HomeMy WebLinkAbout952 SprenkleIn Re: William Sprenkle
Before:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 93- 064 -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 1989, P.L. 26,
) was served e at s the
Written notice of the sp ecific
coarmencement 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 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 n ot Law al Order.
Allegations, Findings of Fact,
Discussion, Conclusions
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.
of this
A request for reconsideration does not
t affect
ust be rec at this
adjudication. A reconsideration request
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 who cco c e
with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person
of a misdemeanor
confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty
for not
subject to a fine of not more than $1,00 Confidentiality imprisonment does not
more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e).
preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Sp renkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That William Sprenkle, as a public employee /public official,
in his position as a Supervisor for Washington Township, Snyder
County, violated the provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of
1989) when he authorized his son to remove Township surplus
property for sale as scrap resulting in a private pecuniary benefit
to himself and /or his immediate family.
Section 2. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest."
Use by a public official or public employee of
the authority of his office or employment or
any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for
the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a
member of his immediate family or a business
with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict
of interest" does not include an action having
a de minimis economic impact or which affects
to the same degree a class consisting of the
general public or a subclass consisting of an
industry, occupation or other group which
includes the public official or public
employee, a member of his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
65 P.S. § §402, 403.
II. FINDINGS:
1. A signed, sworn Complaint was received by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission on September 7, 1993,
alleging that Respondent, William Sprenkle, violated the
provisions of the Ethics Law.
2. Upon review of the Complaint by the Director of Investigations
of the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission,
a recommendation was made to the Executive Director of the
State Ethics Commission to commence a preliminary inquiry.
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 3
3, At the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission instituted a preliminary inquiry.
4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
5. Upon completion of the preliminary inquiry, the matter was
reviewed by the Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission.
6. On November 10, 1993, a letter was forwarded to Respondent by
the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission
informing Respondent of the fact that a Complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission and that a full investigation was being commenced.
7. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the
Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.
8. On April 28, 1994, the Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission requested a ninety -day extension of time to
complete the investigation and such request was granted on
April 28, 1994.
9. On August 4, 1994, the Investigative Investigative State
Ethics Commission issued nvest g ta.ve Complaint
Findings Report against Respondent and forwarded same to
Respondent and /or Respondent's attorney.
10. Letters were forwarded to the Respondent and status non ant
th
this matter advising each as to the general
instant investigation on the following dates:
a. February 10, 1994
b. May 10, 1994
11. William Sprenkle has
srs served
1987 as atWashington Township, Snyder
County, Supervisor
a. Sprenkle was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from
January, 1993 to December, 1993.
b. He also served as Township Roadmaster from October, 1992
to December, 1993.
12, By letter dated October 2, 1992,
Township Solicitor Robert
Cravitz advised the Board of Supervisors that disposition of
Township personal property was subject to the requirements of
Section 65701 II of the Second Class Township Code.
a. The letter outlined procedures to be followed in the
Sor �1e, 93- 064 -C2
Page 4
c
event that the township decided to dispose of property in
excess of $200.00 in value and property with an estimated
value of less than $200.00.
b. The letter noted that the minutes of the township meetin
for March 31, 1992, disclosed that the g
supervisors had agreed to dispose of used, rusted t rusted
and a used, broken stone rake. g
c. Cravitz's letter further indicated that the minutes of
March 31, 1992, did not contain any formal resolution for
the disposal of the surplus property.
d. Cravitz advised that if the Supervisors were certain the
property had no value and that it would cost the Township
to dispose of it as junk, that the Township minutes
should reflect that determination and contain a proper
resolution.
13. In a letter dated August 1993, to Supervisors
Solicitor Cravitz again discussed d the issue of disposin
Township personal property. g
a. The letter was issued as a result of a question raised at
the previous meeting regarding the disposition of worn -
out cinder spreaders and used pipe.
1) At the meeting of August 10, 1993
stated that he had an interest in the spreaders and would have purchased them if given an opportunity.
b. The letter advised that by letter dated October 2, 1992,
Cravitz informed the Supervisors of the procedure that
must be followed for the disposition of personal
property. (See Finding No. 12)
This procedure would involve the adoption of a resolution
with determinations made that the items were junk and
that disposal costs were considered.
14. An action was taken by the Supervisors at the board
of
January 4, 1993, regarding cinder spreaders and used pipe.
15. Minutes of the Supervisors' meeting of January 4, 1993,
reflect that William Sprenkle was contacted by Mr. Gemberling
of Gemberling Metal Salvage about used tiling which was stored
near the Township shed. The Supervisors determined that the
tiling had no monetary value and should be removed from the
storage area. A man from Penn Township also inquired about
obtaining a piece of the tiling. A motion by George Ewig,
seconded by Ed Lauver, was passed to give a piece of the
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 5
tiling to the man from Penn Township and the balance to Mr.
Gemberling.
16. Gemberling was given all of the junk from the storage area
when he took possession of the tiling.
a. Gemberling removed the most useable tiling and junk but
failed to complete his part of the agreement.
b. Gemberling moved to Florida during the Spring of 1993.
17. Dennis Sprenkle, son of Supervisor William Sprenkle, is self -
employed as a junk dealer.
18. Dennis Sprenkle was also employed as a part -time laborer for
the Township from October, 1992 to December, 1993.
19. Dennis Sprenkle received payments from the Krentzman Scrap
Company for deliveries of junk during July, 1993.
a. Date: 7/15/93
Check No.: 290
Amount: $115.15
Description: Light Iron
1) Dennis Sprenkle did not receive any hourly pay from
the Township on this date.
2) This load consisted of scrap he obtained during his
work as a junk dealer.
b. Date: 7/22/93
Check No.: 358
Amount: $324.07
Description: Unprepared #2 Heavy Metal and aluminum
items
1) Of this amount, $67.60 was received for Township
junk identified as Unprepared #2 Heavy Metal.
2) The aluminum items were obtained during Dennis
Sprenkle's employment as a junk dealer.
3) The "Junk" removed from the township storage area
was loaded on top of the aluminum during evening
hours, after township work was completed.
4) Dennis Sprenkle received hourly pay from the
Township for six hours of work on this date.
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 6
5) This delivery was made to Krentzman Scrap Company
by Dennis Sprenkle after Township work was
completed.
c. Date: 7/28/93
Check No.: 403
Amount: $60.73
Description: Light Iron
1) This load consisted entirely of Township junk,
mostly tiling.
2) The junk was loaded`during evening hours.
3) Dennis Sprenkle received hourly pay from the
Township for six hours of work on this date.
4) This delivery was made to Krentzman Scrap Company
by Dennis Sprenkle after Township work was
completed.
20. Dennis Sprenkle received payment for two deliveries of
Township junk as follows:
7/22/93 $ 67.60
7/28/93 60.63
TOTAL $128.33
21. Township officials did not prepare a list of the junk items at
the storage site.
a. This junk had accumulated during a seven year period.
b. Grass and weeds grew around and through junk items.
22. Supervisors Sprenkle and Ewig approved removal of the junk.
23. When Mr. Gemberling failed to remove all the junk as agreed,
Dennis Sprenkle offered and accepted the work to remove the
balance.
a. He agreed to the same terms as were agreed to by
Gemberling.
b. He agreed to complete a cleanup of the storage site as a
condition for receiving this payment.
c. He agreed to transport tires at the storage site to a
recycling company as another condition for receiving this
payment.
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 7
d. Dennis Sprenkle used his truck to drive the tires to the
recycling depository in Liverpool, Pennsylvania, a
distance of 25 miles, and then a return trip to
Washington Township.
24. In disposing of the junk, Dennis Sprenkle was required to
dispose of old tires of the Township.
25. In the disposal of the tires, Dennis Sprenkle was required to
pay for such disposal and did so with his own funds.
26. On October 25, 1993, Dennis Sprenkle paid to Mahantango
Enterprises, Inc., the amount of $41.80 from his personal
checking account, Check No. 951 from his account at the Snyder
County Trust Company.
27. The total net private pecuniary benefit received by William
Sprenkle and /or a member of his immediate family is $86.53.
III. DISCUSSION:
$128.33
-41.80
$ 86.53
As a Supervisor for Washington Township, Snyder County,
Pennsylvania, William Sprenkle, hereinafter Sprenkle, 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 above, a public
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 8
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 set forth above in the allegation.
The question before us is whether Sprenkle as a Washington
Township Supervisor violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he
authorized his son to remove Township surplus property for sale as
scrap resulting in a private pecuniary benefit to himself and /or
his immediate family.
Factually, Sprenkle has served as a Washington Township
Supervisor from 1987 to the present time. Sprenkle was Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors from January, 1993 to December, 1993. He
also served as Township roadmaster from October, 1992 to December,
1993.
Through various discussions and actions commencing on or about
October, 1992, the Board of Supervisors agreed to dispose of
certain Township surplus property consisting of used, rusted
tiling, a used, broken stone rake, worn -out cinder spreaders, and
used pipe. The Supervisors took action at the Board meeting of
January 4, 1993 regarding the cinder spreaders, the used pipe, and
the tiling. With regard to the tiling, the minutes of the meeting
reflect that Respondent Sprenkle had been contacted by Mr.
Gemberling of Gemberling Metal Salvage about used tiling stored
near the Township shed. The Supervisors determined that the tiling
had no monetary value and should be removed from the storage area.
The Supervisors voted to give one piece of tiling to an individual
who had requested only one piece and to give the balance to
Gemberling.
Gemberling was given all of the junk from the storage area
when he took possession of the tiling. However, Gemberling only
removed the most useable tiling and junk and failed to complete his
part of the agreement. Thereafter, during the Spring of 1993, he
moved to Florida.
Respondent's son, Dennis Sprenkle, is self - employed as a junk
dealer. He was also employed as a part -time laborer for the
Township from October, 1992 to December, 1993. Dennis Sprenkle
offered and accepted the work of removing the remaining junk under
the same terms as had been agreed to by Gemberling. Specifically,
Dennis Sprenkle agreed to the conditions that he complete a cleanup
of the storage site and transport tires at the storage site to a
recycling company. Supervisor Sprenkle and Supervisor Ewig
approved removal of the junk.
Dennis Sprenkle used his own truck to drive the tires to the
recycling depository, which was a fifty mile round trip, and he
paid for the disposal of the tires with his own funds in the amount
of $41.80. Dennis Sprenkle received payment from the Krentzman
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 9
Scrap Company for deliveries of Township junk during July, 1993,
totalling $128.33. The stipulated findings reflect that the total
net private pecuniary benefit received by William Sprenkle and/or
a member of his immediate family was $86.53, calculated by
subtracting the $41.80 paid for tire disposal from the $128.33
received for deliveries of junk to Krentzman Scrap Company.
In applying Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to the above facts,
we note that the definition of "conflict of interest" set forth at
65 P.S. §402 contains certain exceptions, one of which is that the
term does not include an action having a "de minimis economic
impact ". A "de minimis economic impact" is defined as, "An
economic consequence which has an insignificant effect." 65 P.S.
§402.
Under the circumstances of this case, we find that to the
extent Respondent and /or a member of his immediate family received
a private pecuniary benefit when Respondent authorized his son,
Dennis Sprenkle, to remove Township surplus property for sale as
scrap, such was within the "de minimis economic impact" exception
to the statutory definition of "conflict of interest" set forth in
the Ethics Law. Our conclusion is not based solely upon the net
amount realized from the sale of the scrap. As we stated in
Schweinsberq, Order No. 900:
In applying the de minimis economic impact
exclusion, we must note that this is not a term that we
may quantify as to a set dollar amount for all cases; to
the contrary, the definition must be applied and
determined on a case by case basis since a given dollar
amount which may be de minimis in one case would not be
so in another based upon the factual circumstances.
Id. at 18. Some of the pertinent factual circumstances in this
case are the following:
1. the Supervisors had previously determined that
the junk should be disposed of and that the
used tiling had no monetary value; and
2. the Township had given the junk to Gemberling.
Based upon all of the above, we find no violation of Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 and will take no further action in this
matter.
Although we have found no violation in this case as to the
allegation before us, we remind Sprenkle that he is a public
official and that public office is a public trust. Accordingly,
Sprenkle should exercise caution in the future so that his actions
as a public official conform to both the letter and spirit of the
Sprenkle, 93- 064 -C2
Page 10
Ethics Law.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. William Sprenkle as a Supervisor for Washington Township,
Snyder County, Pennsylvania is a public official subject to
the restrictions of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Sprenkle did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
regarding the authorization for his son to remove Township
surplus property for sale as scrap in that such action had a
de minimis economic impact.
In Re: William Sprenkle : File Docket: 93- 064 -C2
. Date Decided: 12/15/94
. Date Mailed: 12/27/94
ORDER NO. 952
1. William Sprenkle as a Supervisor for Washington Township,
Snyder County, Pennsylvania did not violate Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989 regarding the authorization for his son to
remove Township surplus property for sale as scrap in that
such action had a de minimis economic impact.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY,