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