Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout954 TaliffSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Edward Taliff File Docket: 93- 035 -C2 Date Decided: 02/23/95 Date Mailed: 03/10/95 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluger John R. Showers Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff 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 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. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Edward Taliff, President of Mount Union Borough Council, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he participated in decisions of Council and the Facade Review Committee to approve grants to himself and members of his immediate family when he signed or authorized his signature to be used on grant payments to his immediate family; and when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1990, 1991 and 1992 calendar years. Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Section 4. Statement of financial interests required to be filed (a) Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section. 65 P.S. 55403(a), 404(a). II. FINDINGS: 1. Edward Taliff served as a Mount Union Borough Councilman from Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 3 January, 1986 to December, 1993. a. Taliff served as Council President from January, 1990 to December, 1993. b. Taliff served as Council Vice President for at least two of the years between January, 1986 and December, 1989. c. Taliff served as an appointee to the Borough's Facade Review Committee from September, 1991 to May, 1993. d. He served on the Borough's Planning Commission from 1982 to December, 1993. e. He served as Chairman of the Planning Commission from 1984 to December, 1993. 2. In 1990, Mount Union Borough Council decided to enter into a program to encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of building facades as part of a downtown revitalization program. a. The basis for the program was the Borough's 1989 Development Strategy and Plans which was developed through the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 3. On June 8 and 11, 1990, a notice of a public meeting regarding the proposal for a Facade Improvements Program was published in a local newspaper. 4. On June 27, 1990, a public hearing was held by borough council to receive citizen input on the facade improvement program. a. A representative of Richard C. Sutter & Associates, Inc., the planner who prepared the application, was present to answer questions. b. An announcement was made that four local bankers were interested in providing loans for this program. 5. On July 2, 1990, borough council enacted a resolution authorizing the filing of a proposal to received $150,000 in funds from Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community Affairs for the prevention and elimination of blight under Section 4(c) of the Housing and Redevelopment Assistance Law. a. The resolution further provided that Council would assume the full local share of the project costs on the condition that the local share of the costs would be provided in fully by the private sector. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 4 b. The resolution is signed by Edward Taliff, President of Mount Union Borough Council. 6. On July 6, 1990, Mount Union Borough submitted an application to the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs for $150,000 in housing and development funds. a. The application outlined a target area which include the facades approximately twelve (12) commercial establishments located along Jefferson Street south from Pennsylvania Avenue to Market Street, West on Shirley Street to South Washington Avenue and east on Shirley Street to Division Street, south on Division Street back to Market Street and north on Division Street to Pennsylvania Avenue. b. The application outlined a proposed program for providing grants with the following requirements: (1) Property owner or tenant to provide at least 50% of the total rehabilitation cost. (2) Program grants should be up to 50% of the total rehabilitation cost. (3) Commercial properties must be located in the central business district and funded improvements are limited to facades and portions of buildings visible from the street. c. The overall administration of the proposed project would be under the policy direction of Mount Union Borough Council with actual administration performed by the Borough Manager's Office. d. The application is signed by Edward Taliff, President of Mount Union Borough Council, and dated July 2, 1990. 7. On March 7, 1991, Mount Union Borough submitted a Project Budget and Financing Plan to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) . a. The plan outlined financing of a $75,000 grant from DCA and $77,500 in local matching funds totalling $152,500. b. Of the $75,000 to be received from DCA, $63,000 was to the utilized for actual rehabilitation. c. The plan was signed by Edward Taliff as Mount Union Borough Council President on March 7, 1991. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 5 d. The project financing plan was approved by DCA on April 7, 1991. 8. On June 3, 1991, Mount Union Borough Council adopted a resolution authorizing and directing the chairman to enter into a grant agreement in an amount of $75,000 with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for Contract No. 306 -90 -0043. 9. On June 13, 1991, Mount Union Borough and the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs entered into a contract (No. 306 -90 -0043) for housing and development assistance. a. The amount of the contract was $75,000. b. All funds must be drawn down by June 30, 1992. c. The contract was signed by Edward Taliff as President of Mount Union Borough Council. d. The contract was approved by Department of Community Affairs on July 19, 1991. 10. Article XVI, Interest of Parties and Others, provided as follows: a. No officer, member, employee, independent contractor or elected official of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and no member of its governing body who exercises any functions or responsibilities in the review or approval of services being performed under this CONTRACT shall participate in any decision relating to this CONTRACT, which affects his /her personal interest or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association, in which he /she is directly or indirectly interested, nor shall any such officer, member, elected official or employee of the COMMONWEALTH and no member of its governing body have any interest direct or indirect in this CONTRACT or the proceeds thereof. b. The CONTRACTOR covenants that the CONTRACTOR (including directors, officers, members, and employees of the CONTRACTOR) presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR further covenants that no person having any such interest shall be employed in the performance of services for this CONTRACT. 11. By letter dated February 25, 1991, Edward Taliff, as President of Mount Union Borough Council, contacted the Huntingdon Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 6 Revitalization and Development, Inc. (HRDI) regarding that agency's interest in contracting for the administration of the facade program. a. On March 6, 1991, Joe Thompson, Manager of HRDI, advised Taliff that the agreement would only specify managerial responsibilities of the grant administrator. 12. At the March 4, 1991 Mount Union Borough Council meeting, a motion was made to hire HRDI as consultants for the Mount Union Project. a. The motion was made following a presentation by Joe Thompson of HRDI. b. The agreement was to be presented at the next council meeting. c. Edward Taliff was present at this meeting. 13. At the September 9, 1991 meeting of borough council, a motion was made to accept names for a committee to assist Joe Thompson (HRDI) with the Facade Program. a. Dennis Knepp, Edward Taliff and Frank Stasenko were nominated and approved by a 8 to 1 vote. Edward Taliff voted with the majority. 14. Other members who were later appointed to the Facade Committee included borough citizens as follows: George Drobnock Dolly Ranck Dave Hicks John Remek Bob Hooper Toni Hancock Fredda Hancock Mike Dimoff Elizabeth Goodman 15. The Facade Committee was formed to review grant applications and make recommendations to borough council as to which applications to approve. a. Borough council would make the final approvals on all projects. 16. On June 12, 1991, Joe Thompson wrote to Frank Stasenko, Mount Union Borough Manager, regarding a possible conflict of interest question and a potential delay in signing the Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 7 contract with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). a. Thompson urged the borough to act on the contract signing as soon as possible. b. Thompson noted that potential conflicts of interest occur often in many such programs. c. He enclosed a copy of a memo from DCA Main Street Coordinator regarding the issue. d. Thompson recommended that if Edward Taliff applies for a grant, he should remove himself from the discussion and not vote on the decision. (1) He also recommended that if he (Taliff) is concerned about a conflict, the council vice - president should sign the contract. 17. The DCA document attached to Thompson's letter was an August 24, 1988 memo from Diana Kerr, Coordinator for the Main Street Program which addressed, in part, conflicts of interest: a. To avoid a conflict the Department requires that the individual board member remove him or herself from the discussion may not have any input into the decisions on the grant. b. Public disclosure in meeting notes that a grant is being applied for would also be in order. c. If a board member is also an elected official, then the applicable municipal code would need to be researched. 18. On July 16, 1991, the State Ethics Commission issued an Advice of Counsel at the request of Borough Solicitor Harvey Reeder. a. This advice addressed the possibility of a conflict of interest as a member of borough council only. b. The borough council member was not precluded from receiving funds for improvement of his real estate under this program subject to the following 1) Provided that the council member played no role in establishing the criteria under which the program would operate. 2) That he played no role in implementing criteria for selecting or reviewing applicants. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 8 3) That he used no confidential information acquired while in office. 4) That he had no involvement with the administration of the program. 5) He must also observe the abstention and disclosure requirements of the State Ethics Act. 19. Applications for grant funds are processed by HRDI. a. The Facade Review Committee assisted HRDI in reviewing applications. b. Eligibility of an applicant is then determined. c. Approval or disapproval of an applicant is forwarded to borough council. 20. Members of Edward Taliff's immediate family have participated in the grant program. 21. Edward Taliff and family members purchase buildings and refurbish them for use a business or rental properties. 22. All family members work interchangeably on the properties being refurbished. a. Included are Mrs. Ann Taliff, sons John and Edward Michael Taliff, and daughter Susan Taliff Norris. b. Susan Norris resides at R.D. 3, Box 141A, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. c. Other family members reside at 51 East Market Street, Mount Union, Pennsylvania. 23. Taliff Rentals is an identification used by the family to purchase supplies for the rehabilitation /renovation projects. a. Taliff Rentals is not incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as a business enterprise. 24. By letters dated June 19, 1990, Edward M. Taliff advised Mount Union Borough Council of his intention to participate in the facade improvement program. a. The letters identify the property owner as Edward M. Taliff. b. The business name listed on three of the letters was Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 9 Taliff Rentals. (1) The other letter c. Types of improvements replacements, roof renovations. d. The estimated costs were $30,000; and $40,000. Property a. 24 -28 West Shirley Street b. c. d. 21 West Shirley Street 20 North Jefferson Street 35 West Shirley Street listed Ed T Rentals. were identified as window and door repairs, and general exterior listed as $30,000; $15,000; (1) Specific properties were not identified. 25. Members of Edward Taliff's family applied for and received grant funds for the following properties in Mount Union, Pennsylvania. Applicant(s) John S. Taliff 51 East Market Street Mt. Union, PA John S. & Edward M. Taliff Susan Taliff Norris John S. Taliff 26. John S. Taliff submitted a facade program application and agreement dated September 2, 1992 for renovations at the property located at 24 -28 West Shirley Street which contained the following: a. Applicant: John S. Taliff b. Estimated Project Cost: $15,500 c. Purpose: Replace doors and windows, install new siding. 27. On September 29, 1992, John Taliff was notified by Joseph Thompson, Facade Grant Administrator, that the Local Review Committee and Mount Union Borough Council had approved his application for the project at 24 -28 West Shirley Street pending approval by the architect. 28. The agreement for the 24 -28 West Shirley Street project was signed on October 5, 1992 by John Taliff and Nathaniel Trice, Vice - President of Mount Union Borough Council. 29. On February 18, 1993, John Taliff received Check No. 18 in an amount of $7,500 from the Mount Union Facade Grant Account. a. This represented funds for the renovation at 24 -28 West Shirley Street. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 10 b. The check bears the signatures of Edward M. Taliff and Melody Kyle. c. The check was issued by the borough following a request for payment to Melody Kyle, Mount Union Borough Manager by Lisa Clapper, Grant Administrator. 30. A facade program application dated September 12, 1992 submitted by John and Edward Michael Taliff for renovations at 21 West Shirley Street contained the following: a. Applicant: John and Edward Michael Taliff b. Estimated Cost: $1,983.54 c. Purpose: Install awning and decorative lighting. 31. On September 28, 1992, the Taliff's were notified by Joseph Thompson that the Program Architect, Local Review Committee and Mount Union Borough Council had all approved the application. a. An estimated project cost of $2,001.73 was noted with a facade grant of $1,000.50 approved. 32. On September 24, 1992, a facade program agreement was entered into by the Borough and the Taliffs. a. John S. Taliff signed as the applicant. b. Nathaniel Trice, Vice - President of Council, signed for the Borough. 33. John Taliff received grant funds from the Mount Union Borough Facade Grant Account for renovations at the 21 West Shirley Street property. a. Date Check No. Amount 2/12/93 19 $929.27 2/20/93 20 62.50 $991.77 b. The checks bear the signatures of Edward Taliff and Melody Kyle. c. The checks were issued by the borough following a request for payment to Melody Kyle by Lisa Clapper. 34. An undated facade program application was submitted by Susan Taliff Norris to Mount Union Borough during the fall of 1992 for renovations at 20 North Jefferson Street and contained the Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 11 following: a. Applicant: Susan Norris b. Purpose: New windows, doors, awnings; paint exterior c. Estimated Cost: $13,063.30 35. The agreement for the grant was signed by Susan Norris and Nathaniel Trice, Vice - President of Mount Union Borough Council. 36. On December 17, 1992, Susan Norris was advised by Joseph Thompson, Project Administrator, that due to him leaving his position no action would be taken on the grant application until his replacement was selected and trained. 37. By letter dated March 2, 1993, Susan Norris was notified by Lisa Clapper, Program Administrator, that the Local Review Committee and Mount Union Borough Council approved the grant application with one exception. a. Funding for an awning over a laundromat was excluded. b. An estimated project cost of $10,063.30 with a facade grant of $5,031.65 was approved. 38. By memo dated October 26, 1993, Clapper made a request to Melody Kyle for a grant payment in an amount of $5,031.61 for Susan Taliff Norris. 39. On November 3, 1993, Clapper forwarded Check No. 45 in an amount of $5,031.61 drawn on the Mount Union Borough Facade Grant Fund to Susan Taliff Norris. a. The check bears the signatures of Edward M. Taliff and Melody Kyle. 40. John S. Taliff submitted facade program application dated April 19, 1993 to Mount Union Borough to obtain grant funds for renovations to a property located at 35 West Shirley Street which contained the following: a. Applicant: John S. Taliff b. Purpose: Replace windows, doors, paint trim, install lighting and awning c. Estimated Cost: $13,469.00 41. An undated grant agreement was signed by John S. Taliff and Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 12 Nathaniel Trice, Vice- President of Mount Union Borough Council. 42. By letter dated May 6, 1993, John Taliff was advised by Lisa Clapper that the local review committee and Mount Union Borough Council approved his application. a. An estimated project cost of $13,469.00 with a facade grant of $6,734.05 was approved. 43. On September 14, 1993, John Taliff requested of Lisa Clapper additional funds of $1,513.00 and 15% above the project limit. 44. On October 5, 1993, John Taliff was notified by Clapper that the Local Review Committee and Mount Union Borough Council approved his application for additional funds in excess of the $7,500 maximum grant. a. The additional 15% totalling $1,125 was to be used for the restoration of the art deco glass on the front of the facade. 45. On June 28, 1994, Check No. 65, drawn on Mount Union Borough Facade Program Account in an amount of $8,625, was forwarded to John Taliff. a. This represented all of the renovations approved by council and the review committee. 46. The checks issued to Edward Taliff and members of his immediate family from Mount Union Borough's Facade Grant Fund (See Findings No. 23, 33, 39, and 45) were rubber stamped with the signature of Edward Taliff. a. Taliff authorized the use of the stamp by Borough personnel to make payments required of the Borough. 1. Borough employees routinely used this stamp to make payments. b. Taliff specifically did not authorize the use of the rubber stamp to make payments from the Facade Grant Fund without his knowledge. 47. Taliff asserts that he would not have authorized the use of the rubber stamp containing his signature had he known it was used to sign checks payable to members of his immediate family. 48. Members of Mount Union Borough Council confirm that the following actions were taken in regard to grant applications Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 13 for the Taliff family. a. September 3, 1992: Joseph Thompson, Facade Grant Administrator, presents new projects for construction. Motion by Alesi to tentatively approve new projects for construction: 1. John and Edward Taliff, 21 West Shirley Street, grant $1,000.00. Motion approved - Ed Taliff abstained. 2. John Taliff, 24 West Shirley Street. Motion approved. No abstentions noted. b. March 1, 1993: Lisa Clapper, Mainstreet Manager, presents new projects for review by Council. Motion by Alesi, second by Fleming to approve the two projects and two projects which need review and changes at Lisa's discretion. Projects for review were identified as Susan Taliff Norris at the old IGA and Dorcas Morgan. No roll call vote was taken, no abstentions or no votes recorded. Edward Taliff was present at this meeting. c. May 13, 1993: Lisa Clapper, HRDI, was present to present approval for two projects, a grant share of $700.00 to Miller Autoparts and a grant share of $6500.00 for John Taliff. Clapper made council aware that this project will be the third facade grant for John Taliff. Alesi made the motion to approve these two facade grants, seconded by Fleming. Motion passed. Edward Taliff abstained from voting. d. October 4, 1993: Lisa Clapper submitted Ronald Dell Dave Hicks Robert Burnett Wharton Insurance John Taliff Motions were approved five projects for approval: $1900.00 $1900.00 $1900.00 $1900.00 $8625.00 for payment of the projects. No Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 14 roll call vote taken. Edward Taliff was meeting. No abstentions noted. 49. A May 7, 1993 special meeting of Mount Union was held due to concerns of Taliff's role as and member of the review committee. present at this Borough Council both councilman a. Taliff was asked if he would be willing to remove himself from the review committee. b. Taliff refused stating there was no conflict of interest anywhere. c. A motion was then passed by a 7 to 0 vote removing Edward Taliff and Dave Hicks from the review committee. (1) Taliff abstained from voting. d. Councilman Copenhaver noted that the reason for the action was the pressure from the community 50. Edward Taliff, as a member of the Facade Review Committee, participated in reviews and discussions regarding applications for grants submitted by members of his family until April, 1993. a. There are no minutes of Facade Review Committee meetings to confirm this assertion. 51. Taliff discontinued any participation of Facade Review Committee reviews of Taliff family applications following a discussion with the borough solicitor. 52. By letter of May 3, 1993 to council members, Borough Solicitor Harvey Reeder addressed problems with regard to the Facade Review Committee which were discussed at the April, 1993 council meeting. a. Reeder opined that no member of the Facade Review Committee should participate in any discussions of or voting on issues involving family members. b. He indicated that such activity had occurred in the past. c. Reeder believed that committee members are aware of the appearance of impropriety and are cognizant to avoid this in the future. d. Reeder emphasized that the committee was advisory in nature. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 15 53. Total facade grant funds received by the Taliff family are as follows: a . b. c . d. 21 West Shirley Street 24 -28 West Shirley Street 20 North Jefferson Street 35 West Shirley Street $ 991.77 7,500.00 5,031.61 8,625.00 $22,148.38 54. Prior to July 20, 1993, Edward Taliff had not filed Statements of Financial Interests with Mount Union Borough for the 1990, 1991, and 1992 calendar years. 55. On July 20, 1993, Taliff filed Statements of Financial Interests for the 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 calendar years. a. The forms list Mount Union School District and Taliff Rentals, 51 East Market Street, as sources of income. b. The forms are signed by Edward M. Taliff and dated July 20, 1993. 56. On June 4, 1994, Taliff submitted additional Statements of Financial Interests to Mount Union Borough. a. The forms are filed for the 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years. b. The forms list Mount Union School District, properties and UNB Bank as sources of income. III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of Mount Union hereinafter Taliff, was a public under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. subject to the provisions of the therein are applicable to him. rental Borough Council, Edward Taliff, official as that term is defined §402. As such, his conduct is Ethics Law and the restrictions 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 Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 16 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 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 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. Section 4 (a) of the Ethics Law quoted above requires that each public official /employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year of the year in which he is employed or served and for the year after he leaves such position. The issue before us is whether Taliff violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 (conflict provision) as to participating in Council decisions and Facade Review Committee recommendations as to grants for himself and members of his immediate family; signing or authorizing his signature on grant payments to his immediate family; and failing to file Statements of Financial Interests (FIS) for the calendar years 1990 through 1992. Taliff served as a Mount Union Borough Councilman from January, 1986 to December, 1993. During that time Taliff held Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 17 various additional positions: Council President, Council Vice President, a Facade Review Committeeman and Member and Chairman of the Borough Planning Commission. In 1990, Borough Council sought to implement a program for the rehabilitation and restoration of building facades as part of a revitalization program. A resolution was passed by Council on July 2, 1990 which authorized the filing of a proposal to receive $150,000.00 in funds from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for the prevention and elimination of blight as per the Housing and Redevelopment Assistance Law. The resolution, signed by Taliff as Council President, provided for the assumption by Council of the full local share of project costs provided that the local share would be obtained in full from the private sector. Council submitted an application on July 6, 1990 to DCA for $150,000.00 in housing and development funds to cover a target area of approximately twelve commercial establishments. The application outlined the requirements that the property owner or tenant would provide at least 50% of the rehabilitation cost with the program grant supplying up to 50% of the cost which would be earmarked for commercial properties in the central business districts to improve those portions of the buildings and facades visible from the street. A Project Budget and Financing Plan was submitted on March 7, 1991 to DCA which approved the Plan on April 7, 1991. Following the adoption of a resolution by Council on June 3, 1991 to enter into a grant agreement with DCA, a contract was subsequently finalized on June 13, 1991 between the Borough and DCA. The contract, which was formally approved by DCA on July 19, 1991, contained a standard conflict of interest provision that no public official could participate in the program if he or she had a personal interest, that no officer of the Commonwealth could have a direct or indirect interest therein and that the contractor could not have any interest which would conflict with his performance of services under the contract. Taliff subsequently contacted the Huntingdon Revitalization and Development Inc. (HRDI) for administrative services for the facade program and on March 4, 1991, HRDI, by Council motion, was hired as consultants for the project. In addition, Council adopted a motion to accept names for a committee to assist with the program; Taliff voted to appoint himself and two others to the Facade Committee which subsequently also included Borough citizens. The function of the Facade Committee was to review grant applications and make recommendations to Council for approvals. On June 12, 1991 Joe Thompson of HRDI wrote to the Borough Manager raising a conflict of interest question on the part of Taliff and recommended that Taliff should remove himself from discussions and voting if he applied for a grant. An advisory Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 18 opinion was thereafter sought from this Commission and on July 16, 1991, an Advice of Counsel was issued to the Borough Solicitor advising in part that although a Borough Councilmember was not precluded from receiving grant funds, he could play no role in establishing the criteria under which the program would operate, could play no role in implementing the criteria for selecting and reviewing applicants, could use no confidential information, could have no involvement in the administration of the program and lastly would have to observe the abstention and disclosure requirements of the Ethics Law. Applications for grant funds were processed by HRDI with the assistance of the Facade Committee. After the eligibility of an applicant was determined, an approval or disapproval was forwarded to Council. Taliff and his family members purchased buildings and refurbished them for use as business or rental properties. Members of Taliff's immediate family did participate in the grant program. Taliff by letter of June 19, 1990 advised Council of his intention to participate in the facade improvement program. Members of Taliff's family did receive grants as to properties listed in Fact Finding 25. In particular, John S. Taliff submitted a facade program application for the property located at 24 -28 West Shirley Street which was processed and approved with a check in the amount of $7,500.00 issued form the Borough Facade Grant Account. Second, a facade program application dated September 12, 1992 was submitted by John and Edward Michael Taliff for renovations as to the 21 West Shirley Street property which was processed and approved with two checks totalling $991.70 having been issued. Third, an undated facade program application was submitted by Susan Taliff Norris for renovations as to the 20 North Jefferson Street property which was processed and approved as to a grant of $5,031.65. Fourth, John S. Taliff submitted a facade program application for the property at 35 West Shirley Street which was reviewed and approved with a check issued in the amount of $8,625.00. As to the above four approved facade projects, each of the checks issued had the name of Taliff stamped on the check which was accomplished by Borough employees using the signature stamp of Taliff. In this regard, Taliff did not give any specific authorization for the use of the signature stamp as to the Facade Grant Funds. A review of the official action taken by Borough Council to approve the grant applications for the Taliff family reflects that in each instance Taliff was listed as abstaining or was recorded as present in the Borough minutes with no roll call, abstentions or votes being listed. Thus, the minutes do not reflect any instance of Taliff being recorded as affirmatively taking action as to the approval of any Facade Grants to his immediate family. At a May 7, Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 19 1993 Council meeting, concerns were raised regarding Taliff's role as a Councilman and as amember of the review committee; at that time, a motion was passed to remove Taliff and another individual from the review committee. Turning to the matter of the FIS's, the record reflects that Taliff did file FIS's for the calendar years 1990 through 1993 and then subsequently submitted additional (amended) FIS's for the calendar years 1990 through 1994. (Fact Findings 55, 56) In applying the Ethics Law to the above facts, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the first allegation as to the alleged participation of Taliff in decisions of Council or as to the Facade Review Committee to approve grants to himself and members of his immediate family. In order to establish a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, it is necessary to show a use of authority of office or confidential information by a public official to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself, a member of his immediate family or business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. In this case, the record before us is devoid of any action by Taliff vis -a -vis the approval of these grants to his immediate family members. The record reflects that as to Taliff, there was either an abstention or a record of him being present; there is no evidence of record that Taliff took affirmative action as to the approval of the grant applications to himself or members of his immediate family. On that basis we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Juliante, Order 809. As to the second allegation regarding a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 concerning Taliff signing checks issued to members of his immediate family as to Facade Grants, we find four technical violations consisting of the four projects listed above where applications were approved and checks were issued to Taliff's family members. We find technical violations because the record reflects that Taliff did not actually sign these checks; in fact, Borough employees merely used a signature stamp to imprint Taliff's signature on the check without Taliff's specific knowledge or awareness that such action occurred as to the checks issued to his immediate family members. Parenthetically, the checks were to immediate family members of Taliff as per the factual stipulation of the parties. Fact Finding 20. Regarding the third and final allegation concerning the FIS filing requirements for the calendar years 1990 through 1992, the record does reflect that Taliff filed FIS's and amended FIS's for the years in question and on that basis we find no violation of Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Based upon the totality of facts and circumstances in this case, we will take no further action. Taliff, 93- 035 -C2 Page 20 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Edward Taliff as a Mount Union Borough Councilmember was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Four technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Borough checks were issued to members of the immediate family of Taliff as to Facade Grants where the issued checks contained the stamped signature of Taliff. 3. No violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred as to the approval of Facade Grants to Taliff or members of his immediate family in that Taliff took no action as a Councilmember to approve the grants. 4. Taliff did not violate Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the filing of Financial Interests Statements for the calendar years 1990 through 1992 which have been filed. In Re: Edward Taliff File Docket: 93- 035 -C2 Date Decided: 02/23/95 Date Mailed: 03/10/95 ORDER NO. 954 1. Four technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Borough checks were issued to members of the immediate family of Edward Taliff, a Mount Union Borough Councilmember, as to Facade Grants where the issued checks contained the stamped signature of Taliff. 2. No violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred as to the approval of Facade Grants to Taliff or members of his immediate family in that Taliff took no action as a Councilmember to approve the grants. 3. Taliff did not violate Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the filing of Financial Interests Statements for the calendar years 1990 through 1992 which have been filed. 4. Based upon the totality, facts and circumstances, this Commission will take no further action. BY THE COMMISSION, ottlik,u Puk, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR