January 7, 1992 auditor's meeting, Supervisor Dio
Shetler requested a $.50 /hour pay increase for supervisors and
some type of health insurance for supervisors.
a. The auditors deferred action.
7. At the January 4, 1993 meeting of the Anthony Township
Supervisors the following action was taken:
The board of supervisors set a policy for payment of group
medical insurance for all employees and family that qualified.
Employees must average 14 or more hours work per week or more
in the prior year to be eligible. Bills from the employees
present insurance carriers will be acce¢ted. Motion by Dio
Shetler and seconded by Jeffrey Bieber. Jack Kirkner
abstained from voting and the other two members voted in favor
of the motion.
8. None of Anthony Township's part -time employees worked an
average of fourteen (14) hours per week in the prior year to
qualify for insurance coverage.
9. The members of the board of supervisors were the only
employees who qualified for medical insurance coverage.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 4
10. Beginning in January
approved , , 1993, the Anthony Township Supervisors
payments of premiums for the medical insurance of
Supervisors Dio Shetler and Jeffrey Bieber.
a. Supervisor Willard Kirkner did not accept payment of his
medical insurance premiums by the township.
11. Supervisor Shetler was
Cross /Pennsylvania Blue Shield 1touPolicy b No. 19 301241. Blue
a. This coverage is not part of a township group plan.
1 2. Beginning in January, 1994, Shetler switched his coverage a to
the Pennsylvania Farmers Service Union to Customer No.
1933010.
13. Supervisor Jeffrey Bieber was insured by the Geisinger Health
Plan from January, 1993 through April, 1993 at a monthly
premiums of $270.38.
a. Coverage was switched to the Pennsylvania Grange Service
effective July 1, 1993 at quarterly premiums of
$1,012.40.
14. Beginning on January 4, 1993, Anthony Township began making
payments for Shetler's medical insurance premiums as follows:
a. 1993:
DATE
01/04/93
03/31/93
06/15/93
09/15/93
PAYEE
Capital Blue Cross
Capital Blue Cross
Capital Blue Cross
Capital Blue Cross
CHECK NO
23
2370
2420
2454
AMOUNT
$1,238.10
$1,238.10
$1,238.10
$1,2 3 8.10
$4,952.40
b. 1994:
01/19/94 PA Farmers Union Service 2536 $ 324.14
15. Total paid by the township for Shetler's medical coverage:
1993: $4,952.40
1994: $ 324.14 (1 month)
$5,276.54
16. All of the invoices for Shetler's premiums were approved by
the board of supervisors at regular meetings.
a. Shetler participated in approving payments of those
bills.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 5
17. At the February 15
of Auditors, the
Willard Kirkner's
to accept health
other supervisors
a .
, 1993 meeting of the Anthony Township Board
auditors discussed increasing Supervisor
salary by $1.00 /hour in lieu of his decline
insurance that was being receiving by the
No motion was made or approved regarding this item.
18. In July, 1993, a township resident questioned the legality of
the supervisors insurance plan and whether a township
supervisor could have premiums for his medical insurance paid
by the township.
a. The resident quoted the Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors' March 1993 publication of
Pennsylvania Township News which advised that the Second
Class Township Code authorizes township supervisors to
participate in township group medical programs.
Supervisors are not authorized to have individual medical
insurance policies paid for by the township.
b. The supervisors did not respond to this question.
19. At the August 3, 1993 auditors meeting, Larry Flora, Chairman
of the Board of Auditors, reported that expenditures for
private medical insurance would not be approved.
a. Flora advised that he checked with the Department of
Community Affairs and that the Geisinger Health Plan for
Supervisor Bieber and Blue Cross /Blue Shield Plan for
Shetler will not be approved.
b. Flora reported that payments were improper and would be
surcharged.
20. On August 13, 1993, Larry Flora, in his capacity as Chairman
of the Board of Auditors, wrote to Richard Brittain, Anthony
Township Solicitor requesting a written opinion regarding
medical insurance for township supervisors as follows:
a. The Supervisors have cited the SECOND CLASS TOWNSHIP
CODE, ARTICLE V, TOWNSHIP OFFICERS, (b) Township
Supervisors, Township Superintendent, and Roadmasters,
Section 515. Compensation of Supervisors (b)(7)(c)(1)
Cumulative Supplement #4 as criteria for their
qualification for Medical Insurance. Do the Supervisors
qualify for insurance per this Section?
b. The Supervisors have cited the SECOND CLASS TOWNSHIP
CODE, ARTICLE VII, GENERAL POWERS, Section 702.,
Supervisors to Exercise Powers, XIII. Insurance. D.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 6
Cumulative Supplement #4 as the criteria to direct
payment of Health Insurance Policies. Do the Township
Supervisors have the authority to authorize payment for
two (2) different Health Insurance Policies (both
policies are group policies obtained by the supervisors
prior to entering Fiscal Year 1993 when payment of these
policies were authorized?
21. In a written opinion dated September 8, 1993, Solicitor
Richard Brittain responded to the auditors as follows:
a. The supervisors qualify for medical insurance coverage
under the Second Class Township Code.
b. This applies to full -time or part -time working
supervisors.
c. Also supervisors who may not work other than performing
administrative duties and attending meetings are
eligible.
d. Auditor approval is not required.
e. Payment of the supervisor's medical insurance premiums is
not considered to be a form of compensation.
f. The issue of the supervisors authorizing payment for two
different health insurance policies is a complex
question.
The supervisors can authorize payment of premiums for two
separate medical insurance policies.
(1) Payments are made by the township directly to the
medical insurance company.
(2) The township incurred no loss as a result of this
practice of paying medical insurance premiums.
22. At the September 13, 1993 meeting of the Anthony Township
Supervisors, the following action was taken regarding medical
insurance for township supervisors:
a. Motion by Shetler to direct the secretary - treasurer to
determine the difference in cost between the premiums of
Chairman Bieber's medical insurance policy and Supervisor
Shetler's medical insurance policy and to develop a
schedule of repayment to the township for the amount
determined. Motion seconded by Kirkner and carried by a
3 to 0 vote.
g-
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 7
23. Shetler reimbursed Anthony Township in an amount of $1,135.56
for insurance premiums.
a. This represents the difference between the amount paid
for Shetier's medical insurance and the amount paid for
Bieber's insurance.
24. Total expended by Anthony Township for medical insurance
premiums for Dio Shetler from January 1, 1993 through January,
1994:
a. $5,276.54
$1,135.56
$4,140.98
25. Anthony Township contracted with Carol Construction Company
for the rental of a John Deere loader in August, 1991.
26. Carol Construction is named after Carol Shetler, the wife of
Supervisor Dio Shetler.
a. The loader which was leased, a John Deere 555, is owned
by Supervisor Dio Shetler.
b. Carol Construction has been owned by Dio Shetler and his
wife, Carol, since at least mid -1990.
27. Carol Construction and Supervisor Shetler share the same
address, R.D. 1, Box 251, Turbotville, Pennsylvania, 17772.
28. Records of Anthony Township confirm that Carol Construction
submitted an invoice dated October 14, 1991 for a John Deere
Loader for 79 hours at $50.00 /hour totalling $3,950.00.
29. On October 25, 1991, the township issued check no. 441 to
Carol Construction in the amount of $3,950.00.
a. This check was approved by the board of supervisors at
the October, 1991 public meeting.
b. Shetler was present at this meeting.
30. The township did not advertise or request formal bids on the
rental of this John Deere 555 loader.
a. The supervisors assert that quotes were requested by the
supervisors.
b. No records exist of these quotes.
c. The purpose of seeking bids was to widen a township road
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 8
which was a bus route.
31. No discussion by the supervisors with regard to this contract
is reflected in the minutes of the supervisor's meetings in
August and September, 1991.
a. The other supervisors contacted Shetler about providing
a bid for the loader.
b. The supervisors informally agreed
from Carol Construction due to the
and no need for the larger loader.
32. Shetler asserts that his rental fee
normally charged for such a service.
33. Dale Sellers, a general contractor, submitted a telephone
quote to Supervisor Shetler for the rental of a loader.
a. The quote was for a FL14 -B loader at a rate of $65.00/
hour.
to lease the loader
lower per hour cost
was below the rate
b. The FL14 -B loader has a clearing range of two and three -
quarters yards.
c. The John Deere 555 loader has a clearing range of one and
one -half yards.
34. An audit conducted by the Pennsylvania Auditor General's
Bureau of County Audits of the Anthony Township Liquid Fuels
Fund for the period 1990 through December 31, 1991 resulted in
a finding that the contract with Carol Construction was a
related party transaction.
a.. The report found that the expenditure of $3,950.00 was
paid to a construction company owned by a township
supervisor.
b. A recommendation of this audit was that the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation review this finding to
determine if $3,950.00 should be reimbursed to the Liquid
Fuels Tax Fund.
35. By letter of November 16, 1993 to Anthony Township, Gerald
Kerprich, Director of Municipal Services, Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation, upheld the findings of the
Pennsylvania Auditor General.
a. The transaction was a non - permissible expenditure from
the Liquid Fuels Tax Account.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 9
b. Reimbursement from the General Fund in the amount of
$3,950.00 to the Liquid Fuels Fund was required.
36. On December 30, 1993, Anthony Township issued check no. 2521
in an amount of $3,950.00 to the Anthony Township State Fund
as reimbursement directed by the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation.
a. The check is signed by Township Secretary William
Stellfax and Supervisor Dio Shetler.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Anthony Township, Montour County, Dio M.
Shetler, hereinafter Shetler, 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
provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was
violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, 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
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 10
any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for
the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a
member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict
of interest" does not include an action having
a de minimis economic impact or which affects
to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an
industry, occupation or other group which
includes the public official or public
employee, a member or his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402.
In addition, Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 specifically
provides in part that no public official /employee or spouse or
child or business with which he or the spouse or child is
associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at
five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded
a contract with the governmental body with which the public
official /employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice
and subsequent public disclosure.
The issue before us is whether Shetler as an Anthony Township
Supervisor violated the conflict provision, Section 3(a) of Act 9
of 1989, regarding the receipt of township paid health and accident
insurance benefits and the contracting provision,. Section 3(f) of
Act 9 of 1989, regarding contracting between the business with
which Shetler was associated and the township without an open and
public process.
Shetler served as an Anthony Township Supervisor from 1983 to
the present. In addition Shetler has served as a roadmaster on a
part time basis. The township does not employ full time employees
to work on township roads but rather hires part time employees on
an as needed basis for snow removal and road repair projects.
The Anthony Township Board of Auditors set the hourly rates of
compensation for the working supervisors and roadmasters at
reorganizational meetings. Although Shetler at the January 7, 1992
Auditors' meeting requested a $0.50 per hour increase for health
insurance benefits, the Auditors deferred on taking action.
Thereafter, at the January 4, 1993 meeting of the Anthony Township
Board of Supervisors, Shetler made a motion, seconded by Bieber,
which passed on a two to zero vote, with the third supervisor
abstaining, to have paid group medical insurance for all employees
who qualified by working an average of fourteen or more hours per
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 11
week in the prior year, 1992. Under those parameters, only the
Members of the Board of Supervisors, but no other part time
employees, met the minimum fourteen hours per week eligibility
requirement.
From January, 1993 forward the Anthony Township Supervisors
approved the payments for the premiums for the medical insurance
for Shetler and Bieber only; the third Supervisor declined to
accept payment of medical insurance premiums by the township.
Thereafter, the township began making payments for Shetler's
medical insurance premiums as delineated in Fact Finding 14. The
plan in question was not a township group plan but was an
individualized medical insurance policy for Shetler.
At the July, 1993 meeting of the Board Supervisors, a township
resident questioned the legality of such individualized insurance
plans noting an article in the Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors (PSATS) Township News, March, 1993, that
supervisors are not authorized to have individual medical insurance
paid by the township. The Supervisors did not respond to the
citizen's inquiry. Thereafter, at an August 3, 1993 Auditor's
meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Auditors reported that the
expenditures for private medical insurance would not be approved in
that the payments were improper and subject to surcharge.
The Chairman of the Board of Auditors wrote on August 13, 1993
to the township Solicitor requesting a written opinion regarding
the medical insurance for township supervisors and in particular
whether the Supervisors qualify for insurance under the Second
Class Township Code and second, whether the Supervisors have the
authority to authorize payments for two different health insurance
policies for Shetler and Bieber. The Solicitor responded in a
written opinion of September 8, 1993 advising that the supervisors
qualified for medical insurance under the Second Class Township
Code which would apply to full time or part time working
supervisors, that supervisors performing administrative duties are
eligible, that auditor approval is not required, that the payment
of supervisor's medical insurance premium is not a form of
compensation, that the issue of supervisor's authorizing payment
for two different health insurance policies is a complex question
and that supervisors may authorize payment for two separate medical
insurance policies on the basis that the payments are made by the
township directly and that the township incurred no loss as a
result of such practice.
At the September 13, 1993 meeting of the Anthony Township
Board of Supervisors, action was taken to direct the Secretary/
Treasurer to determine the cost differential between Shetler's and
Bieber's medical insurance payments and to develop a schedule of
repayment to the township. Thereafter, Shetler reimbursed the
township in the amount of $1,135.56 for the insurance premiums
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 12
which represented the difference between the amount paid for
Shetler's and Bieber's medical insurance.
In August, 1991 the township contracted with Carol
Construction Company (Company) for the rental of a John Deere
loader. The Company has been owned by Shetler and his wife since
at least mid -1990. The Company submitted an invoice dated October
14, 1991 in the amount of $3,950.00 representing the usage of the
loader for seventy -nine hours at $50.00 per hour. On October 25,
1991 the township issued a check in payment which was approved by
the Township Board of Supervisors with Shetler being present at
that meeting. The township did not advertise nor request bids for
the rental of the loader although the Supervisors assert that
quotes were requested.
Minutes of the Board of Supervisors for August and September
of 1991 do not reflect any discussion by the Supervisors regarding
the contract although the supervisors assert that they contacted
Shetler about providing a bid for the loader and informally agreed
to lease the loader from the Company due to the lower per hour
costs. Shetler claims that his rental fee was below the normal
rate charged for such a service.
Dale Sellers, a general contractor submitted a telephone quote
to Shetler for the rental of the loader at a rate of $65.00 per
hour; his loader has a clearing range of two and three- quarters
. yards as compared to Shetler's which has a clearing range of one
and a half yards.
In an audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General,
the report found that since the expenditure of $3,950.00 was paid
to a company owned by a township supervisor, a recommendation would
be made to PennDOT to review and determine if the liquid fuel tax
should be reimbursed to the Commonwealth. Thereafter, PennDOT in
a letter of November 16, 1993 indicated that the transaction was
not a permissible expenditure and required reimbursement to the
liquid fuels fund. On December 30, 1993 Anthony Township issued a
check in the amount of $3,950.00 to the township state fund as
reimbursement as per the direction of PennDOT.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to
the above facts, we must conclude upon this record that there is no
violation of that provision of law. We have held that if a public
official receives compensation which is specifically authorized in
law, then the receipt of that compensation is not a private
pecuniary benefit under the Ethics Law. Confidential Opinion, 91-
001. However, if a public official uses the authority of office to
obtain financial gain which is compensation other than provided for
by law, then such is a private pecuniary benefit in violation of
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Hessinger, Order 931.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 13
The issue in this case is whether the receipt by Shetler of
the township paid medical insurance is violative of Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989. The Second Class Township Code (Code) does provide
the following limited authorization for the receipt of such medical
benefits by supervisors:
(1) Supervisors and their dependents shall be eligible
for inclusion in group life, health, hospitalization,
medical service and accident insurance plans paid in
whole or in part by the township. . . . Participation by
supervisors shall not require auditor approval. Such
insurance shall be uniformly applicable to those covered
and shall not improperly discriminate in favor of
supervisors.
65 P.S. §65515
The Code does allow for the receipt by supervisors of medical
insurance benefits without the need for a supervisor to be in a
working position or without the need for auditor approval. The
authorization is qualified to the extent that the insurance must be
uniformly applicable and must not discriminate in favor of the
supervisors.
In the instant matter, Shetler and Bieber were the only two of
all of the township part time employees who qualified for the
receipt of the township paid medical insurance. However, without
sufficient evidence of record to establish an improper
discrimination, we must conclude that the supervisors under the
facts of this case were entitled to receive such township paid
medical insurance benefits. Accordingly, we find no violation of
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the receipt of such
township paid medical insurance benefits by Shetler.
As to the contracting issue in this case, we find a technical
violation of Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 when the Company
contracted with the township for the usage of a loader. The
Company is a business with which Shetler is associated. The term
business with which associated is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as
follows:
65 P.S. §402.
Section 2. Definitions
"Business with which he is associated."
Any business in which the person or a member
of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner, employee or has a
financial interest.
Shetler, 93- 047 -C2
Page 14
Since Shetler along with his wife owned the Company, it is
clear that the Company is a business with which Shetler is
associated. Further, the contract in the amount of $3,950.00 was
in excess of the $500.00 bidding requirement of Section 3(f) of Act
9 of 1989. The contract was not put out for bids despite the
assertion that quotes were requested by
Accordingly, since the contract was in excess of h$ $ . and was
supervisors.
not awarded through an open and public process, We find a technical
violation of Section 3(f) regarding such contracting between the
Company, the business with which Shetler is associated and the
township. Schweinsber , Order 940.
Based upon the totality of facts and circumstances in this
case, we will take no further action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Dio M. Shetler as a Anthony Township Supervisor
County, is a public official subject to the provisionsMoftAct
9 of 1989.
2. Shetler did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9
regarding the receipt of townshi of 1989
benefits. P paid medical insurance
3 . A technical violation of Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Carol Construction Company, a business with
which Shetler was associated, contracted with the township for
a front loader service contract which was in excess of $500.00
and was not awarded through an open and public process.
In Re: Dio M. Shetler File Docket: 93- 047 -C2
Date Decided: 12/15/94
Date Mailed: 122/27/94
ORDER NO. 951
1. Dio M. Shetler as a Anthony Township Supervisor, Montour
County, did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
regarding the receipt of township paid medical insurance
benefits.
2. A technical violation of Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Carol Construction Company, a business with
which Shetler was associated, contracted with the township for
a front loader service contract which was in excess of $500.00
and was not awarded through an open and public process.
3. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances this
Commission will take no further action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY,