HomeMy WebLinkAbout871 PickIn re: Kenneth Pick
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 88 -117 -C
: Date Decided: December 10, 1992
Date Mailed: December 15, 1992
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a
possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, P.L.
883. 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 Order 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, however, does not affect the
finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and
must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why
reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code
§2.38.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 during the fifteen day period
and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may
violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating
this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing
this case with an attorney at law.
Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is
guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000
or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e).
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That you, Executive Director of the Sunbury Redevelopment
Authority (SRA) and Coordinator for the Community Development
Program (CDP), violated the following provisions of the State
Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), when you used your position to
participate and award engineering contracts to John Bakowicz with
whom you have a private business relationship, and you used
confidential information from your position to assist Bakowicz in
the purchase of SRA owned property without an open and public
process in return for the award of a private :contract from
Bakowicz:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public employee
shall use his public office or any
confidential information received through his
holding public office to obtain financial gain
other than compensation provided by law for
himself, a member of his immediate family, or
a business with which he is associated.
65 P.S. §403(a).
Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act provides:
(b) No person shall offer or give to a public
official or public employee or candidate for
public office or a member of his immediate
family or a business with which he is
associated, and no public official or public
employee or candidate for public office shall
solicit or accept, anything of value,
including a gift, loan, political
contribution, reward, or promise of future
employment based on any understanding that the
vote, official action, or judgment of the
public official or public employee or
candidate for public office would be
influenced thereby.
65 P.S. §403(b).
II. FINDINGS:
1. Mr. Kenneth Pick has served as Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Authority and as Coordinator of the Community
Development Program in the City of Sunbury, Pennsylvania from
March 1982 to February, 1990.
Pick, 88 -117 -c
Page 3
2. A position description of Mr. Pick's duties and
responsibilities with the Redevelopment Authority reflects
that he performs as follows:
a. Chief Administrative Officer of the Authority directly
responsible for the proper execution of board policy as
it relates to renewal activities in the city.
b. Coordinates all activities of the Federal, State and
Local agencies as they relate to renewal activities
generally and as required specifically. Responsible for
delineation of appropriate information to these bodies.
c. Provides technical assistance and directs the department
staff. Organizes the training of the staff; attends all
board meetings; reviews and comments upon all third party
contracts and, together with the chairman, signs these
when authorized by resolution of the board; recommends
personnel adjustments, changes, etc.; provides guidance,
direction and interpretation where required of the
personnel and administrative policies of the authority.
d. Signs letters and performs similar tasks for the
authority within the limitations established by the board
of resolution and by standard practice; aids in planning
of urban renewal projects and the elements thereof.
3. In addition to serving with the Sunbury Redevelopment
Authority and the City of Sunbury, Kenneth Pick also provided
consulting services to private clients.
a. Such services generally related to the field of Community
and Economic Development and included the preparation of
income surveys, applications for state and federal
funding.
b. One of the clients to whom Mr. Pick provided such service
was John Bakowicz.
4. John Bakowicz served as City Engineer for Sunbury,
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania from 1976 until August 14,
1989.
a. He provided engineering services to the Sunbury
Redevelopment Authority from 1979 to 1989.
b. He provided engineering services to the Sunbury Community
Development Program from 1979 to 1989. This status was
formalized by individual contracts in the early 1980s
when the Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs
assumed control of all block grant funding.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 4
5. John Bakowicz is a licensed professional engineer.
a. He operates a private engineering firm under his name.
b. In addition to the City of Sunbury and the Sunbury
Redevelopment Authority, John Bakowicz also has other
municipal clients.
c. During the course of his private engineering practice,
Mr. Bakowicz employed the services of Kenneth Pick as a
consultant (See Finding Nos. 53 -59).
6. The Sunbury Office "of Community Development (DCD) was created
by the city as a division of the municipal government charged
with the procurement and administration of community
development block grant funds (CDBG) and other federal and
state grants intended for the enrichment of community life
through the enhancement commerce, preservation of historic
structures; and revitalization of the public infrastructure.
a. A director and secretary comprise the DCD staff.
b. There is no direct DCD accountability to or oversight by
a designated city council person.
c. Other administrative departments are directly responsible
to individual members of council.
7. The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Sunbury is an
autonomous public entity which operates under the aegis of the
Pennsylvania Urban Redevelopment Act and a board of residents
appointed by the City Council.
a. The Authority serves as a conduit for federal and state
funds designated for urban renewal and related functions.
b. The Authority's programs are closely attuned with those
of the DCD.
c. The DCD Director also serves as executive director of the
Redevelopment Authority.
8. During late 1986, the City of Sunbury initiated the
construction of the Woodlawn Parking Lot at the Arch Street
redevelopment project site. The lot's boundaries were Arch
and Third Streets and Woodlawn Avenue.
a. The Sunbury Redevelopment Authority sold land for this
parking lot to the City.
b. John Bakowicz served as engineer for the parking lot project.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 5
c. The parking lot was to be funded with Community Block
Grant Program Funds after the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Affairs determined that the project was
eligible for funding.
9. Sunbury City mayor Charles Moll initially proposed
construction of this parking lot in May 1986.
10. In relation to the parking lot design, by way of letter dated
August 7, 1986 to Mr. Bakowicz from Kenneth Pick in his
capacity as the Community Development Coordinator for the
city, Mr. Bakowicz is advised that the city is interested in
acquiring property for a parking lot.
a. Mr. Bakowicz is requested to provide legal descriptions
and a survey for the Woodlawn /Arch Street site.
11. Mr. Bakowicz was appointed by the -city to act as engineer on
the parking lot project several days later on August 11, 1986
(See Finding No. 22(a)).
a. The contract for this appointment was dated August 11,
1986.
b. In this capacity, Mr. Bakowicz was responsible for
performing design surveying as required, design and
preparation of plans and specifications for bidding.
12. The Sunbury Redevelopment Authority also sold land to John
Bakowicz, acting in his private capacity, for a projected
office building which was to be constructed adjacent to the
parking lot.
a. This land was adjacent to the proposed parking lot being
constructed by the city.
b. The proposed office building was for John Bakowicz's
private engineering firm and was to also contain rental
space.
13. As Community Coordinator, Kenneth Pick, reported
directly to City Council on matters pertaining to the
construction of the parking lot and sale of the land to the
city and Mr. Bakowicz.
a. Mr. Pick was also involved in the redevelopment
authority's issuance of a loan to Mr. Bakowicz to
construct the proposed office facility on the land.
14. City Councilman Charles Schlegel was the Department Head who
was responsible for this project. He had oversight
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 6
responsibility for the activities of the streets department
and public improvement projects.
15. The Sunbury Redevelopment Authority had attempted to foster
the development of the Arch Street property since 1980.
a. Advertisements regarding the availability of this
property were published in 1981.
b. Realtors were contacted in an effort to market the
property.
16. Several potential buyers expressed an interest in the
properties.
a. In 1983, Turkey Hill Mini Markets requested to know of
any available redevelopment property for the construction
of a convenient store.
b. In a letter dated November 16, 1983, Mr. Pick describes
a 24,000 sq. ft. property and also advises that another
mini market is 1/2 block away.
c. Others also expressed an interest in this property.
17. At the time that Sunbury was attempting to sell the property
on Arch Street, a parking facility was under consideration.
a. A parking facility was considered in 1971.
18. A parking analysis, dated April 20, 1985, conducted at the
request of Kenneth Pick, determined that there was no need for
additional parking facilities in the City of Sunbury at that
time.
19. At a June 1986 meeting with the city council members, Kenneth
Pick discussed the site for the lot on Woodlawn Avenue and the
need to condemn private property.
20. Mr. Pick addressed this meeting and discussed the need to
change. the 1986 Community Development Block Grant program to
allow for construction of the Woodlawn Parking Lot.
21. The amendment to the program was passed by city council on
July 14, 1986.
22. Minutes of the City Council meetings reflect actions taken
with regard to the development and implementation of the
City's Community Development Program and the sale of land to
John Bakowicz.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 7
a. August 11, 1986:
By resolution, Council unanimously selected John Bakowicz
as Engineer for its FFY1986 CDBG Program for the Woodlawn
Avenue Parking Lot project at a fee not to exceed $5,000.
Council also unanimously adopted a resolution selecting
Eugene Brosius as Solicitor for the FFY 1986 CDBG Program
for the Woodlawn Avenue Parking Lot at a fee not to
exceed $6,000.
Ms. Schlegel requested council's permission to advertise
for bids for the Woodlawn` Avenue Parking Lot project.
Mr. Schlegel moved, seconded by Mr. Packer, to authorize
Mr. Pick to advertise for bids for the Woodlawn Avenue
Parking Lot project. Vote was called for and motion
passed unanimously.
b. October 13, 1986:
Mr. Pick stated that the committee has met concerning the
Woodlawn Avenue Parking project bids, and it is the
committee's recommendation that Council accept the bids.
Low bidders were Faylor - Middlecreek for the general
construction work, and K &N Electric for the electrical
work. Mr. Heintzelman moved, seconded by Mr. Packer, to
accept and award the bids for Contract 8 -86A (General)
and Contract 8 -86B (Electrical). Vote was called, and
motion passed unanimously.
Minutes do not reflect a motion being made to adopt the
following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Sunbury completed an urban renewal project entitled the
Arch Street Urban Renewal Project; and
WHEREAS, said project contains certain parcels of
land which the Authority is desirous of selling in
accordance with the Redevelopment Proposal prepared for
the area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sunbury has undertaken a
project funded by the FFY1986 Community Development
Program to construct a municipal parking lot and desires
to purchase from the Authority certain parcels of land of
the Arch Street Urban Renewal Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and it is hereby
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 8
resolved by the Council of the City of Sunbury that:
1. The parcels of land shown as Parcels 8 & 9 on
drawing #09- 02 -86 -D -00 by John R. Bakowicz,
P.E., and recorded in the Recorder's Office of
Northumberland County in Plan Book 8, Page 87
be purchased from the Redevelopment Authority
of the City of Sunbury for $1.16 per square
foot.
2. The Mayor, on behalf of Council, is authorized
and directed to execute all documents
necessary to consummate said sale.
Mr. Brosius, City Solicitor, presented Bill No. 6,
Sessions of 1986, an ordinance amending Ordinance
No. 1076, an ordinance establishing and maintaining
a lot for the parking of motor vehicles in the area
between Third and Fourth Streets and North of
Woodlawn Avenue in the City of Sunbury.
Mr. Filer moved, seconded by Mr. Schlegel, that
Bill No. 6, Sessions of 1986, be passed at first
reading in its entirety. Vote was called, and
motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Heintzelman moved, seconded by Mr. Packer, to
authorize Mr. Brosius, City Solicitor, to proceed
to file a Declaration of Taking in the event that
an amiable purchase price cannot be arrived at by
the time it is necessary to proceed with the
project. Vote was called for and motion passed
unanimously.
23. Minutes of the Redevelopment Authority meetings reflect the
following information pertaining to the Arch Street Project
which includes the Woodlawn Parking Lot:
a. August 7, 1986:
Mr. Pick gave the following reports:
The City allocated funds from the 1986 Community
Development for a parking lot to be developed on a
portion of the Arch Street parcel and extending to
Woodlawn Avenue 230 feet. The lot will be 70 feet
fronting on Arch Street and would require the transfer of
a 70 x 120 foot parcel from the Authority to the city.
An option to purchase a 65 foot frontage on Arch Street
and approximately 120 feet in depth was received from Mr. .
John R. Bakowicz , P . E . This would leave a 12 foot right-
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 9
of -way to get to the Third Street parcel. A long
discussion followed.
Mr. Walter made motion, seconded by Mr. Askew, to accept
the option from Mr. Bakowicz upon the condition that Mr.
Bakowicz place his driveway on the west side, and the
driveway would be subject to ingress and egress to the
remaining property of the Authority, its successors or
assigns; or that Mr. Bakowicz relinquish 5 feet, reducing
the width to a 60 foot frontage on Arch Street. Vote was
called for and motion passed with Mr. Albright, Mr.
Walter, Mr. Askew voting aye. Mr. Deitrich did not vote.
b. September 4, 1986:
Mr. Pick reported that Mr. John Bakowicz, P.E. is
requesting a revision in the direction and location of
the parcel he is interested in acquiring from the Arch
Street parcel where he plans to build an office building.
The parcel would essentially be the same size - 120'
fronting on Arch Street x 53' deep and would be located
next to the Metropolitan Insurance Building. His
original option was for 60' fronting on Arch Street and
120' deep and would sit closer to the Aldine Hotel.
Mr. Deitrich commented that the Redevelopment Authority
lot has been vacant for a number of years and now the
City desires to make it into a parking lot. He was
hoping the City would . just use a small portion of Parcel
No. 5 (adjacent to privately owned land) for an exit and
use the Redevelopment Authority owned parcel for the
parking. A lengthy discussion followed.
Mr. Woodring made motion, seconded by Mr. Walter, to
modify the option received from Mr. Bakowicz as
requested. Vote was called for and voting was as
follows: Aye - Mr. Woodring, Mr. Walter and Mr.
Albright. Mr. Deitrich abstained.
Mr. Pick and Mr. Brosius explained the proposed sub-
division of the Arch Street lot containing parcels 1, 8,
9 and 10 and requested permission to pass the proposed
subdivision. Question was raised if the City would be
inclined to purchase parcel No. 8 as well as No. 9 and
combine the two into one parcel. Discussion followed.
Mr. Woodring made motion, seconded by Mr. Walter, to
approve the subdivision plan as presented. Vote was
called for and voting was as follows: Aye - Mr.
Woodring, Mr. Walter and Mr. Albright. Mr. Deitrich
abstained.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 10
c. October 2, 1986:
Mrs. Forbes reported that a resolution will be presented
under new business for the sale of parcels No. 8 and No.
9 of the Arch Street parcel to the City.
Mr. Albright noted that with this last bond program
proposal, the total our Authority used to date will be
$730,000.
Mr. Jim Jaegers stated that, according to their deed, the
survey of the Arch Street parcel was off by 2° feet, and
he questioned what happened to-this amount of land? Mr.
Brosius, Solicitor, . explained that he has to assume the
surveyor is correct. If he is wrong, he has to answer to
that. Mr. Brosius will check with Mr. Bakowicz and then
get back to Mr. Jaegers.
Mr. Walter made motion, seconded by Mr. Askew, that
Parcels No. 8 and 9 be sold to the City with the
assumption all parties are satisfied, that Parcel No. 9
be checked for accuracy. Vote . was . called for and was as
follows: Aye - Mr. Albright, Mr. Walter and Mr. Askew.
No - Mr. Deitrich. The following resolution was
approved:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of
Sunbury completed an urban renewal project entitled the
Arch Street Urban Renewal Project; and
WHEREAS, said project contains certain parcels of
land which the Authority is desirous of selling in
accordance with the Redevelopment Proposal prepared for
the area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Sunbury has undertaken a
project funded by the FFY1986 Community Development
Program to construct a municipal parking lot and desires
to purchase from the Authority certain parcels of land of
the Arch Street Urban Renewal Area.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, and it is hereby
resolved by the governing body of the Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Sunbury that:
1. The parcels of land shown as Parcels 8 & 9 on
drawing No. 09 -02 -86 D -001 by John R. Bakowicz,
P.E. and recorded in the Recorder's Office of
Northumberland County in Plan Book 8, page 87 be
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 11
sold to the City of Sunbury for $1.16 per square
foot.
2. The Chairman and Secretary are authorized and
directed to execute all documents necessary to
consummate said sale.
d. October 22, 1986:
Mr. Walter made motion, seconded by Mr. Askew, that
Parcel No. 1 of the Arch Street lot be sold to John R. &
Mary Lou A. Bakowicz for construction of a two -unit
office facility. :Vote was called for and motion passed
unanimously. The resolution is as follows:
R E S O L U T I O N
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, and it is hereby
resolved by the governing body of the Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Sunbury that:
1. The parcel of land shown as Parcel No. 1 on drawing
No. 09- 02 -86 -D -001 by John R. Bakowicz, P.E. and
recorded in the Recorder's Office of Northumberland
County in Deed Plan Book 8, Page 87, be sold to
John R. and Mary Lou Bakowicz for the sum of
$7,350.
2. The chairman and secretary are authorized and
directed to execute all documents necessary to
consummate said sale.
e. December 4, 1986:
Mr. Pick presented a drawing of the plans and
specifications of the proposed building to be constructed
by Mr. & Mrs. John Bakowicz. Building will consist of
2,650 square feet for two offices; one for Mr. Bakowicz
and one for a prospective tenant Plans include four
parking spaces plus the public parking lot is available
for further required parking.
Mr. Walter made motion, seconded by Mr. Woodring, that we
accept the plan as submitted by Mr. & Mrs. John R.
Bakowicz. Vote was called for, and motion passed
unanimously.
f. January 8, 1987:
Mr. Pick reported that settlement with Mr. & Mrs.
Bakowicz for the Arch Street parcel has been completed.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 12
From the proceeds of these two parcels, 50% will be
returned to the State. This completes the Arch Street
Program.
24. Mr. Bakowicz was aware that the city had selected a site for
a parking lot, and he considered building a new office
facility at the same location.
a. Mr. Pick suggested that Backowicz may want to consider
purchasing a parcel of remaining Authority land to build
a building.
b. Kenneth Pick was aware of the'fact that Mr. Bakowicz was
seeking an office facility.
25. In relation to the sale of land to John Bakowicz, by way of
letter dated August 6, 1986 from John Bakowicz to the
Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Bakowicz requests an option to
purchase the property on Street for the purpose of
constructing an office facility thereon.
a. The configuration of the parcel sought consisted of a 65
foot frontage on Arch Street. and 120 feet deep,
b. This configuration was consistent with the parking lot
design - Option A (See Finding No. 27(a)).
c. On August 6, 1986, the three options had . not yet been
prepared.
d. This letter was dated one day prior to Mr. Pick's letter
to Mr. Bakowicz requesting legal description and surveys
(See Finding No. 10).
26. Three design options were prepared in relation to the physical
layout of the city parking lot project.
a. Options A, B, and C were prepared by Muller and Lonegran
Associates, Inc.
1) The original concept known as Option A was prepared
by Pick based upon council's discussion of the
parking lot during a meeting held on June 9, 1986.
b. Muller and Lonegran, Inc. served as a contract consultant
for the City of Sunbury in relation to the development of
a community development program.
27. The three options entailed the configuration of the parking
lot, the number of spaces, the site of the office facility,
and the location of vacant parcels.
ick, 88 -117 -C
Page 13
a. Option A involved a parking lot running parallel with
Fourth Street between Arch and Woodlawn. The lot would
be a straight run of 42 spaces. The office facility
would be on Arch Street with the lot to one side and a
vacant parcel to the other .
b. Option B placed the lot in the shape of a reverse Letter
L running parallel with Fourth (from Woodlawn) and then
up from Fourth to Third Street. The office would face
Arch and be bordered by the lot which contained 64
spaces.
c. Option C placed the office on Arch Street with the
entrance to the lot adjacent thereto. The lot would run
in the shape of a reverse Letter Z from Woodlawn parallel
with Fourth up toward Third and across to Arch. The lot
consisted of 42 spaces.
28. Option C was preferred by John Bakowicz for his private office
complex, because his building would be situated closer to the
Metropolitan Building and further from the Aldine Hotel.
29. Parking lot design, Option A, presented certain egress
problems for Mr. Bakowicz.
a. A potential problem also would occur in securing parking
and turning around in the building site.
30. Option C did not present these problems and worked to the
benefit of Mr. Bakowicz.
- 31. 'In mid- August 1986, Mr. Bakowicz met with James Walton of
Mullen & Lonegran Associates, Inc. to discuss preliminary
design of a plan consistent with Option C.
a. This was prior to councilman Schlegel's agreement to
recommend that option (See Finding No. 32(c)).
b. The only option for which preliminary design work was
prepared prior to September 4, 1986 was C.
1.) This was prepared by Mr. Bakowicz.
c. Neither Option A nor B was prepared with specificity as
of September 4, 1986.
1.) A drawing was prepared with a configuration similar
to Option A.
32. On September 4, 1986, a breakfast meeting was held with
Kenneth Pick, City. Councilman Schlegel and John Bakowicz for
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 14
the purpose of discussing design options A, B and C.
a. Mr. Bakowicz sought to determine which option city
council would accept.
b. Mr. Bakowicz had reviewed the three options prior to that
time.
c. Mr. Schlegel decided on Option C subject to council's
approval.
1.) Schlegel approved of Option C over the two
remaining options.
d. Mr. Schlegel believed that only Option C entailed both a
parking lot and an office facility.
33. Mr. Bakowicz, as a potential buyer, would have wanted to see
all three design options so as to determine if the option
selected by city council would suit his needs.
34. Mr. Bakowicz, during a sworn deposition, testified that he did
not know in what capacity he had been: given the three design
options; that is either as a potential buyer or as an engineer
for the parking project.
35. By way of letter of September 4, 1986 from John Bakowicz to
the Sunbury Redevelopment Authority, Mr. Bakowicz requests to
amend his letter of August 6, 1986 whereby he proposed to
purchase the Arch Street property (See Finding No. 25).
a. The amendment relates to the configuration of the size of
the lot and requested a 120 foot frontage on Arch Street
and a depth of 52.78 feet.
b. This configuration was consistent with the parking lot
design C (See Finding No. 27(c)).
c. The letter contained a legal description of the property
(revised) consisting of an exact metes and bounds
identification.
36. On September 4, 1986, the Redevelopment Authority Mr.
Bakowicz's request (See Finding No. 23(b)).
a. The approved subdivision was consistent with the design -
Option C.
b. This decision occurred the evening of Mr. Bakowicz's
meeting with Councilman Schlegel (See Finding No. 32).
Pick,, 88 -117 -C
Page 15
37. Mr. Bakowicz had privately hired a draftsman sometime in
August 1986 to prepare a design for the construction of his
facility.
a. Mr. Bakowicz paid the draftsman on September 12, 1986,
and the plans were filed in the county courthouse on that
date.
b. The plans were consistent with Design Option C.
38. During a sworn deposition, Mr. Pick testified inter alia that
the reason that the configuration of the parking lot design
was altered was because of the desire of Mr. Bakowicz to
change the positioning of his building.
39. In order to sell the land to Mr. Bakowicz, the land was
required to be subdivided .
a. This was accomplished on September 8, 1991 by the city.
40. In an effort to finance the construction of a private office
facility, John Bakowicz sought funds through the Sunbury
Redevelopment Authority.
a. The financing involved the issuance of authority bonds to
be secured by the lending institution.
41. On September 11, 1986, a public meeting was held by the
Sunbury Redevelopment Authority for the purpose of considering
the projects and solicit public comment therein.
a. One project was the Bakowicz office facility.
b. The meeting was called to order by the authority chairman
also thereafter turned the floor over to Mr. Kenneth Pick
who proceeded to describe the projects.
42. The financing issued as part of a program called the
Commercial Rehabilitation Program of the Redevelopment
Authority.
a. Interest rates were low with this program.
43. The loan program was going to expire in December 1986 and, as
such, Mr. Bakowicz had to complete his efforts to secure
financing prior thereto.
44. On October 22, 1986, the chairman of the Sunbury Redevelopment
Authority executed a resolution approving the issuance of tax -
free bonds.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 16
a. The resolution provides that the Authority is authorized
to barrow funds through the issuance of tax free bonds to
area lenders who have agreed to participate in the
program for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction
or improvement of industrial and commercial property
b. The authority makes these funds available to qualified
property owners.
c. The resolution authorizes the issuance of bonds totaling
in part $127,200.
45. On October 22, 1986, the chairman of the Sunbury redevelopment
Authority executed a resolution approving the issue of funds
for the sale of the tax free bonds.
a. The funds were released in part to John R. and Mary Lou
Bakowicz in the amount of $95,000.00.
46. By way of memo dated November 18, 1986 to Eugene Brosius,
Esq., solicitor for the Sunbury Redevelopment Authority, from
Kenneth Pick, a bond tax opinion is requested in relation to
the Bakowicz loan.
a. The lender required an opinion regarding the tax free
eligibility of the bond.
47. Settlement whereby the Sunbury Redevelopment Authority
transferred the Arch Street property to John R. and Mary Lou
Bakowicz took place on December 11, 1986.
a. The consideration noted in the deed was $7,350.00.
48. On December 12, 1986, Kenneth Pick forwarded an Industrial
Development Bond final allocation request to the Pennsylvania
Department of Commerce regarding the Bakowicz loan.
a. Mr. Pick also filed IRS Form 8038, information for
private activity bond issues on December 12, 1986.
49. Kenneth Pick advised the voting members of the Redevelopment
Authority on the loan-approval to Mr. Bakowicz.
50. The members of the Redevelopment Authority were not advised by
Mr. Pick of his private business relationship with Mr.
Bakowicz at the time of the loan approval.
51. By letter of March 1, 1989, the PA Department of Community
Affairs forwarded to Mayor Moll a Performance Review Report of
the City's Community Development Block Grant program.
Pertinent portions of pages three through five, relative to
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 17
the Woodlawn Avenue projects, confirmed the following:
a. Eligibility
Based on the review of documentation contained within the
City's files; and on -site inspections of each activity;
all activities are eligible, with the exception of the
Woodlawn Avenue Parking Lot.
b. Woodlawn Avenue Parking:
1) An amendment was submitted in July 1986 and
approved by DCA to include in the 1986 program, the
acquisition and construction of the Woodlawn Avenue
Parking Lot. This lot was to benefit the Center
City Neighborhood and City overall both of which
exceed 51% low and moderate income persons. The
City justified this activity based on slum and
blight removal. DCA qualified the activity based
on the low and moderate income benefit since it
apparently met both objectives.
2) DCA's research on -site indicates that this parking
lot is primarily utilized by government employees
and /or employees of other agencies or businesses
within the downtown.
3) Conflict of Interest Determination: Federal
Regulation 24 CFR Part 570.611(b) (regarding
conflicts of interest) provides:
"...no person [who is an employee, agent,
consultant, officer, or elected official or
appointed official of the recipient] who
exercise or have exercised any functions or
responsibilities with respect to CDBG assisted
activity or have an interest in any contract,
subcontract or agreement with respect thereto,
or the proceeds thereunder, either for
themselves or those with whom they have family
or business ties, during their tenure or for
one year - thereafter.
4) Based on our monitoring of the City of Sunbury CDBG
program, we strongly believe that at least one City
official has violated the above provision and thus
obtained prohibited interest in the Woodlawn Avenue
Parking Lot project, a CDBG assisted project within
the City.
5) Our monitoring of the city program reveals the following:
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 18
In June 1986, City Council adopted a plan for the
construction of a rectangular parking lot in the
downtown area between 3rd and 4th streets. The
lot, as originally proposed, constituted 16,100
square feet and was to accommodate 42 parking
spaces. As finally constructed, the lot measured
18,260 square feet and accommodated 41 parking
spaces.
The square footage and space loss, based upon our
review of this project, was the result of
acquisition by the City Engineer, John Bakowicz, of
a purchase option to adjacent property; redesign of
the proposed lot by Mr. Bakowicz as well as
modification of parking lot during its construction
phase.
August 6, 1986 - Mr. Bakowicz requested a purchase
option for land adjacent to the proposed Woodlawn
Avenue Parking Lot from the Sunbury Redevelopment
Authority.
August 11, 1986 - The City awarded Mr. Bakowicz a
contract to survey the proposed Woodlawn Avenue
Parking Lot area. The survey as performed included
the land described in Mr. Bakowicz's purchase
option from the Redevelopment Authority.
During the design of the lot, the original
rectangular configuration was replaced with an L-
shaped lot comprised of 18,260 square feet.
The new L- shaped configuration provided Mr.
Bakowicz, as holder of a purchase option on the
adjacent property, with the following advantages:
Mr. Bakowicz's frontage on Arch Street was
increased from 60 to 120 feet.
The redesign enabled Mr. Bakowicz to move this
"planned office building" farther away from the
Aldine Hotel, a deteriorated structure, and closer
to the Metropolitan Life Building, a modern office
building in good repair.
September 4, 1986 - The Redevelopment Authority
approved a revised purchase option for Mr.
Bakowicz, consistent with the revision of the
parking lot.
September 8, 1986 The City approved Mr.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 19
During the construction, spaces 35 and 36 were
eliminated, and the curbing separating the parking
lot from Mr. Bakowicz option area was altered; drop
curbing was installed giving Mr. Bakowicz's option
area direct access to the city's parking lot.
December 8, 1986 — City approved right -of -way to
Mr. Bakowicz's option area at Mr. Bakowicz's
request.
December 9, 1986 - Mr. Bakowicz exercised his
option and purchased lot adjacent to Woodlawn
Avenue Parking Lot.
6) Our investigation of this matter shows that the
Community Development Director, Kenneth Pick,
advised Mr. Bakowicz concerning the acquisition of
the purchase option; beneficial revisions; and
probability of success in his endeavors.
7) Mr. Pick failed to advise City Council of Mr.
Bakowicz's interest in the Woodlawn Avenue site and
the redesigning of the parking lot to accommodate
Mr. Bakowicz's interests.
9
Bakowicz's subdivision plan for land adjacent to
the proposed Woodlawn Avenue Parking Lot.
October 22, 1986 - The Redevelopment Authority
adopted a resolution for the sale of its land
adjacent to the Woodlawn Avenue Parking Lot to Mr.
Bakowicz.
November 5, 1986 - The City purchased the Woodlawn
Avenue site from the Redevelopment Authority.
November 7, 1986 - The City awarded a contract for
construction of the Woodlawn Avenue Parking Lot.
Mr. Bakowicz, as City Engineer, supervised the
construction.
It does not appear that Mr. Pick has received any
financial benefit for providing assistance to Mr.
Bakowicz in this project. No contract, subcontract
or agreement is evident.
A Finding of Noncompliance has been made as per
Section - 105(a) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended 24CFR Part
570.201, and Federal OMB Circular A -102, Attachment
0. This activity is not eligible due to the
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 20
apparent conflict of interest underlying its
execution, and because the parking lot is not a
public facility.
Corrective Action:
The City is prohibited from using CDBG funds for
this activity. Any CDBG funds drawn down from DCA
for this activity must be returned to DCA, to then
be made available for some other eligible and
fundable activity.
52. On June 12, 1989, in a letter to the Pennsylvania Department
of Community Affairs authored by Mayor Charles Moll, the City
of Sunbury concurred with the PA Department of Community
Affairs determination that Mr. Bakowicz benefited financially
when he purchased a lot next to the Woodlawn Parking Lot.
That letter noted as follows:
a. D.C.A. determined that John Backowicz obtained a personal
financial benefit from this C.D.B.G. assisted project.
At the time this benefit was received by John Backowicz,
he was the City Engineer. The City agrees with the
determination by D.C.A. that John Backowicz was a City
Official at the time he obtained this prohibited
interest.
b. The City is concerned about loss of C . D . B . G .funds for the
Woodlawn Avenue Parking lot as a result of the prohibited
activities by Mr. Backowicz. Accordingly, we request a
meeting with D.C.A. for two purposes. First, the City
would like to discuss actual loss as a result of the
prohibited activities. Second, the City would like to
discuss assistance from D.C.A., as well as other state
agencies, to assist the City in the recovery of the
funds.
53. In relation to the private consulting services provided by
Kenneth Pick to John Bakowicz (See Finding Nos. 3(b) and
5(c)), Mr. Pick and Mr. Bakowicz first discussed such services
in 1985.
54. Mr. Pick did not perform any services until' 1986.
55. Mr. Pick assisted Mr. Bakowicz in -the filing of letters of
intent for several municipal clients by which Mr. Bakowicz was
employed including Lewis Township and Zerbe Township.
a. In this capacity, Mr. Pick was assisting in applying for
grant funds for other municipalities.
Pick,, 88 -117 -C
Page 21
56. Mr. Pick considered Mr. Bakowicz an important client for his
private consulting business because of Mr. Bakowicz's
extensive contacts and representation with municipalities.
57. Mr. Pick felt that it was important to maintain a good rapport
with Mr. Bakowicz because he was an important client.
58. The compensation paid to Mr. Pick by Mr. Bakowicz was
contingent upon the successful receipt of funding by the
municipality.
59. Mr. Pick received payments for performing private consulting
services for Mr. Bakowicz as follows:
a. Check #4863, dated February 24, 1987, in the amount of
$1,000.
b. Check #1094, dated May 18, 1987, in the amount of $2,300.
c. Check #1077, dated May 2, 1987, in the amount of $500.
d. Payments outlined above were in relation to the approved
grant for Lewis Township.
Total $3,800.00
III. DISCUSSION:
As the Executive Director of the Sunbury Redevelopment
Authority and Coordinator for the Community Development Program,
Kenneth Pick, hereinafter Pick, was a public employee as that term
is defined in the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1. As
such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act
:and the restrictions therein are applicable to him.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26,
1989, P.L. 26, 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 prior to the
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 22
provisions of Act 170 of 1978, P.L. 883, to determine whether the
Ethics Act was violated.
Under Section 3(a), quoted above, this Commission has
determined that use of office by a public official to obtain a
financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or
a business with which he is associated which is not provided for in
law transgresses the above provision of law. Thus, use of office
by a public official to obtain a financial gain which is not
authorized as part of his compensation is prohibited by Section
3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. State Ethics ,Commission, 77 Pa. Commw.
Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v. State Ethics Commission,
109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536 (1987). Similarly, Section
3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a public official /employee
from using public office to advance his own financial interests;
Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540 A.2d
1374 (1988).
Section 3(b) provides in part that no person shall solicit or
accept anything of value based on the understanding that the vote,
official action or the judgment of the public official or employee
would be influenced thereby.
The issue before us is whether Pick violated either Section
3(a) or 3(b) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding the allegation that he
used his position to participate and award engineering contracts to
John Bakowicz with whom he had a private business relationship and
whether he used confidential information to assist Bakowicz in the
purchase of Sunbury Redevelopment Authority (SRA) property in
return for the award of a private contract from Bakowicz.
Factually, Pick served as the Executive Director of the SRA
and Coordinator of the Community Development Program (CDP) for the
City of Sunbury from March, 1982 until February, 1990. As to the
SRA, Pick was the chief administrative officer who coordinated all
activities with federal, state and local agencies as they related
to renewal activities. In a private capacity, Pick provided
private consulting services to clients, one of whom was John
Bakowicz, the Sunbury City Engineer from 1976 until August, 1989.
In addition, Bakowicz also provided engineering services to the SRA
between 1979 and 1989. Bakowicz is a licensed professional
engineer who operated a private engineering firm with private and
municipal clientele including Sunbury, the SRA and other municipal
clients. As to his private engineering practice, Bakowicz did
employ the services of Pick as a consultant.
In 1986, Sunbury initiated the construction of the Woodlawn
Parking Lot project. The SRA sold the land to the City for the
construction of a parking lot which was to be funded with Community
Block Grant Program funds from the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). The project was originally proposed by
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 23
Sunbury Mayor Charles Moll. By letter dated August 7, 1986, to
Bakowicz from Pick, as Community Development Coordinator for
Sunbury, Bakowicz was requested to provide legal descriptions and
a survey for the parking lot site. Four days later on August 11,
1986, Bakowicz was appointed by Sunbury to act as engineer for the
parking lot project. Bakowicz was responsible for performing
design surveying, design and preparation of plans, and
specifications for bidding.
Separate and apart from the above, Bakowicz purchased land in
a private capacity from the SRA for a office building which was to
be constructed adjacent to the parking site. Bakowicz intended to
erect an office building which would contain his private
engineering firm as well as rental space for tenants. As Community
Development Coordinator, Pick reported to Sunbury City Council as
to matters pertaining to the parking lot and the sale of the land
both to the City and Bakowicz. Pick also had involvement in the
SRA's issuance of a loan to Bakowicz to construct his proposed
office facility.
Parenthetically, in 1971, consideration was made to sell the
land in question for a parking facility but a parking analysis done
in April of 1985 at the direction of Pick determined that there was
no need for additional parking facilities in Sunbury at that time.
In a 1986 meeting with City Council Members, Pick discussed the
need to change the 1986 Community Development Block Grant Program
to allow for the construction of the Woodlawn Parking lot which
amendment was passed by City Council on July 14, 1986.
The Sunbury City Council meeting minutes reflect the following
as to the Community Development Program and sale of land to
Bakowicz:
On August 11, 1986, by unanimous resolution Bakowicz was
selected as engineer for the Woodlawn Avenue Parking lot
with his fee not to exceed $5,000 and Pick is directed to
advertise for bids for the parking lot project;
On October 13, 1986, a resolution was adopted, which was
not reflected in the minutes, that the City purchase
certain parcels of land from the SRA and that the
ordinance be amended so as to establish and maintain the
lot for parking vehicles at Woodlawn Avenue;
On August 7, 1986, Pick reported that City funds were
allocated for the development of the parking lot project
and that Bakowicz was seeking an option to purchase
frontage on Arch Street which option was accepted with a
modification by Council;
On September 4, 1986, Pick reported that Bakowicz was
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 24
requesting a further revision whereby his desired parcel
would be located next to the Metropolitan Insurance
Building rather than closer to the Aldine Hotel which
revision was accepted by Council through the passage of
a motion;
On October 2, 1986, a resolution was passed for the
implementation of the purchase by the City of various
parcels of land as to the parking lot project;
On October 22, 1986, a motion was passed to sell property
on Arch Street to John Bakowicz and his spouse for the
construction of a two -unit office facility which motion
passed unanimously;
On December 4, 1986, Pick presented a drawing of plans
and specifications for the proposed office building by
Bakowicz which included._ four parking spaces plus the
space in the new parking lot which was accepted by City
Council through the passage of unanimous motion; and
On January 8, 1987, Pick reported that settlement
occurred as to conveyance of the Arch Street property to
Bakowicz with 50% of the proceeds being returned to the
state.
Bakowicz was aware that the City selected the site for the
parking lot and he considered building, a new office facility at
that same location. Likewise, since Pick was aware that Bakowicz
was seeking an office facility, he suggested to Bakowicz that he
might consider purchasing a parcel of remaining SRA land on which
to erect his office building. The request by Bakowicz for an
option to purchase the property on Arch Street was contained in a
letter dated August 6, 1986, which predated by one day Pick's
letter.to Bakowicz requesting a legal description and surveys as to
the property. Three design options were prepared relative to the
physical layout of the parking lot project:
Option A would involve a straight run parking lot with 42
spaces with the office facility being on Arch Street with
the parking lot . on one side and the vacant lot on the
other;
Option B would be for an L -shape parking lot with the
office facility facing Arch Street and bordering the
parking lot with 64 spaces; and
Option C would be with the office on Arch Street with the
entrance to the lot adjacent to it with the parking lot
in the form of a Z with 42 spaces.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 25
Bakowicz favored Option C for his private office complex because
his building would be closer to the Metropolitan Building and
farther away from the Aldine Hotel. Option A presented certain
egress problems for Bakowicz which did not exist as to Option C
which would hence benefit of Bakowicz.
In mid - August, 1986 Bakowicz met with Muller and Lonegran
Associates, Inc., the contract consultant for Sunbury in relation
to the development of a Community Development Program, to discuss
the preliminary design of a plan consistent with Option C. This
occurred prior to the recommendation of a Council Member to adopt
that option. Further, preliminary design work was only done for
Option C which was prepared" by Bakowicz; neither Option A or B was
prepared with specificity. In a meeting between Pick, City
Councilman Schlegel and Bakowicz for the purposing of discussing
the three Options, Schlegel decided on Option C subject to
Council's approval over the other two options. In this regard,
Schlegel was under the impression that only Option C entailed both
a parking lot and office facility. Bakowicz admitted that he did
not know in what capacity he had been given the three design
options, that is, whether as a potential buyer or as engineer for
the parking lot project.
The September 4, 1986 amendment by Bakowicz as to his August
6, 1986 letter for the proposed purchase is consistent with the
configuration as proposed for parking lot design Option C. The
September 4, 1986 approval by the SRA of Bakowicz's request was
also consistent with design Option C. On August, 1986, when
Bakowicz hired a draftsman to prepare a design for the construction
of this facility which was filed in the County Courthouse on
September, 1986, the plan was consistent with design Option C. Pick
admitted that the reason for the change in design of the parking
lot configuration was because of the desire of Bakowicz to change
the position of his proposed office building. On September 11,
1986, at a public meeting of the SRA, various projects including
Bakowicz's were considered following a description of the projects
by Pick.
In an effort to finance the construction of this private
office facility, Bakowicz sought funding through the SRA. Since
the funding from a program called the Commercial Rehabilitation
Program of the Redevelopment Authority was to expire on December,
1986, Bakowicz had to complete his efforts to secure financing
prior to that time. On October 22, 1986, the Chairman of the SRA
executed a resolution approving the issuance of tax free bonds in
the amount of $127,200 with $95,000 being released to Bakowicz and
his spouse. Settlement on the Arch Street property with the SRA
occurred on December 11, 1986, for a stated consideration of $7,350
paid by Bakowicz. On December 12, 1986, Pick forwarded an
industrial development bond final allocation request to DCA
regarding the Bakowicz loan. Although Pick advised the SRA members
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 26
of the loan approval by Bakowicz, he did not disclose to the
members his private or business relationship with Bakowicz at the
time of the loan approval.
By letter of March 1, 1989, DCA forwarded to Mayor Moll a
performance review report of the City's Community Development Block
Grant Program which stated in part that the activities relative to
the Woodlawn Avenue Parking lot were not eligible noting the
conflict of interest determination under Federal Regulation 24 CFR
Part 570.611(b). In particular, it was noted that there was a
square footage and space loss in the project due to the acquisition
by City Engineer Bakowicz of a purchase option as to adjacent
property concomitant with the redesign of the proposed lot by
Bakowicz and the modification of the parking lot. The report
reflected that their investigation indicated that Pick advised
Bakowicz of the acquisition of the purchase option, beneficial
revisions and the probability of the success of his endeavors and
further that Pick failed to advise City Council of Bakowicz's
interest in the Woodlawn Avenue site. The report stated that it
did not appear that Pick received any financial benefit for
providing assistance to Bakowicz as to the project. The report
concluded with a finding of non - compliance as to the Woodlawn
project noting ineligibility due to the conflict of interest
underlying the execution and due to the fact that the parking lot
was not considered a public facility.
In a letter of response by Mayor Moll dated June 12, 1989, to
DCA, the City concurred that Bakowicz benefitted financially as to
the purchase of the lot next to the Woodlawn parking lot in that
Bakowicz obtained a personal financial benefit at a time when he
was City Engineer and that the City was concerned about the loss of
Community Block Grant funds for the Woodlawn Avenue Parking lot.
Finally, Mayor Moll requested a meeting with DCA to discuss the
actual loss as a result of the prohibited activities and secondly
sought assistance from DCA or any other state agency in the
recovery of the funds.
As to the relationship between Pick and Bakowicz, the idea of
Pick providing private consulting services to Bakowicz was first
discussed in 1985 but no services were performed by Pick until
1986. Further, Pick assisted Bakowicz in filing letters of intent
with several other municipal clients. Pick considered Bakowicz an
important client for his private consulting business and sought to
maintain a good raport with Bakowicz due to Bakowicz's extensive
contacts and representation as to municipalities. Lastly, the
compensation paid to Pick from Bakowicz was contingent upon the
successful receipt of funding in any given municipality.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(b) of Act 170
of 1978 quoted above to the instant matter, we cannot find that a
violation of the Ethics Law occurred in the instant matter. As to
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 27
the award of engineering contracts to Bakowicz, Pick was not in a
position to award such contracts. Further, to the extent that he
participated in the process, we do not find any resultant financial
gain to Pick which is required for a Section 3(a) violation.
Likewise, we find no violation under Section 3(b) because there is
no evidence establishing an understanding which is a requisite
element for a violation of that section of the Ethics Law. As to
the SRA property, it does appear from a review of the record that
Pick used public office on behalf of Bakowicz and derivatively
himself regarding the purchase of the SRA property by Bakowicz. In
this regard, the record is replete with actions of Pick which were
supportive of Bakowicz as to the purchase of the property and as to
the modification of the Woodlawn Parking lot plan which would be
advantageous to Bakowicz. However, what is absent from the record
is the linkage between the use of public office and the financial
gain; since such is lacking, we do not find a violation of Section
3(a) in this case. As to Section 3(b), the record does not reflect
the requisite understanding between Pick and Bakowicz and on that
basis we must also find no violation of Section 3(b) of Act 170 of
1978.
Our ruling in this matter should not be construed as
countenancing the actions of Pick in this matter. It is patently
clearly that Pick did not act so as to insure that there was no
conflict between his public and private interests. However, in
reaching our decision, we may only find a violation if all of the
requisite elements of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 exist. As
noted above, the requisite element of a financial gain to Pick is
not present and for that reason we find no violation of Section
3(a). Similarly, since the evidence does not establish the
requisite "understanding" needed in order to sustain a Section 3(b)
violation, we likewise find no violation of that provision of the
Ethics Act.
Given the fact that Pick is no longer publicly employed and
considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of this
case, we will take no further action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Kenneth Pick as Executive Director of the Sunbury
Redevelopment Authority and the Coordinator for the Community
Development Program of Sunbury was a public employee subject
to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978.
2. Pick did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
using his position to award engineering contracts to Bakowicz
or to assist Bakowicz in purchasing SRA owned property in that
there is no showing that Pick received a financial gain as to
such activity.
Pick, 88 -117 -C
Page 28
3. Pick did not violate Section 3(b) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
the award of engineering contracts or the assistance as to the
purchase of SRA owned property by Bakowicz in that the record
does not establish any "understanding" between Pick and
Bakowicz.
In re: Kenneth Pick
File Docket: 88 -171 -C
Date Decided: December 10, 1992
: Date Mailed: December 15, 1992
ORDER NO. 871
1. Kenneth Pick as Executive Director of the Sunbury
Redevelopment Authority and the Coordinator for the Community
Development Program of Sunbury Pick did not violate Section
3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding using his position to award
engineering contracts to Bakowicz or to assist Bakowicz in
purchasing SRA owned property in that there is no showing that
Pick received a financial gain as to such activity.
2. Pick did not violate Section 3(b) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
the award of engineering contracts or the assistance as to the
purchase of SRA owned property by Bakowicz in that the record
does not establish any "understanding" between Pick and
Bakowicz.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWL HAIR