HomeMy WebLinkAbout873 GericSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In re: James Geric File Docket: 91- 004 -C2
Date Decided: Decemb 10, 1992
Date Mailed: Decemb 15, 1992
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
The State Ethics Commission received complaints regarding
possible violations of the State Ethics Law, Act No. 170 of 1978
and Act No. 9 of 1989. 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 held. The record
is complete. 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 rifteen 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 and Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S.
§408(h), 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. 5409(e).
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION A:
That James Geric, a member of East Pittsburgh Borough Council,
Allegheny County, violated the following provisions of the State
Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), when he participated in actions as a
borough councilman to obtain business for Tri- Valley Automotive, a
business with which he is associated.
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 r 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.
(c) No public official or public employee
or a member of his immediate family or any
business in which the person or a member of
the person's immediate family is a director,
officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5%
of the equity at fair market value of the
business shall enter into any contract valued
at $500 or more with a governmental body
unless the contract has been awarded through
an open and public process, including prior
public notice and subsequent public disclosure
of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. Any contract made 'in violation of
this subsection shall be voidable by a court
of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of making of the
contract.
65 P.S. §S403(a), (c).
And James Geric violated the following provisions of Act 9 of
1989 when he participated and voted to pay bills to Tri - Valley
Automotive, a company owned by his brother:
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
65 P.S. S403(a).
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 3
ALLEGATION B:
That James Geric, a Council person for the Borough of East
Pittsburgh, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics
Act (Act 170 of 1978), when you failed to file Statements of
Financial Interest for the calendar years 1987 and 1989.
Section 4. Statement of financial interests
required to be filed.
(a) Each public employee employed by the
Commonwealth shall file a statement of
financial interests for the preceding calendar
year with the department, agency or bureau in
which he is employed 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 shall file a statement
of financial interests with the governing
authority of the political subdivision by
which he is employed no later than May 1 of
each year that he holds such a position and of
the year after he leaves such a position.
65 P.S. §404(a).
II. FINDINGS:
A. PLEADINGS:
1. James Geric serves as a member of the East Pittsburgh Borough
Council, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
a. He has served in said position since January, 1986.
b. He served as Chairman of the Public Safety Committee from
January, 1986, through December, 1989.
c. In January, 1990, he was made Chairman of the Property,
Zoning and Ordinance Committee.
2. The Public Safety Committee was responsible for police
supplies and equipment, police desk, police and car
maintenance.
a. The Committee Chairman is responsible for approving bills
by initialling same for the entire committee with major
bills being approved by the entire committee as well as
reporting to the Committee and making recommendations to
the full Council.
Geric 91- 004 -C2
Page 4
3. Repairs were never put out for bid.
a. Bills would include those relating to the police car
repairs.
4. The Public Safety Committee has officially been responsible
for the maintenance of all police vehicles since May 10,
1988.
a. The May 10, 1988 motion to place all Public Safety
Department equipment including said vehicles under the
Public Safety Committee was made by James Geric.
b. The Borough owns two police cars and two trucks.
5. Tri- Valley Automotive is a garage which performs automobile
repairs; state inspections; emission inspections; and towing
and flatbed service.
6. Tri - Valley Automotive is operated by Patrick J. Geric, 603
Main Street, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15112.
a. Patrick Geric is the brother of James Geric, Councilman.
7. Tri - Valley Automotive, 409 Center Street, East. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania performed vehicle repair and maintenance service
for vehicles owned by East Pittsburgh Borough from 1987
through December 1989.
a. Tri - Valley Automotive on South Street, North Braddock,
did similar work in 1978, 1980 and 1981.
8. Records of Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association,
4750 Clairton Boulevard, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, identify a
checking account ( #02- 0200630) for the business known as Tri -
Valley Automotive.
a. Signatories on the account are Patrick Geric or James W.
Geric.
9. Tri - Valley Automotive utilizes a property in North Braddock,
to store wrecked vehicles.
a. The property is titled as in subfinding (b) in the names
of Patrick and James Geric and :was purchased in 1976.
1). Lot and Block #375 -N -192.
2). Location, Terrace Street,, North Braddock.
3). Description, vacant land.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 5
4). Size, 175 x 157.43 x 135.
b. Conditions of the deed for this property specify "as
tenants in co- partnership for uses and purposes of co-
partnership and not as tenants in common ".
c. The property is used for the storage of vehicles.
1). Said storage is in conjunction with the operation
of Tri- Valley Automotive Towing Service.
2). Storage fees are charged for use of this facility.
d. Records of the Recorder of Deeds Office, Pittsburgh, PA
show that taxes on this property come to Patrick Geric
and James W. Geric, 513 Main Street, East Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania which address was the family home of their
parents.
1). The deed for this property includes a Certificate
of Residence for James W. Geric and Patrick J.
Geric.
e. The property is blacktopped, fenced, and secured.
10. At the February 8, 1988, Borough of East Pittsburgh Council
Meeting, James Geric acknowledged that the North Braddock
property is jointly owned by Patrick Geric and himself, but
that was going to be changed in March, (1988).
a. The deed transfer was not effected.
b. The property is still owned as titled in the deed as
indicated in subfinding 9(b).
11. James Geric has driven the Tri - Valley Automotive tow truck.
12. Prior to 1987, the borough towing work was given to OBee's
Garage in Turtle Creek Borough owned by Robert Seath.
a. When O'Bee's Garage had the towing, they also repaired
the borough vehicles although some repairs were sub-
contracted to others.
1). = O'Bee's .did not charge the borough for any labor
performed on borough vehicles although some labor
was performs by sub - contractors.
2). Parts were purchased with a business discount and
charged directly to the borough. There was no mark
up charged by Obee's on the purchase of new parts.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 6
3). Used parts were supplied at no cost to
with the one exception as to a used en
b. The relationship between O'Bee's Garage and
of East Pittsburgh had existed for more
years.
c. O'Bee's Garage did not generally repair
trucks.
the borough
gine.
the Borough
than thirty
the borough
d. On occasion, other garages in the area would perform
repairs on borough vehicles.
13. Minutes of the Borough of East Pittsburgh Council Meetings
between January, 1987, and June, 1989, show the following
sequence of events, including James Geric's voting and
participation, which led up to Tri- Valley Automotive doing
certain other business with the borough.
a. January 12, 1987:
Mr. Patrick Geric, owner' of the Tri - Valley Automotive
Garage, addressed council and asked if consideration
would be given to him relative to the borough's towing
and vehicle repairs since he is a resident of the
borough.
Chairman Payne stated there is a listing of the borough
tower's at the police desk.
Mr. Patrick Geric asked if there is a set procedure. Mr.
Sharp stated O'Bee's is the first to be called for towing
if he is available, Tri- Valley and then Shubock.
Chairman Payne stated it would be taken before committee
and discussed.
Mr. Pribanic stated O'Bee's has been doing repairs to
borough vehicles at no cost to the borough and he cannot
see how anyone is going to under bid O'Bee's for the
repair work.
Mr. Sharp agreed with Mr. Pribanic.
Present:
Absent:
b. March 23,
Geric, Passmore, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Visco,
McFeely
1987:
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 7
Mr. Patrick Geric addressed council and requested the
towing for the borough to be put on a rotation basis
between his garage, Tri- Valley, and O'Bee's Garage and a
log be kept on each call.
Motion by Polacek and Passmore the borough's towing be
put on a rotation basis between O'Bee's Garage and Tri-
Valley.
Roll call: Yeas - Geric, Passmore, Payne, Polacek.
Nays:.Mceely, Pribanic, Sharp and Visco.
There being a tie vote Mayor Simon cast his vote and
voted nay. Motion defeated.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Passmore, Payne, Polacek,
Pribanic, Sharp, Visco.
c. October 12, 1987:
Motion by Geric and Berklich the following properly
authorized bills be paid which included among others:
Patrick Geric police car repairs $48.00
Roll call: Yeas - Geric, Berklich, McFeely, Passmore,
Payne, Polacek, Sharp, Visco.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Passmore, Payne, Polacek,
Visco.
Late: Berklich, Sharp.
Absent: Pribanic
-d. January 11, 198&8:
Motion by Geric and Polacek the properly authorized bills
be paid which included among others:
Patrick Geric Vehicle repairs $253.06
Roll call vote:
Yeas - Geric, Payne, Polacek, Ruane,
Sharp, Visco, Whitney.
Nays - Pribanic. Motion carried.
Present: Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Visco,
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 8
Whitney, Sharp.
Absent: McFeely
e. February 8, 1988:
Mr. Patrick Geric addressed council and requested he be
considered to do the borough's towing since he is a tax
payer.
Chairman Payne referred to the March, 1987 minutes in
which the motion made to put towing on a rotation basis
was defeated.
Mr. Whitney stated he was in agreement with Pat Geric to
do the towing but not to do the repair work.
Mr. McFeely stated just because Pat Geric built the
garage does not mean we have to turn the towing over to
him.
Motion by Whitney to turn the towing in the borough over
to Pat Geric. There being no second the motion was not
entertained.
Motion by Polacek and Ruane to rotate the towing between
O'Bee's and Pat Geric.
Roll call: Yeas - Payne, Polacek, Ruane.
Nays - McFeely, Sharp, Visco, Whitney
Abstained - Geric
Motion defeated.
Mr. (James) Geric stated traditionally, O'Bee's gives
monetary Christmas gifts to the police dispatchers and
officers. This angered Chief Cassidy who stated O'Bee's
donate $5.00 each year and he does not take money from
anyone.
Mr. (James) Geric stated donations should not be taken
from any purveyors.
Mr. (James) Geric stated O'Bee's purchased various parts
including six batteries; three or four alternators, fan
belts and transmission fluid. O'Bee's never came to
defend himself or his purchases. He does not have an
inspection station. He also received two old police cars
worth $9,000.00 in parts.
McFeely replied to Councilman Geric's remarks that it was
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 9
only his (Geric's) guess as to the value of the parts in
the old police cars. The engine in various parts were
originally given free to the borough by O'Bee's and he
never charges any labor to install the engines in the
cars. Council passed and properly voted on the motion to
turn the cars over to O'Bee's with the engines he had
originally given to the borough.
Mr. McFeely asked Pat Geric where he stores the cars
which he tows. Mr. Geric stated he has a locked storage
area. McF.eely: asked if it was jointly owned by his
brother Councilman Geric and himself. Pat Geric replied
"yes" but only until March and then he added that the
borough was getting free labor from O'Bee's. McFeely
agreed that O'Bee's never charged the borough for labor
or towing of any borough vehicle.
Chairman Payne stated O'Bee's was good to the borough and
he never charged enough. Simon stated O'Bee's always did
it for nothing.
Pat Geric asked who is running the police force? Who
stopped the police from coming into Tri- Valley Garage?
Mayor Simon stated the police used to stop and drink
coffee at O'Bee's. This was stopped before his garage
was opened. The police were ordered not to stop at any
garage.
Whitney asked if Mr. Pribanic takes care of the
maintenance relative to the police cars. Councilman
Geric stated Wayne Johnson takes care of the cars now.
McFeely stated the Mayor is in charge of the desk and if
there is any problem with the police cars the desk
personnel should contact Mayor Simon.
Motion by. Polacek and Ruane the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick J. Geric Repairs to vehicle $21.18
(The vote is illegible in the minutes).
Present: Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Ruane, Sharp,
Visco, Whitney.
Absent:- Pribanic.
f. April 11, 1988:
Motion by Whitney and Ruane to split the towing of motor
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 10
g.
vehicles between O'Bee's and Tri- Valley with O'Bee's
having the first six months and Tri - Valley the last six
months.
Under remarks Mr. Pribanic stated the borough has used
O'Bee's for the past forty years and there is no need to
change.
Chairman Payne stated there has been friction but the
point is the owner of Tri- Valley is a tax payer of the
borough.
Roll call: Yeas - Geric, Payne, Ruane, Whitney.
Nays - Pribanic, Visco
Motion carried.
Present: Payne, Pribanic, Ruane, Visco, Whitney, Geric.
Absent: McFeely, Polacek, Sharp.
July 11, 1988:
Mr. Geric reported on behalf of the Public Safety
Committee the following:
Car number 9 was checked and it is blowing oil out the
exhaust. Approximate repair cost would be $350.00.
Pressure in the air conditioning unit is slowly being
lost; compressor pulley is out of order. Front seat has
an 8" hole. Valve stem seals should be replaced,
approximate . cost is. $350.00.
Motion by Geric and Visco to have the valve stem seals
replaced and a used air conditioning compressor purchased
for car #9. Motion carried. (Pribanic and Sharp reported
as voting no).
Motion by Polacek and Ruane upon the request of O'Bee's
Garage not to pay the bills submitted for towing the
police car. Motion carried. (Geric recorded as voting
no).
Motion by Polacek and Geric—the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick J. Geric Repairs to.cars $1,115.80
Roll call vote:
Yeas - Geric, Payne, Polacek, Ruane,
Whitney
Nays - Pribanic, Visco
Geric,, 91- 004 -C2
Page 11
Motion carried. (Whitney questioned staples bill).
Present: Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Sharp,
Visco, Whitney.
Absent: McFeely
h. February 13, 1989:
Motion by Geric and Ruane the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Vehicle repairs $186.76
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, Payne, Polacek,
Pribanic, Whitney, Ruane
Nays - Visco
Absent: McFeely, Sharp
i. March 13, 1989:
(James) Geric asked for permission to fix the front seat
and purchase a factory mat for car #9.
Motion by Geric and Polacek authorizing the Public Safety
Committee to make the necessary repairs and purchases for
car #9.
•
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Visco,
Whitney.
Motion carried.
Geric stated council should consider purchasing a new
police car.
Motion by Geric and Polacek authorizing the police
committee to get Chevrolet and Ford bid quotations for a
new police car.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Ruane,'Visco, Whitney.
Absent: Sharp
April 10, 1989:
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 12
Geric reported on behalf of the Public Safety Committee:
Received an estimate of $130.00 to repair the radiator on
car #8.
Motion by Geric and Ruane to have the radiator repaired
on car 8 at a cost of $130.00.
Motion carried.
The interior of car 9 needs the front seat repaired and
reupholstered and the car also needs new floor mats.
On behalf of the Public Works Committee, Mr. Geric
reported that the old borough truck will not pass
inspection. It is in need of a new engine, doors and
running boards which can be repaired for $750.00.
Pribanic stated if we need a second truck we should
consider fixing it, if not, get rid of the truck. (No
motion or vote).
Motion by Geric and Polacek the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Vehicle repairs $689.11
Roll call: Yeas - Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Roane, Visco, Whitney.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Visco,
Whitney.
Absent:,. McFeely, Sharp
k. May 8, 1989:
Motion by Geric and Ruane the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Vehicle repairs $619.11
Roll call: Yeas Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Ruane, Visco.
Present: Geric, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Visco.
Absent: McFeely, Sharp, Whitney.
1. June 18, 1989:
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 13
Motion by Ruane and Geric all properly authorized bills
be paid:
Patrick Geric Maintenance & repairs $2,386.92
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek,
Pribanic, Sharp, Ruane, Visco.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Ruane, Sharp, Visco.
Absent: Whitney
14. James Geric contacted Council members including Frank Pribanic
and tried to garner his support for Tri- Valley Automotive's
request to repair borough vehicles or other motions of Geric.
15. There was no official Borough action between March 23, 1987
(when the motion to do business with Tri - Valley Automotive was
defeated) and October 12, 1987 (when a motion to pay a bill
from Patrick Geric was approved) authorizing the borough to
use Tri - Valley Automotive for Borough vehicle repair work with
the exception of the approval of a Tri - Valley Automotive bill
in May 11, 1987.
a. The Borough Council never took any official action
authorizing Tri - Valley to do the borough vehicle repair
work.
16. Wayne Johnson was employed by East Pittsburgh Borough since
1985:
a. As a truck driver /laborer, part of his responsibilities
included performing weekly maintenance on borough trucks
and cars.
b. This maintenance included changing oil, rotation of tires
and tune ups.
17. James Geric as Committee Chairperson with the authority and
support of the Committee and /or majority of Council's approval
directed Wayne Johnson to take the police vehicles to Tri -
Valley Automotive for repair work and maintenance.
a. At the time that Geric,told him this, he advised Johnson
that all such work was to be brought to his brother's
garage.
b. Tri - Valley Automotive was to do all of the maintenance
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 14
work that Johnson did.
18. James Geric as Chairman of the Public Safety Committee told
the East Pittsburgh Borough Chief of Police that the police
vehicles were to be taken to his brother's garage.
19. At some point prior to June, 1989, former East Pittsburgh
Borough Solicitor, Thomas Shearer, advised James Geric that he
could vote to pay the bills which included payments to Tri-
Valley Automotive only if the following conditions were met:
a. Patrick Geric was not a.. member of James Geric's
household.
b. James Geric had no interest in the business known as Tri-
Valley Automotive.
20. Minutes of the Borough of East Pittsburgh Council Meetings
between July, 1989, and October, 1990, show the following in
regard to James Geric's participation and voting on matters
relating to Tri- Valley Automotive and /or Patrick Geric.
a. July 10, 1989:
Motion by Geric and Whitney the following authorized
bills be paid:
b.
Patrick Geric - Repairs $850.11
Roll call vote: Yeas Geric, McFeely, Polacek,
Pribanic, Ruane, Sharp, Visco, Whitney
Motion carried.
Present:
Absent:
August 14, 1989:
Motion carried.
Geric, McFeely, Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane,
Visco, Whitney
Payne, Sharp
Motion by McFeely and Visco the minutes of the July 11,
1989 meeting be received and filed.
Motion by Pribanic and Geric the
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick J. Geric Car maintenance
following properly
$989.06
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 15
Vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Polacek, Pribanic, Visco,
Whitney.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Polacek, Pribanic, Visco,
Whitney.
Absent: Payne, Sharp, Ruane
c. September 11, 1989:
Motion by Geric and Polacek that all properly authorized
bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Vehicle repairs $654.31
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek,
Ruane, Visco, Whitney
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Ruane, Visco.
Absent: Pribanic, Sharp, Whitney.
d. October 9, 1989:
Mr. Whitney stated that he received a telephone call from
an owner whose car broke down and was charged to have it
towed by the Tri- Valley Garage. Mr. Whitney asked if the
owner had the right to request who should tow his car.
Mayor Simon stated the owner of the car definitely has
that right.
Motion by Polacek and Geric the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Repairs to vehicles $295.23
Roll call vote:
Motion carried.
Present:
Absent:
Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Visco, Whitney
Ruane, Sharp.
Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Payne,
Polacek, Pribanic, Sharp, Visco,
Whitney
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 16
e. November 13, 1989:
On behalf of the Property Committee Mr. Pribanic reported
that he checked the prices of truck tires with four
different companies.
Motion by Pribanic and Geric to purchase six truck tires
from Frydrych Tire Company.
Motion carried.
Motion by Geric and Polacek the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric - Auto maintenance & repairs $328.32
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Payne,
Polacek, Pribanic, Ruane, Whitney.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Ruane, Whitney
Absent: Sharp, Visco
f. December 11, 1989:
Mr. McFeely reported he went over the repair bills and
suggest the towing and repairs be turned over to O'Bee's
Garage. O'Bee's will not charge labor for minor repairs
but only for the parts used.
Motion by McFeely and Sharp to turn over the towing and
repairs to O'Bee's Garage.
Motion carried.
Whitney asked to see that O'Bee's Garage offer is put in
writing.
Motion by Geric and Ruane to table the motion and get an
agreement from O'Bee's Garage in writing.
Motion carried. (McFeely, Sharp voted no).
Whitney stated the average cost for towing is $45.00.
Motion by Whitney and Polacek to put a ceiling price of
$50.00 on towing within the boundaries of the borough no
matter who does the towing.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 17
g-
Motion carried.
Motion by Whitney and Polacek authorizing the solicitor
to revoke the old ordinance on towing.
Motion carried.
Motion by Ruane and Sharp the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Patrick Geric Car repairs $291.35
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, Payne,
Polacek, Ruane, Sharp.
Nays - Whitney
Motion carried.
Present:
Absent:
January 2, 1990:
Geric, McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Ruane, Sharp,
Whitney.
Pribanic, Visco
A letter dated December 30, 1989 from O'Bee's Garage
stating he is willing to do the towing for the borough.
Also, he will repair all minor repairs free of labor
charges, the borough to pay for the parts used. Major
repairs will cost the borough half of the usual charge
plus parts.
Present: Geric,
Absent: Ruane,
h. January 8, 1990:
McFeely, Payne, Polacek, Pribanic,
Visco, Whitney.
Sharp.
McFeely asked that the December 11, 1989 minutes be
corrected under "new business" to read that the towing
and police car repairs be turned over permanently to
O'Bee's Garage.
Geric stated since the motion was tabled, the statement
"motion carried" should also be stricken.
James Geric reported on behalf of the Public Safety
Committee.
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 18
Chief Cassidy reported there is a problem with car 8 and
something should be done about it.
Patrick Geric stated the anti - freeze is getting into the
oil. Any money put into the vehicle is a waste. The car
should be scrapped. Ford parts are hard to get. Routine
maintenance was done on car 9 daily. He recommended the
purchase of a new car.
McFeely requested the motion that was tabled at the
December 11, 1989 meeting under "new business" granting
O'Bee's Garage the towing and repairs permanently be
taken from the table.
Pat Geric made reference to the letter sent by O'Bee
stating he would do minor repairs and major repairs was
vague and should be bid on at an hourly rate.
Mr. Whitney questioned why Wayne Johnson did not do the
minor repairs. Pribanic stated he was told Wayne Johnson
was taken off to do other borough work.
Pat Geric stated he is willing to bid the repair work for
borough vehicles.
McFeely stated O'Bee's gives the borough the discount
price on parts purchased at Valley Auto Parts.
Pat Geric accused McFeely of having a starter purchased
at Valley Auto Parts put on his truck and. the borough
paid for the starter. McFeely asked how did he know
this. Geric replied he had a copy of the bill for the
starter and McFeely is the only one associated with the
borough who owned a vehicle the starter would fit.
Motion by McFeely and Polacek towing and police car
repairs are to be turned over permanently to O'Bee's
Garage.
Roll call: Yeas - Gosik,
Pribanic.
Nays - Geric,
Abstained: Visco
Motion carried.
McFeely, McGuire, Polacek,
Whitney.
Motion by Polacek and Geric the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 19
Patrick Geric Repairs to vehicles $389.77
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, Gosik, McFeely, McGuire,
Polacek, Pribanic, Visco, Whitney.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, Gosik, McFeely, Polacek, Pribanic,
Visco, McGuire.
Absent: Payne
i. February 12, 1990:
Letter dated February 7, 1990 from O'Bee's Garage asking
permission to address council to answer any questions
relative to the repair and maintenance of police cars.
Mr. Geric referred to Mr. Pat Geric's letter in which he
submitted his proposal, a 10% saving in the repair work
of the police vehicles and desired to bring the matter up
for discussion.
Motion by Geric to accept Tri- Valley's proposal savings
10% of the labor costs on police car repairs.
After meeting outside the meeting hall, McFeely asked if
Mr. Seath was still present in the audience and asked him
what he would charge for labor. Mr. Seath stated the
same as it has always been, he does not charge anything.
Mr. Whitney referred to Mr. Seath's original proposal
which Mr. Seath stated was amended not to charge anything
for labor on a major or minor'size of the job and will
use only new parts. No second to the motion so it was
not considered.
McFeely asked council to refer to the bills for repairs
which was $53.67.
Motion by McFeely and Polacek the following properly
authorized bills be paid:
Robert Seath Parts $6.00
Roll call vote: Yeas - Geric, McFeely, McGuire, Payne,
Placek, Pribanic, Visco, Whitney.
Motion carried.
Present: Geric, Gosik, McFeely, McGuire, Payne,
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 20
j
Polacek, Pribanic, Visco, Whitney.
August 13, 1990:
Mr. Geric reported Pemar charged $650.00 to remove and
replace an automatic transmission complete with a rebuilt
converter in the 1986 Caprice police car, O' Bee agreed to
do all maintenance at no charge for labor. The
transmission could have been benched for $350.00 at Stans
in McKeesport.
O should have removed and replaced the transmission
at no cost.
Chairman Whitney stated he called Stans and was quoted a
price of $750.00 for a transmission with a converter.
Present:
Absent:
Geric, Gosik, Polacek, Pribanic, Visco,
Whitney.
McFeely, McGuire, Payne.
k. September 10, 1990:
Mr. Pat Geric stated the main reason he wished to speak
to council is an individual came to council several
months ago and stated he would do all repairs to the
police cars free of labor charges, the borough is to pay
only for the parts used. Mr. Geric added he could not
compete with such an arrangement. Last month one of the
cars needed a transmission overhauled. The transmission
job was sublet to another garage. If the borough is
going to do that then he wants his month's towing
business returned to him. He thinks this is a fair
request since he backed away from the new arrangement.
He said he has lived in the borough for many years,
participating in borough affairs, answering fire whistles
and participating as much as he can. So, why should he
be discriminated against.
McFeely stated he would explain the situation as follows:
He was informed the transmission was in bad shape so he
contacted Mr. Visco and Mr. Whitney who made several
phone calls and the cheapest 'price he - could get was
$700.00 for this type of transmission. This is a police
package transmission. The committee decided to have the
work done for $650.00. Earlier this month there was an
alternator and glass broken on the police cars which were
replaced at no cost to the borough.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 21
Acting Chairman McGuire stated council would take the
request under advisement. Mr. Geric stated he did not
want a fast shuffle.
Mr. James Geric stated Pat feels there is a
discriminatory action being taken against him. It is a
violation or a breech of verbal contract by Mr. O'Bee or
Mr. Seath who said he would do the labor at a zero
charge. If he would have pulled the transmission there
would have been a savings of $350.00 to the borough.
McFeely stated a second time it is a police package
transmission and the lowest price Chairman Whitney could
get was $700.00.
Acting Chairman McGuire asked for a motion relative to
the situation but received no response.
Motion by Visco and Geric to override the motion passed
January 9, 1990 granting all the towing and repairs to
O'Bee's Garage and split the towing, giving Pat Geric
towing for a period of six months.
Mr. McFeely stated Mr. Jim Geric can not second the
motion or vote on the motion as it is a conflict of
interest according to the Ethics Commission.
Motion by Pribanic and McFeely to table the motion.
Roll call: Yeas - Gosik, McFeely, McGuire, Pribanic.
Nays - Geric, Visco.
Motion to table carried.
Present:
Absent:
1. October
Geric, Gosik, McGuire, Pribanic, Visco,
McFeely.
Payne, Polacek, Whitney.
8, 1990:
Mr. McFeely asked the solicitor if he checked about
conflicts of interest. Mr. Shearer stated the Act has
been amended on the date you cited to make it improper
fora councilman to vote on any matters effecting his
brother. They did this by including brothers and sisters
and made them part of the immediate family.
Present: Geric, McFeely, McGuire, Polacek, Pribanic,
Visco, Whitney.
Geric 91- 004 -C2
Page 22
Absent: Gosik, Payne
1). From that date forward, James Geric abstained on
matters involving his brother Patrick or the
business.
21. Invoices were submitted by Tri- Valley Automotive for a month
at a time and were approved at the following month Council
Meeting.
a. James Geric as Chair of the Public Safety Committee
approved and initialed invoices from Tri - Valley
Automotive.
b. This was usually done on a monthly basis approximately 30
minutes before the public meeting, however, James Geric
did initial and approve individual invoices from Tri -
Valley.
c. This was done from December, 1987 through December, 1989.
22. Each Committee Chairman received a folder with the bills
pertaining to his committee, the night of the council meeting.
23. Records of the Borough of East Pittsburgh include the
following invoices submitted for payment by Tri - Valley
Automotive, a business owned by Patrick Geric, between
December, 1987, and December, 1989.
a. November - December, 1988 - $253.06
11/20/87 - 1976 Ford dump truck
12/19/87 - Car 8
1/5/88 - Car 8
1/5/88 - Car 8 ($8.00)
Car 9 ($21.80)
1/4/88 - 1983 Ford
1/8/88 - Car 9
b. January, 1988 - $231.18
1/13/88 - 1975 Ford Tk
1/22/88 - 1975 Ford tk
c. February, 1988 - $237.30
4/22/88 - Car 9
3/1/88 1986 Ford tk
- $ 20.00
- $ 18.80
- $ 21.80
- $ 29.80
- $114.20
- $ 48.46
- $ 67.60
- $163.58
- $208.80
- $ 28.50
d. May, 1988 - $18.00
6/9/88 Car 8 - $ 18.00
e. June, 1988 - $186.00
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 23
1989
5/12/88 1976 Ford Tk - $186.00
f. July, 1988 - $1,115.00
6/10/88 Car 8
6/30/88 Car 8
7/5/88 Car 8
7/5/88 Car 9
g. August, 1988 - $268.30
7/30/88 Car 8
7/23/88 Car 9
h. September, 1988 - $94.75
8/16/88 Car 9 - $ 94.75
i. November, 1988 - $166.90
9/26/88 Car 8
9/26/88 Car 9
10/24/88 Car 8
j. December, 1988 - $478.27
11/15/88 Car 8
11/23/88 Car 9
12/9/88 Car 8
k. February, 1989 - $186.76
2/5/89 Car 9
2/7/89 Car 8
1. March, 1989 - $689.11
3/14/89 Car 8
3/16/89 86 Ford dump
3/17/89 86 Ford dump
3/18/89 Car 8
3/31/89 Car 9
4/3/89 Car 9
4/3/89 Car 8
4/4/89 Car 9
m. April, 1989 - $619.11
Monthly Maintenance Car 8 and 9
4/6/89 Car 9
4/10/89 76 Ford dump
4/19/89 Car 9
4/19/89 Car 8
4/21/89 Car 8
4/22/89 Car 8
4/24/89 Car 8
4/28/89 Car 9
- $ 33.60
- $989.90
- $ 49.80
- $ 42.50
- $ 65.60
- $191.30
- $ 14.00
- $ 14.00
- $138.90
- $ 39.95
- $357.37
- $ 80.95
- $ 40.65
- $126.11
- $ 50.35
- $ 54.77
- $ 57.90
- $ 45.24
- $ 56.10
- $227.00
- $ 15.30
- $182.45
- $ 9.50
- $ 15.05
- $ 88.98
- $ 24.90
- $ 82.56
- $281.66
- $ 40.30
- $ 40.50
- $ 35.66
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 24
n. May, 1989, $2,386.92
Monthly Maintenance
4/8/89 Car 9
5/2/89 Car 9
5/14/89 76 Ford dump
5/14/89 76 Ford dump
5/19/89 Car 8
5/30/89 Car 9
5/30/89 Car 8
o. June, 1989 -
Monthly
6/3/89
6/3/89
6/5/89
6/7/89
6/8/89
6/9/89
6/9/89
p.
q.
$850.11:
oil Car 8 and 9
- Car 9 .:
76 Ford dump
- Car 8
86 Ford dump
Car 8
Car 9
Car 8
July 1989 - $987.06
Monthly oil Car 8 and 9
7/8/89 - Car 8
7/14/89 - Car 8
7/18/89 - Car 8
7/31/89 - Car 8
August, 1989 -
Oil, etc
8/2/89
8/3/89
8/18/89
8/20/89
8/20/89
8/21/89
$654.31:
Car 8 & 9
- Car 8
- Car 9
Car 9
Car 8
Car 9
- Car 9
r. September, 1989 - $295.23:
Monthly fluids -Car 8 & 9
9/2/89 - Car 9
9/5/89 - Car 9
9/26/89 - Car 9
9/29/89 - Car 9
s. October 1989, - $328.32:
Monthly oil, fluids Car 8 & 9
10/6/89 - Car 9
10/12/89 ,- Car 8
10/16/89 - 86 Ford dump
10/24/89 - 76 Ford dump
10/31/89 - Car 8
- $ 13.30
- $428.48
- $ 93.40
- $750.00
- $938.72
- $ 82.47
- $ 31.91
- $48.64
- $ 25.20
$ 65.62
$160.80
$ 69.40
$348.21
- $ 92.21
- $ 60.61
- $ 28.00
- $ 20.90
- 143.36
- 87.35
565.20
170.25
- $ 13.10
$ 94.60
- $261.70
- $ 24.71
- $ 19.00
- $148.60
- $ 92.60
- $ 19.95
$ 31.08
$119.40
- $ 36.40
- $ 88.40
- $ 19.00
- $ 33.20
- $ 28.00
- $147.86
- $ 86.76
- $ 13.50
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 25
t. November, 1989 - $291.35:
Monthly fluids -Car 8 & 9
11/1/89 - Car 8
11/7/89 - Car 8
11/21/89 - Car 8
December, 1989 - $389.77:
Monthly fluids -Car 8 & 9
12/1/89 - Car 8
12/1/89 - Car 8
12/7/89 - Car 8
- $ 11.40
- $ 31.10
- $217.75
- $ 31.10
- $ 7.60
- $288.17
- $ 51.60
- $ 42.40
Total $7,678.05
24. The total cost of all vehicle repair work performed by Tri -
Valley Automotive between July, 1989, and December, 1989 was
$2,946.04.
a. A total for all of 1989 was $7,678.05.
b. The total for 1988 was $3,009.96.
c. The total for November and December, 1987, was $86.80.
d. Towing and police car repairs were transferred
permanently to O'Bee's Garage in January, 1990.
25. Council person James Geric as Chairman of the Public Safety
Committee initialed, as approval for payment, all of the
groups of invoices submitted by Tri- Valley Automotive between
July, 1989, and December, 1989.
26. Records of the Borough of East Pittsburgh include checks paid
to Patrick J. Geric for repairs performed on borough vehicles
between December, 1987, and December, 1990.
a. All of the checks were made out to Patrick J. Geric, 409
Center Avenue, East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
b. All of the checks are stamped for "deposit only Tri -
Valley Automotive (02020063 -0)." James Geric has
signature authority for this account.
c. The following checks were deposited at Great American
Federal Savings & Loan, 4750 Clairton Boulevard,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236. These checks correspond
with the monthly balance due Tri - Valley Automotive. (See
Finding 24).
Date Check # Amount
9/23/87 00552 $ 48.00
1/14/88 00701 253.06
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 26
2/10/88 00753 231.18
5/12/88 00888 237.30
6/15/88 00921 18.00
6/17/88 00940 186.00
7/13/88 00969 1,115.80
8/10/88 01008 268.30
Date Check # Amount
9/4/88 01049 94.75
11/16/88 01127 166.90
12/15/88 01167 478.27
2/16/89 00160 186.76
4/13/89 00248 689.11
5/10/89 00291 619.11
6/14/89 00298 2,386.00
7/12/89 00350 850.11
8/17/89 00394 989.06
9/15/89 00435 654.31
10/12/89 00483 295.23
11/15/89 00526 328.32
12/13/89 00573 291.35
1/12/90 00116 389.77
3/23/90 00233 363.70
d. All of the monthly totals whereby payment is approved
bear the handwritten initials "JWG" or "OK JWG."
27. Invoices from Tri Valley Automotive show that the following
amounts were charged for labor between May, 1988 and December,
1989.
1988
1989
Month
Monthly
Labor
January $ 238.00
April $ 38.00
May $. 175.00
June $ 391.00
July $ 145.00
August $ 26.80
September $ 28.00
October $ 92.00
November $ 74.00
December $ 14.00
Total: $1,221.00
Total: $11,140.39
Genic, 91- 004 -C2
Page 27
Total Labor Charges:
28. Invoices on file at the Borough of East Pittsburgh indicate
that Tri- Valley Automotive charged the borough for repair work
in the following manner.
a. Labor rate: $20.00 /hour
b. Parts: List price or more than list.
1). Patrick Geric usually purchased parts for use on
the borough vehicles at a discounted price or
wholesale cost.
c. Some used parts were sold to the borough at a profit.
29. Between March and December 1, 1989, as shown on the Tri - Valley
Automotive invoices: Substantial and Major repairs were
preformed by Patrick Geric even though the mileage did not
increase dramatically.
a. Police car #8
Date Mileage
12/19/87
1/5/88
1/5/88
6/9/88
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1989 Total:
not listed
not listed
not listed
not listed
6/10/88 not listed
6/30/88 126,841
7/5/88 127,013
$ 108.00
$ 157.00
$ 480.00
$ 128.00
$ 340.50
$ 140.00
$ 164.00
$ 146.00
$ 146.00
$ 40.00
$ 152.00
$2,001.00
$3,222.00
Repair
repair wipers
replace if headlight assembly
and focus
R &R and Patch
repair head lamp circuit in low
and high beam
Repair Battery holder soddering
wire for main circuit.two H.O.
end term /flange
R &R engine assembly R &R crank
shaft, replace
Repair oil cooling circuit
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 28
7/15/88 127,750
7/18/88 128,028
1/16 - 20/88 not listed
7/30/88 128,588
9/26/88 131,375
10/24/88 not listed
11/15/88
12/9/88
2/7/89
3/14/89
3/18/89
4/3/89
4/19/89
4/21/89
4/22/89
4/24/89
5/19/89
5/30/89
6/5/89
6/8/89
7/8/89
7/14/89
7/18/89
7/31/89
8/2/89
8/20/89
10/31/89
11/1/89
11/7/89
11/21/89
12/1/89
12/7/89
b. Car #9
Date
1/5/88
134,771
136,016
137,691
not listed
38,848
not listed
not listed
39,422
not listed
not listed
40,351
41,142
41,497
41,547
43,144
not listed
not listed
not listed
44,550
45,075
47,075
not listed
47,290
48,499
48,785
49,214
Mileage
138,950
hoses
1 qt. oil
1 qt. oil
4 qt. ATF $1.90 ea.
Repair alternator, replace
voltage reg. wiring, oil
Rotate tires, install new tires
and balance front
Replace line assembly for
transmission cooler, seal kit,
fluid, tire
Replace parking brake; vacuum
control switch
Repair battery, chk, cooling
Repair power steering, leaking;
housing; battery holder; air
cleaner;
Pressure check cooling system
replace hose
Replace lower radiator hose
Check fluids
Repair blower motor and wiring
Replace heater core & radiator
Recharge air conditioning unit
Replace door lock pivot
Repair PA system
Replace ignition switch
Repair wiring, replace voltage
regulator
Replace front brake caliper &
hoses
Replace battery & regulator
Replace weather striping
Replace carburetor
Replace water pump
Replace front brakes
Tire repair, adjust brake
Change, repair tire
Replace headlight
Replace Exhaust
Replace right low beam
Replace tie rod & control arm
shaft, rear brakes
Replace universal joint
Repairs
Repair stop lamps, R &R housing
plug, spare tire
Gepic, 91- 004 -C2
Page 29
1/8/88 139,008
4/22/88 144, 859
7/5/88 not listed
7/16 -20/88 not listed
7/23/88 150,131
8/16/88
9/26/88
11/23/88
2/5/89
3/31/89
4/3/89
not listed
154,058
155,536
not
not
not
4/4/89 164,840
4/6/89 not listed
4/8/89 165,136
4/19/89 not listed
4/28/89 166,474
5/2/89 166,771
5/30/89 168,659
6/3/89 168,721
6/9/89 169,287
8/3/89 171,858
8/18/89 172,935
8/20/89 173,002
8/21/89 173,150
9/2/89 174,106
9/5/89 174,472
listed
listed
listed
9/26/89 not listed
9/29/89 176,422
10/6/89 176,974
12/1/89 178,957
12/7/89 179,071
c. 1986 Ford truck
Date Mileage
3/17/87 not listed
Lube, change oil repair spot
light
Inspection, replace steering
center link, idler arm
R &R 4 wheel adj. lubricate oil,
filter repair stop lamps
4 qts. of oil $1.90 ea.
Repair power steering
R &R pump assembly, hoses
Voltage output; battery tray
install battery
Rotate tires, install new tires
balance on front
Repair hood damage; replace
alternator, assembly, replace
battery system, replace fluids
Replace both low beams; lamps
Replace window regulator
Replace rear brakes,
resurface
drums, fix parking brake re-
lease
Replace oxygen sensor
Repairs to lights
Replace radiator and upper and
lower hose
Repair headlights
Lube and oil change
Replace starter
Repair stop light switch
Repair lock and switch
Mount tires /change oil
Replace weather striping,
repair spot lamp
Lube and oil change
Replace starter
Replace brake pads
Repair stop light
Replace steering assembly
bearing
Repair wiring spot lamp
Replace heater hose
Repair replace lights
Repair dome light wiring
Reline rear brakes
Repairs
State Inspection
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 30
d.
11/20/87
1/13/88
1/22/88
5/12/88
6/7/89
not listed
not listed
not listed
not listed
not listed
10/16/89 12,784
1/8/90 not listed
1976 Ford dump
Date
5/12/88 not listed
4/10/89 40,368
5/14/89 47,597
6/3/89 not listed
10/24/89 49,495
a. Car No. 9
Repair
Mileage
Repair rear brakes
Resurface drums
Fix parking brake
Release
State Inspection
replace high pressure house on
p/s pump
R &R exhaust pipe, R &R steering
box, pitman arm
R &R intake manifold; both
cylinder heads, exhaust flange
fluids
Flush fuel tanks and replace
parking brake cable and
control module
Replace tie -rod ends
Replace belts and hoses
Repairs
R &R intake manifold gaskets
repair flange gasket
Replace fuel pump
Replace engine, belts, hoses
clutch, radiator, exhaust
State Inspection, stop light
repair
State Inspection, adjust
brakes
e. James Geric questions subfindings (a) through (d) based
upon variances in mileage.
30. Virtually every major system was replaced in car #8 during the
above time period.
a. James Geric questions whether every major systems was
replaced and asserts that several major repairs were
made.
31. A number of the repairs performed by Tri- Valley Automotive to
the borough's vehicles appear to be repetitive including:
Date Mileage
4/3/89 64,800
Genic, 91- 004 -C2
Page 31
Reline rear brakes
Replace starter
Replace starter
Replace upper &
lower hoses
Replace heater hose
b. Car No. 8
Repair
Replace voltage regulator 7/30/88 128,588
Replace voltage regulator 6/5/89 141,497
Replace battery & regulator 7/8/89 143,144
Replace front brake caliper 6/8/89 141,547
Replace front brakes 8/2/89 144,550
Repair battery holder 6/10/88 not listed
Repair battery hold down 7/7/89 not listed
32. Three of the four borough vehicles had cooling system work
performed within one month including the replacement of
radiators as follows:
Date Vehicle Repairs
3/14/89 Car 8 Repairs pressure tests system
and replace hose
3/18/89 Car 8 Check system and replace hose
4/8/89 Car 9 Replace radiator
4/21/89 Car 8 Replace " radiator, replace
heater core
5/14/89 1976 truck Replace radiator
33. Invoices from Tri- Valley Auto to East Pittsburgh Borough
indicate headlight and wiring repairs being performed on East
Pittsburgh Borough vehicles on the following occasions:
3/16/89
10/24/89
6/5/89
7/8/89
11/1/89
11/21/89
4/3/89
1986 Ford Repair lights and turn signal
1976 Ford
Truck
Car #8
Car #8
Car #8
Car #8
Car #9
12/7/89 79,071
5/2/89 66,771
8/20/89 73,002
4/8/89 65,136
9/29/89 76,422
Date Mileaae
Repair lights
Repair lights, wiring and
voltage regulator
Replace battery and voltage
regulator
Replace headlight
Replace low beam
Replace turn signal switch
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 32
4/6/89
4/19/89
5/30/89
8/3/89
9/2/89
9/26/89
10/6/89
12/1/89
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Car #9
Repairs to lights
Replace sealed beam
Repair stoplight switch
Repair spot lamp
Repair stop light
Repair spot light, wiring and
dash light
Repair and replace lights
Repair dome light wiring
34. Tri- Valley Automotive performed work on the Borough of East
Pittsburgh's 1976 Ford truck in May, 1989, which was initially
proposed as a $750.00 repair job, and resulted in $1,639.03
worth of repairs and a $50.00 overcharge to the borough.
a. At the April 10, 1989 Council meeting, James Geric,
reporting on behalf of the Public Safety Committee,
advised that the old borough truck would not pass
inspection. It needed a new engine, doors and running
boards which can be repaired for $750.00. No motion or
vote was taken.
b. A May 14, 1989 Tri - Valley Automotive invoice lists the
following repairs to the 1976 borough Ford truck:
Install engine assembly
Transfer necessary parts, adjust to spec's.
1 engine $750.00 Labor included
Parts only, no labor for engine
1 P.S. Belt $ 13.60
1 Alternator belt 12.10
1 Upper radiator hose 9.46
1 Lower radiator hose 5.60
3 gals. coolant 9.00 ea. 27.00
10 hose clamps @ 1.05 10.05
4' 5/8 H hose @ .80 3.20
4' 3/4 H hose @ .85 3.40
8 qts. H.D. oil @ 1.90 15.20
1 H.D. filter 8.21
1 clutch plate
1 pressure plate
1 bry
1 sil APV
1 Reconditioned radiator
Old radiator was not
repairable
1 exhaust Y pipe 2 pcs.
2 clamps @ 3.60
141.16
249.10
39.90
4.10
248.10
69.10
22.10
7.20
$1,688.72
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 33
c. The total $1,688.72 is $49.69 more than the correct total
which should be $1,639.03.
1). James Geric asserts the above error was not noticed
by either Tri- Valley Automotive or the Borough
Secretary.
d. James Geric initialed, as approval for payment, the group
of invoices which included the work on the 1976 Ford
truck.
e. James Geric voted to approve the bills (total $2,386.92),
which included the truck repairs, at the June 18, 1989
Council meeting. This included payment of the $49.69
overcharge which was never refunded.
f. Parts used by Patrick Geric in the repair of the borough
truck were used parts from a tow truck which he owned.
The body of the tow truck was junk, the mechanical parts,
with 35,000 miles or less on them, were usable. The used
parts include, but may not be limited to:
1 clutch plate $141.16
1 pressure plate 249.10
1 throw out bearing (bry) 39.90
1 radiator 248.10
1 engine 750.00
$1,428.26
to recondition radiator 100.00 -
$1,328.26 Profit
35. Tri- Valley Automotive invoices, on file with the Borough of
East Pittsburgh show that the borough was charged for mounting
and balancing tires on both cars the day after tires were
purchased at Goodyear.
a. On June 9, 1989, Tri - Valley Automotive charged the
borough $28,00 for the mounting and balancing tires for
car 8.
b. On June 9, 1989, Tri - Valley Automotive charged the
borough $28.00 for the mounting and balancing of four new
tires for_car 9.
c. An invoice from the Goodyear Auto Service Center, Jonet
Plaza Shopping Center, Monroeville, Pennsylvania, dated
6/8/89, shows that 4 Eagle GT tires were purchased at
$46.62 each, total $186.48.
1). The price of the tires includes mounting.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 34
2). Goodyear charges $7.00 to balance each tire.
d. Borough records show no other purchase of tires around
6/9/89.
e. A second Goodyear Auto Service Center invoice, dated
10/12/89, show the purchase of 4 new tires for car #8.
f. A Tri- Valley Automotive invoice, dated 10/12/89, reflects
a $28.00 charge for the mounting and balancing of four
new tires for car 8.
36. Tri - Valley Automotive charged the borough of East Pittsburgh
for mounting and balancing eight tires, even though only four
tires were purchased.
a. James Geric approved Tri - Valley's invoices for payment,
which included the additional balancing charge.
b. Tri - Valley mounted and balanced the tires even though the
Goodyear Service Center could have done this work. Tires
are normally mounted and balanced at the time of
purchase.
37. James Geric instructed borough employees to pick up the tires
and take them to Tri- Valley to be mounted and balanced.
a. Rear brakes were installed on 4/3/89 and again on 12/7/89
(14,000 miles).
b. Front brake pads were replaced on car #8 on 8/2/89; and
on car #9 on 8/20/89.
38. Tri - Valley Automotive records determined that the Borough of
East Pittsburgh was charged for the following parts for which
Tri - Valley has no purchase record:
Price
Invoice date Vehicle Part Charged
3/16/89 1986 Ford Turn Signal $ 4.87
3/31/89 Car #9 Window regulator
Guide 14.40
1 ADV (unknown Part) 3.70
4/3/89 Car #9 Brake release parts 14.90
Pedal pads 6.90
Rear brake shoes 39.90
4/4/89 Car #9 Oxygen Sensor 64.99
4/10/89 1976 Ford
Truck Fuel Pump 39.90
4/19/89 Car #8 Wiring harness 8.48
Genic, 91- 004 -C2
Page 35
4/21/89
4/22/89
4/24/89
4/28/89
4/8/89
5/2/89
5/14/89
5/30/89
5/30/89
6/3/89
6/3/89
6/5/89
6/7/89
7/8/89
7/14/89
8/2/89
8/3/89
8/20/89
8/21/89
9/5/89
9/26/89
9/29/89
10/16/89
10/24/89
12/1/89
12/7/89
12/7/89
1/4/90,
39. Patrick Geric
borough vehic
Car #8 Heater Core 66.66
Used radiator 75.00
Car #8 Freon 8.40
2 0 -rings 1.80
Flange nut 2.10
Car #8 Lock pivot 4.90
Used door handle 6.00
Lock rod 5.60
Car #9 Pedal pad 5.40
Sil adv (unknown part) 2.75
Car #9 Radiator 352.59
Car #9 Rebuilt starter 69.40
1976. truck Clutch Plate 141.16
Pressure Plate 249.10
B 39.90
Engine 750.00
Car #8 Ignition switch 28.64
Car #9 Stop light switch 12.91
Car #9 Lock 22.80
Switch 14.82
Ford dump Light assembly 39.40
Light switch 9.60
Car #8 HD Regulator 39.60
Ford dump Brake cable 39.10
Control module 130.10
Car #8 Battery 66.95
Regulator 30.31
Solenoid 14.10
Car #8 Weather striping 59.25
Car #8 Brake pads 48.60
Car #9 Weather striping if 79.40
Weather striping rf 79.40
Car #9 Rebuilt high torque
Starter 124.60
Car #9 Brake pads 48.60
Car #9 Upper bearing kit 28.60
Lower bearing kit 10.80
Spot lamp 16.40
Heater valve 28.9
Tie - rods /drag link 111.86
Car #9
Car #9
Ford Truck
1976 Ford
Truck
Car #8
Car #8
Car #9
Not listed
Rear seal
Brake lining
Universal joint
Brake lining
Hardware kit
Unknown Part
19.61
33.60
14.40
39.40
19.40
26.90
would determine what repairs were needed on the
les.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 36
a. James Geric had instituted a general maintenance program
whereby the vehicles would be brought to his brother's
garage on a daily basis.
b. Based on this daily review, Patrick Geric would initiate
work on the vehicles.
40. The costs to the borough for the repair of borough vehicles
increased after the time that Tri- Valley Automotive started to
do the work.
The following findings relate to Allegation B. Prior Findings are
incorporated herein by reference as per the pleadings.
41. Statements of Financial Interest on file with the Borough of
East Pittsburgh Secretary, for James W. Geric indicate the
following:
a. Filing date: February 21, 1989
For the year: 1989
Source of Income: Duquesne City Schools, Grant Street,
Duquesne, Pennsylvania
All other Financial Interest Categories: None
b. Filing date: March 7, 1985
For the year: 1985 (Candidate)
Source of Income: Duquesne City Schools
All other Financial Interest Categories: None
42. A statement provided by Borough Secretary, Edward Ruane, dated
October 7, 1991, certifies that Ruane reviewed the Statements
of Financial Interest on file at the borough office and
determine that two statements are on file for Mr. James Geric:
March 7, 1985 and February 21, 1989.
43. Records of the Borough of East Pittsburgh show that James W.
Geric •filed Statements of Financial Interest in 1985 and in
1989, the two years that he was a candidate for office.
44. Records of the Borough of East Pittsburgh indicate that James
Geric did not file Statements of Financial Interest for the
following years:
1987 - for 1986
1988 - for 1987
1990 - for 1989
1991 - for 1990
45. An audit of the Statements of Financial Interests on file with
the Borough of East Pittsburgh secretary, showed that in the
years 1988 and 1990, only the engineer filed.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 37
B. TESTIMONY:
46. Frank Pribanic is retired but is employed part -time by the
Penn Water Board.
a. Pribanic served as a Councilman for East Pittsburgh
Borough for 15 years from 1975 or 1976 through February,
1991.
b. James Geric served on Council for 8 or 10 years while
Pribanic served on Council..
(1) James Geric had a brother Patrick Geric who was a
mechanic and performed inspections and repairs out
of the Tri- Valley Garage.
c. From 1987 through 1990, the Borough had two police cars
which were used on a daily basis.
(1) The Borough also had two dump trucks.
d. When vendors rendered services to the Borough, invoices
would be submitted to the different committees that would
review particular types of bills.
(1) A committee chairman would review the bills for his
committee.
(2) A folder of bills would be supplied by the Borough
secretary.
If the bills were okay after a review, the bills
would be signed and returned to the Borough
secretary.
(4) Council could look at any bills which would be
reviewed /approved on the monthly agenda.
The above bill approval process was in place in the
Borough between 1987 and 1990.
e. The Borough used Obee's Garage between 1980 and 1987 for
the repair and service of police automobiles.
(1) In the 1980's the garage work was changed and given
to Patrick Geric, Tri- Valley Auto Services.
f. No Borough action was taken that resulted in Tri - valley
doing repairs on Borough vehicles.
g. Borough Council took action to rotate the towing and
(3)
(5)
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 38
j
truck repairs of vehicles on a six -month basis.
(1) Obee did the towing for forty years and repairs
with the only cost being for parts.
(2) Patrick Geric came to Borough Council to seek some
of the Borough business.
Council agreed to the six month rotation after
three or four requests from Patrick Geric as to the
towing /repair business.
h. When Obee performed repairs, he did not charge for labor
nor make any profit on parts.
i. After Council moved to its new location, the police sent
the vehicles to Patrick Geric to do the work even through
Patrick Geric was not authorized to do the work.
(1) Pribanic became aware of Tri- Valley repairs after
big repair bills came into the Borough.
(2) The care of Borough cars /trucks was under the
jurisdiction of Pribanic's committee, Public
Property.
(3) Pribanic raised the issue at Council that he was
not notified that work was being done by Tri -
Valley.
(4) The bills for repairs from Tri - Valley were "sky
high" and "outrageous" compared to the bills from
Obee which were "very, very small ".
James Geric at a Council meeting indicated that his
brother should perform the work for the Borough.
(1) James Geric approached Pribanic outside a Council
meeting and requested Pribanic to get work to
Patrick Geric.
(3)
k. After Tri- Valley started to do the work, the issue of
costs was raised at Council which took the work from
Patrick Geric and gave it to Obee.
1. At a December 11, 1989 Council meeting, a motion was made
to turn over towing /repairs to Obee.
(1) James Geric moved to table the motion.
(2) Geric's motion carried.
Gstric 91- 004 -C2
Page 39
m. At a February 12, 1990 meeting, James Geric referenced a
letter of Patrick Geric submitting a proposal for a 10%
saving in repair work.
(1) A motion which motion failed due Geric to oa accept the h
proposal a
second.
n. Pat Geric noted that the Borough's Ford was not fit to be
on the road but Obee repaired the car which ran for
another year.
o. At a 12/11/89 council meeting, Councilman McFeely
requested that the 12 /11/89 motion tabled by James Geric
be taken from the table.
(1) A motion was made by McFeely and Polacek to
permanently turn towing /police car repairs to
Obee's garage which motion carried with Geric and
Whitney voted naye.
p. When Pat Geric did repairs, there were delays in the
Borough getting the vehicles back whereas Obee promptly
did repairs.
q. Pribovic questioned Pat Geric that his repair charges
were too high.
(1) Pat Geric responded that he did good work.
47. Michael Trbovich served as a councilman for East Pittsburgh
Borough for twenty years.
a. He served as Borough secretary from January 1954 until
March, 1991.
b. Trbovich also served as Borough treasurer for one year.
c. As secretary, Trbovich handled correspondence, prepared
the minutes and received bills from vendors.
(1) From 1987 through 1990, the Borough had a process
of reviewing /approving bills whereby bills would be
submitted to each committee chairman for approval
by initialling or signing his name to the bills.
(2) Bills would be listed and read so that every
Council Member was aware.
(3) The committee chairman would return the bills,
after initialling or signing, to Trbovich.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 40
g.
(
(a) If the bills were approved, Trbovich would pay
them.
d. Several invoices of Tri- Valley contain the initials of
James Geric or Pribanic.
e. Motions of Council to pay "properly approved" bills meant
bills which had the approval of a chairperson.
(1) All bills had to be approved by Council for
payment.
f. As to giving towing/repairs to Patrick Geric, the
discussion at Council was in the context of Patrick Geric
being the brother of James Geric and a taxpayer in the
Borough.
A councilman did not have the power to order Trbovich to
pay a bill.
h. Council at one point split towing/repairs between Patrick
Geric and Obee on a six month basis.
i. James Geric spoke at Council meetings in support of his
brother Patrick Geric getting business.
In response to an inquiry by .Councilman McFeely about
James Geric's interest in Tri - Valley, James. Geric
responded that he was severing the partnership.
(1) James Geric denied that he was a partner in the
Tri- Valley Garage.
48. Victoria Polacek is a Council Member for East Pittsburgh
Borough for the last eight years.
a. East Pittsburgh Borough has a process for paying bills.
(1) Before a meeting each chairman will receive bills
for that particular committee.
(2) The bills are reviewed by the chair of each
committee.
The Council president asks
problems with bills.
A committee
object if he
If there are
if - there are any
person or Council Member will
has a problem with a bill.
no problems with bills, a motion
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 41
is made, seconded to approve the bills for
payment.
b. Pat Geric began serving on East Pittsburgh Borough
Council in 1992.
c. The Borough used Obee's for repairs in 1984 but the
business was switched to Tri - Valley.
d. Borough Council did play a role in deciding that Obee
would have towing.
e. Borough Council did not vote to award repair of police
vehicles to Tri - Valley.
f. Obee did not charge for labor in the repair of Borough
vehicles.
(1) Tri - Valley did charge for labor.
g. Polacek compared repair costs between Obee and Tri -
Valley.
(1) Polacek concluded that Tri - Valley was charging
"exorbitant" amounts.
h. At Borough Council, James Geric suggested that towing be
switched from Obee to Tri - Valley which was a new company
that should be helped.
(1) James Geric made similar comments regarding
switching repair work on Borough vehicles.
i. Polacek observed James Geric driving a Tri- Valley tow
truck.
As to one Borough vehicle, Pat Geric said it was not road
worthy but Obee worked on it and the vehicle was on the
road for about a year.
k. A committee chair, within the allowances of Council,
could direct where a Borough car would be taken for
repair.
49. Andrew Seath is an employee at Obee's Garage.
a. Seath does the towing truck for Obee's which is owned by
his mother.
b. From 1987 to the present, repairs at Obee's Garage were
done by Seath.
j .
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 42
(3)
(1) Obee's performed maintenance work on Borough
vehicles such as oil changes, brake jobs, engine
replacement, front end work but not alignment.
(2) Inspections were done by another garage that had a
license.
(3) Work was done on Borough police cars and rarely on
the Borough trucks.
(4) Obee's would not bill the Borough for inspections
or dealer parts.
c. Obee's was the primary but not the exclusive tower for
the Borough.
(1) The Borough was not charged by Obee's for towing.
d. The Borough allowed Obee's to do towing of non- Borough
vehicles.
e. When Obee was doing repairs for free for Borough
vehicles, others would also be doing repairs when Obee's
could not handle it.
f. The Borough was not bringing the cars on a normal basis
to Obee's Garage.
50. Mary Albert is a special investigator for the State Ethics
Commission.
a. Albert obtained from the Borough, invoices of Patrick
Geric of Tri- Valley Automotive for repairs on Borough
vehicles.
(1) A breakdown was prepared by Albert as to labor
totals for each invoice.
(2) Tri - Valley billed the Borough as follows:
(a) $466.06 in 1987.
(b) $2,796.50 in 1988.
(c) $7,680.05 in 1989.
(d) $363.70 in 1990.
As to subfinding 50a(2), Tri - Valley billed the
Borough for labor as follows:
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 43
(a) $362.00 in 1987.
(b) $1,135.80 in 1988.
(c) $2,038.97 in 1989.
(d) $117.00 in 1990.
b. Albert did not investigate as to whether there were any
additional part charges to the Borough by Turtle Creek
Supply, Valley Auto Supply or any other car dealers.
51. Daniel M. Bender is a special investigator for the State
Ethics Commission.
a. Bender has an educational background and degrees in the
automotive field as well as in administration of justice.
(1) Bender is a certified state inspection mechanic and
certified physical damage appraiser.
b. Bender analyzed the costs for repairs to Borough vehicles
by Tri- Valley by reviewing all Borough invoices as to the
repair /replacement of Borough vehicles.
(1) A chart contains the parts charged to Borough
vehicles, the cost of the parts to Tri - Valley and
the cost charged to the Borough.
(a) The difference between the price charged to
the Borough and the cost to Tri- Valley was
profit.
(b) The profit on the parts was $618.61 to Tri -
Valley.
c. Tri - Valley performed duplicate or repetitive repairs on
Borough Car No. 8, a Ford Crown Victoria.
(1) Two universals were replaced on Car No. 8 on
September 30, 1987.
(a) The front universal was replaced on December
7, 1989.
(b) A universal should last about 70,000 miles.
(2) On June 8, 1989, a front brake caliper and brake
hydraulic hose were replaced.
(a) On August 2, 1989, the front brake pads were
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 44
replaced with only 3000 additional miles being
driven after June 8, 1989.
(b) Brake pads must be taken off when replacing
the front brake caliper.
(c) It is the customary practice to replace brake
pads, if there is excessive wear, when the
calipers are off.
Tri- Valley replaced the voltage regulator and
wiring on June 5, 1989.
(a) On July 8, 1989, with 1500 additional miles on
the Borough vehicle, the battery and voltage
regulators were replaced.
(b) Tri - Valley replaced three voltage regulators
in the Borough vehicle in the span of one
year.
(4) A battery was replaced by Tri - Valley after seven
months usage.
(a) The life of a car battery varies from 36 to 72
months.
d. Tri- Valley performed duplicate heating /cooling repairs on
East Pittsburgh Borough fleet of vehicles.
(1) A radiator replacement was done on the 1976 truck
on May 14, 1989.
(2) On April 21, 1989, a radiator and heater coil
replacement was made on Car No. 8.
(3) On April 8, 1989, a radiator replacement was made
on Car No. 9.
(a) Three radiators were replaced in a time span
of five weeks.
e. Duplicate repairs were performed by Tri - valley on East
Pittsburgh Borough Vehicle No. 9.
(1) Brakes were repaired in eight month interval.
(a) Brakes have a standard warranty of 36,000 on a
new car.
(b) The over - the - counter warranty is 90 days /4,000
(3)
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 45
miles.
(2) For invoice of August 16, 1988, repairs were for
belt adjustment, checking the charging system and
replacing a battery.
(a) On November 23, 1988, the following were
replaced: the alternator, the battery and the
under -hood wiring.
(b) The batteries were replaced in a three -month
time interval.
(3) By invoice of May 2, 1989, the starter was
replaced.
(a) The starter was again replaced as reflected in
invoice dated August 20, 1989.
(b) The time span between the repair was 3 1/2
months.
52. James Geric is a Council Member in East Pittsburgh Borough
since 1986.
a. James Geric was appointed to the Public Safety Committee
as chairman.
b. After expressing concern to Council about the condition
of the 1983 Pontiac police car not being in good shape,
bids were solicited for a police vehicle.
(1) A bid was received and awarded to Kenny Ross
Chevrolet.
(a) In April, 1988, Council rescinded the order.
(b) At a May 12, 1986 meeting, Council
reconsidered and moved to cancel the purchase
of the vehicle from Kenny Ross Chevrolet.
c. James Geric had a discussion with his brother concerning
vehicle maintenance.
(1) Geric concedes he has no mechanical ability as to
vehicles.
d. Although Obee's had all the towing, Qouncil took action
to rotate towing among Obee's, Tri- Valley and Dookers.
e. James Geric conceded that Obee's did not charge the
Oulg, 91- 004 -C2
Page 46
Borough.
f. Patrick Geric purchased a lot for the storage of
vehicles.
(1) James Geric was a grantee on the deed with his
brother Patrick Geric.
(a) James and Patrick Geric took title as tenants
in co- partnership.
g. At a October 8, 1990 Council meeting, in response to a
question of possible conflict by Council Member McFeely,
the solicitor advised that it was improper for a Council
Member to vote on matters affecting his brother.
h. McFeely in a September 10, 1990 Council meeting charged
that Geric had a conflict in overriding Borough action to
award towing /repairs to Obee's .
i. When James Geric was appointed to Public Safety
Committee, he assumed that he was responsible for police,
police vehicles and public safety matters.
Patrick Geric initiated the building of the garage in
East Pittsburgh after he was furloughed from his job with
Westinghouse.
k. Based upon a six -month study of the invoices of a Borough
vehicle which James Geric obtained and gave to his
brother Patrick Geric for review, Patrick Geric's
"conclusion was there wasn't enough service being done on
the vehicle ".
j
1. Council considered and rejected Patrick Geric's request
for towing business.
(1) There was no Borough Council vote to give repairs
of Borough vehicles to Tri- Valley Auto.
m. Routine Borough vehicle maintenance was done by Wayne
Johnson, a Borough employee.
(1) Johnson was taken off maintenance during the
transition of the move to a different Borough
building.
n. James Geric asked his brother Patrick Geric to do
preventive maintenance on the Borough vehicles.
(1) The Borough vehicles were under the jurisdiction of
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 47
James Geric as chairman of the Public Safety
Committee.
o. When the Chief of Police of the Borough asked James Geric
where to take the Borough vehicle, James Geric told the
Police Chief to take the cars to his brother.
Although James Geric testified that he did not tell
Johnson to take the Borough vehicles to Patrick Geric's
garage for maintenance, James Geric then testified that
he did so direct Johnson after being confronted with his
admission in the pleadings.
q. Once Tri- Valley started doing routine maintenance, James
Geric as Public Safety - chairman allowed Tri - Valley to do
whatever maintenance was necessary as a problem
developed.
(1) James Geric did not need the approval of Council to
take such action.
P•
r. James Geric as Public Safety chairman did not check on
the work performed by Tri - Valley because Patrick Geric of
Tri - Valley was his brother.
s. Patrick Geric's garage was completed in Fall, 1986 and
began receiving Borough work in May, 1987, approximately
seven or eight months later.
t. On the issue of a possible conflict by James Geric as to
his brother, James Geric in a discussion with the Borough
solicitor advised that he recommended an attorney for his
brother, but did not disclose his guarantorship of a loan
or signature authority on a Tri - Valley bank account.
u. As to Tri- Valley bank accounts James Geric had check
writing authority.
v. The storage lot by Tri - Valley was used to store towed
cars.
(1) Tri - Valley changes for towing and storing of
vehicles.
w. Although James Geric while on Council was making payments
on the loan for the storage lot, he did not list anyone
including himself as a creditor on his Statement of
Financial Interests form.
(1) Patrick Geric still owes his brother James Geric
between 3,000 and 3,500 as to the storage lot.
Geri , 91- 004 -C2
Page 48
x. James Geric as Council Member supported giving his
brother towing /repair business.
y. Patrick Geric repairs James Geric's car without charging
for labor.
z. James Geric in 1988 made the motion to place the Borough
vehicles under the jurisdiction of his committee, the
Public Safety Committee.
(1) In 1986, James Geric made a motion to turn the
police vehicles over to the Property Committee.
aa. James Geric seeks a dismissal of the case on the theory
that under Section 8(c) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S.
5408(c), he was not given notice and an opportunity to
respond to the granting of two ninety -day extensions to
complete the investigation.
(1) Ninety -day extensions were granted on August 23,
1991 and on December 4, 1991.
(a) Geric received ninety -day notice letters which
reflected the continuation of the
investigation.
(2) During the investigation, non - compliance of a
subpoena by Pat Geric resulted in a subpoena
enforcement action being filed in Commonwealth
Court under the caption State Ethics Commission v.
P.G., An Undisclosed Individual, filed at 325 M.D.
1991.
bb. James Geric seeks a dismissal of the allegation under Act
170 of 1978 on the theory that .a brother is not within
the definition of immediate family under that Act.
53. Robert George is an auto mechanic that socializes at Tri -
Valiey Auto.
a. George has seen James Geric drive the Tri- Valley tow
truck but not tow any vehicles.
54. Richard Glasser is the assistant vice president of Great
American Federal Savings & Loan Association.
a. The account for Tri - Valley is not a business account but
a joint checking account.
b. With two people having signature authority, each person
has equal authority in relation to the account.
Ceiic, 91- 004 -c2
Page 49
55. Richard O'Neal was employed as
Pittsburgh Borough between April,
a. Borough vehicle maintenance
Borough employee and then on
Tri- Valley Auto.
a .
(3)
a police officer by East
1985 and February, 1989.
was done by Obee's, then a
rotation between Obee's and
b. Any vehicle problems were reported to the Police Chief.
56. James Gerhard is a street commissioners with East Pittsburgh
Borough since 1980.
a. Gerhard was in charge of a Borough crew which included
Wayne Johnson.
(1) Johnson was a truck driver /laborer who did part -
time maintenance 'on Borough vehicles.
57. Thomas Shearer was the solicitor for East Pittsburgh Borough
from 1960 to 1980, except for 1972 and 1973.
Shearer gave one written opinion regarding James Geric
voting on matters concerning Tri - Valley Auto.
(1) Shearer concluded that James Geric should not vote
on such matters.
(2) Shearer rendered his opinion based upon statements
from James Geric and another councilman that James
Geric had no financial interest in his brother's
operation.
Shearer was unaware at the time of his rendering
the opinion that James Geric was a creditor of the
business by paying off financial obligations of his
brother Patrick Geric.
b. When asked in 1987 as to whether James Geric could vote
as to Tri - Valley Auto, Shearer responded that James Geric
could if he had no financial interest.
(1) If James Geric had some financial interest in some
other matters involving the family, Shearer did not
know what his decision would be.
(2) Shearer was unaware that both James and Patrick
Geric were grantees on a deed to a storage lot in
the Borough.
58. Richard Shubock operates Dooker's Bridge Auto Service in North
Braddock.
Geric 91- 004 -C2
Page 50
a. Shubock does mechanical and body work on trucks, buses,
tractor trailers and automobiles.
b. Shubock taught Patrick Geric the auto mechanics trade.
59. Edward Ruane was appointed to East Pittsburgh Borough Council
in November, 1987 until he resigned at the end of 1989.
a. Ruane went to Patrick Geric's garage on two or three
occasions regarding Borough police vehicles.
(1) Ruane did not know how the police cars got to the
garage.
b. Council at one point split towing between Obee's and Tri -
Valley.
c. A committee chairman reviews bills.
d. Ruane was unaware that Obee's was performing labor on
Borough police vehicles at no charge.
60. Henry Beamer is an attorney in the practice of law.
a. Beamer represented Gilbert Shubock in a transaction
involving Patrick Geric.
(1) A deed was prepared and recorded.
(a) The grantee was Patrick Geric with James Geric
added as grantee.
(b) James and Patrick Geric took title as tenants
in co- partnership.
(c) Beamer prepared a mortgage note between
Patrick Geric and Gilbert Shubock as to which
James Geric's name was added.
(i) James Geric signed the mortgage note.
61. Patrick Geric works out of Tri- Valley Auto.
a. Geric claims that there was insufficient maintenance on
the Borough police vehicles.
b. The "lot" is used for storing cars.
(1) The fees received for storage of vehicles are
deposited in the Tri - Valley account.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 51
(2) James Geric assisted Patrick Geric in the purchase
and financing of the lot.
c. When Patrick Geric started the business, he had to go out
to get business.
(1)
Patrick Geric was interested in the East Pittsburgh
Borough business as a means of helping out his
garage repair business.
d. The tax bills on the "lot" go to 513 Main Street where
James Geric lives.
(1) Patrick Geric lives at 603 Main Street.
e. Since 1988, Patrick Geric tried to get the towing
business in the Borough.
62. Guy Visco is a Member of East Pittsburgh Borough Council since
1975.
a. Towing in the Borough at one point was split among
Obee's, Patrick Geric and Dookers.
(1) The towing was split 50/50 at some point between
Obee's and Patrick Geric -.
b. The Public Safety Committee chairman was the oversight
person for Borough police vehicles.
(1) The chairman had discretion to send police vehicles
for repairs.
C. EXHIBITS:
63. The financial gain received by Tri- Valley Automotive as to
labor charges between 1987 and June, 1989 from East Pittsburgh
Borough totals $2,748.27.
64. The private pecuniary benefit received by Tri - Valley
Automotive as to labor charges between June, 1989 and January,
1990 from East Pittsburgh Borough totals $905.00.
III. DISCUSSION:
Initially, it is noted that the allegations in this case
relate to both Act 9 of 1989 and Act 170 of 1978. In this regard,
Section 9 of Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, provides, in part, as follows:
"This amendatory act shall not apply to
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 52
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 violations occurred prior thereto."
Under both Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, as a Member of
East Pittsburgh Borough Council, James Geric is a public official
as that term is defined under both acts. See also 51 Pa. Code. As
such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of both laws and the
restrictions therein are applicable to him.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public
official 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.
Under Section 3(a), of Act 170 of 1978 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,
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 53
use of office by a public official to obtain 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), allocatur. denied, Pa.
, 553 A.2d 971 (1988).
In addition, Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 specifically
provides in part that no public official or member of his immediate
family or business with_ -which he. or a - member of his immediate
family is a director, oficer, owner or holder of stock exceeding
five percent of the equity at fair market value may enter into a
contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars
or more unless the contract is awarded through an open and public
process.
Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that each
public employee and each public official (Kremer v. State Ethics
Commission, 56 Pa. Commw. 160, 424 A.2d 968 (1981)) must file a
Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year
and each year that he holds such position and for the year after he
leaves such position.
Preliminarily, we note that Geric seeks a dismissal of the
Complaint on the basis that he was not given notice and an
opportunity to respond when the Investigative Division sought and
obtained two investigative extensions under Section 8(c) of Act 9
of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(c). Secondly, Geric seeks a dismissal of the
allegation under Act 170 of 1978 on the theory that any action
which Geric undertook as to his brother could not be a violation
since a brother is not within the statutory definition of
"immediate family" under Act 170.
As to the first ground for dismissal, Section 8(c) of Act 9
provides:
Section 8. Investigations by the commission
(c) If a preliminary inquiry establishes
reason to believe that this act has been
violated, the commission may, through its
executive director, initiate an investigation
to determine if there has been a violation.
The commission shall beep information, records
and proceedings relating to an investigation
confidential until a, final determination is
made except as otherwise provided in
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 54
subsection (g). No investigation may be
commenced until the person who is the subject
of the investigation has been notified and
provided a general statement of the alleged
violation or violations of the act and other
applicable statutes with respect to such
investigation. Service of notice is complete
upon 'mailing which shall be by certified or
registered mail. The commission shall notify
the complainant within 72 hours of the
commencement of an investigation and,
thereafter, the commission shall advise the .
complainant and the person who is the subject
of the investigation of the status of the
investigation at least every 90 days until the
investigation is'terminated. The commission
shall, within 180 days of the initiation of an
investigation, either terminate the
investigation pursuant to subsection (d) or
issue a findings report pursuant to subsection
(e). Upon a showing by the executive director
of the need for extension of this period, the
commission may extend an investigation for up
to two 90 -day periods, provided that each 90-
day extension shall be approved by a majority
vote of members present. In no event shall a
findings report be issued later than 360 days
after initiation of an,investigation.
65 P.S. 5408(c). There is no question of fact that the
Investigative Division did request and receive two ninety -day
investigative extension requests. (Fact Finding 52aa(1)). There
is likewise no question of fact that Geric was given notice of the
status of the investigation at ninety -day intervals until the
investigation was completed. (Fact Finding 52aa(1)(a)). The only
question before us is whether Geric had any statutory or
constitutional right to respond, participate or challenge the
request by the Investigative Division for the two ninety -day
extensions.
As to the Ethics Law, we note that there is no statutory
provision which grants a respondent the right to participate in the
investigative extension request process. Although Geric is unable
to establish any statutory grant of such a right, he asserts that
due process requires his participation. We disagree. Due process
itself does not require hearing rights at each and every possible
opportunity but only before the final deprivation of a right.
Baker v. Com., Pa. Human Relations Com'n., 507 Pa. 325, 332, 489
A.2d 1354, 1357 (1985) (Note 5):
[The due process] clause does not guarantee or
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 55
require that full notice and hearing rights be
afforded at every possible opportunity. The
only requirement is that such rights be
available before personal or property rights
are taken.
In this case, Geric has been accorded due process in that he
was given notice of a hearing on May 2, 1992, and an opportunity to
respond at that hearing which was held on August 19 and 20, 1992.
Under decisional law, Geric is not entitled nor is this Commission
required to give notice and an opportunity to be heard at each and
every stage of the proceeding. Notice and an opportunity to be
heard was given at the final stage :when the hearing was held to
make the record on which_ this adjudication is based. Further,
since Geric does not have such right by statute in that the Ethics
Law makes no provision for a respondent's participation in the
investigative extension process, we reject the first ground for
dismissal.
In passing we must note that the reason, at least in part, for
the request by the Investigative Division for the ninety -day
extensions was due to the failure by Patrick Geric to comply with
an investigative subpoena which necessitated the institution of a
subpoena enforcement action in Commonwealth Court. (Fact Finding
52aa(2)).
Dismissal is also sought for the allegations which relate to
Section 3(a) and 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 on the basis that Geric's
actions were for his brother who is not within the statutory
definition of "immediate family" under Act 170. Although we agree
that "brother" is not within the statutory definition of "immediate
family" under Act 170, Geric appears to be unaware that a violation
occurs under Section 3(a) of Act 170 when a financial gain through
a use of office is received either by the public official /employee
himself, a member of the immediate family, or a business with which
the public official /employee is associated. In light of the above
and the findings which contain evidence suggesting a financial
relationship between Geric and his brother regarding Tri- Valley
Automotive, we will deny the second ground for dismissal.
We will now turn to the substanive allegations before us which
are whether under Act 170 of 1978 Geric violated Section 3(a)
(conflict provision), Section 3(c) (contracting provision), and
Section 4(a) (Financial Interests Statement filing requirement
provision) as to his participation as a Borough Councilman for the
purpose of obtaining business for Tri - Valley Automotive, a business
with which he was associated; for the failure to award such
contracts between the Borough and Tri - Valley Automotive through an
open and public process to the extent that the contracts were $500
or more, and lastly, for the failure to file Financial Interests
Statements (FIS's) for the calendar years 1987 through 1989, and
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 56
secondly whether under Act 9 of 1989 Geric violated Section 3(a)
(conflict provision) regarding his actions as to the repair of
Borough vehicles by Tri- Valley Automotive, a company owned wholly
or in part by Geric's brother, Patrick Geric.
Factually, Geric began serving as a Councilman in East
Pittsburgh Borough in January, 1986. From January, 1986 through
December, 1989, he served as chairman of the Public Safety
Committee, and in January, 1990, he was made chairman of the
Property Zoning and Ordinance Committee. When Geric became a
member of Council, the repair of Borough vehicles was done by
Obee's Garage. Obee's performed the repairs on the Borough
vehicles without charge. If parts were needed, Obee's directed the
part supplier to bill the Borough directly so that Obee's made no
profit on parts. Aside from a used engine, Obee's did not even
charge for used parts. Obee' was entitled to perform towing
services in the Borough but Obee's did not charge for the towing of
any Borough vehicles.
In the fall of 1986 after Geric's brother Patrick was laid off
from his position in Westinghouse, he (Patrick) opened a garage,
Tri - Valley Automotive. Patrick Geric also obtained a lot for the
storage of vehicles which lot was acquired by deed in the names of
Patrick Geric and Geric as co- tenants in partnership. Geric helped
with the financing as to the purchase of the lot and Patrick Geric
still owes Geric approximately $3,000 to $3,500. In addition,
Geric has signature authority over the checking account for Tri-
Valley Automotive.
Following the startup of Tri - Valley Automotive, Patrick Geric
appeared on several occasions before Borough Council seeking to
obtain Borough business for his garage. Geric became an advocate
for giving Borough business to Tri - Valley Automotive not only in
Council meetings but behind the scenes. Geric readily concedes
that he supported the efforts of his brother Patrick Geric for
Borough vehicle repair work. Geric was in key position to help his
brother in that he was chairman of the Public Safety Committee
which had the responsibility for police car maintenance. In May,
1988, Geric made the motion to transfer control of the Borough
vehicles to his committee.
The record does reflect that there was never any action taken
by Borough Council to authorize Tri - valley Automotive to do repairs
on Borough vehicles. Likewise, the repairs were not put out for
bids. The only action taken by Borough Council occurred on April
11, 1988, when the Council agreed, with Geric casting the swing
vote, to alternate the towing between Obee's Garage and Tri - Valley
Automotive on a six -month basis. At a March 13, 1987 meeting of
council, a motion supported by Geric to split the towing had
failed. Despite the lack of action by Borough Council to authorize
Tri - Valley Automotive to do Borough vehicle repairs, Tri- Valley
eric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 57
Automotive nevertheless began to perform such services. Although
Geric on occasion did ask Council to authorize a repair, such
requests were silent as to which garage would perform the repairs.
The transfer of Borough vehicle repair work to Tri- Valley
Automotive occurred at the direction of Geric to the police chief
or Wayne Johnson, a Borough employee, who were told to take the
Borough vehicles to Tri- Valley Automotive for repairs. Geric also
instituted a "maintenance program" so that the Borough vehicles
would be sent to Tri - Valley Automotive on a regular basis. After
the change in Borough vehicle repair from Obee's to Tri - Valley
Automotive, the Borough became inundated with exorbitantly high
repair bills from Tri - Valley automotive for repairs on Borough
vehicles, many of which were repetitive or duplicate repairs. It
is important to restate that when Obee's did the Borough vehicle
repairs, Obee's did not charge nor make any profit on parts since
the parts were billed directly from the suppliers to the Borough.
In sharp contrast to Obee's, Tri - Valley Automotive charged for
labor and parts via price mark ups.
When members of Borough Council became aware of the high
repair bills from Tri - Valley Automotive, which they described as
"outrageous" or "exorbitant ", members of Council attempted through
a motion to take action to remove said business from Tri - Valley
Automotive. However, Geric put through a successful motion to
table the motion which would have taken away the business from Tri -
Valley Automotive. Subsequently when an attempt was made to take
the motion from the table, Geric voted against that motion. Not
only do the minutes reflect that Geric was active in making motions
and voting as to motions which would favor Tri - Valley Automotive,
the minutes further reflect that Geric voted to approve payments of
invoices to Tri- Valley Automotive. When Patrick Geric approached
Council in an attempt to regain the Borough vehicle repair business
by offering a 10% discount, Geric made a motion to accept his
brother's proposal which failed for a lack of a second. Such
actions by Geric as a Council member continued until the Borough
Solicitor at an October 8, 1990 meeting advised Geric that it was
improper for a Councilman to vote on matters regarding his brother.
Thereafter, Geric abstained on matters involving his brother
Patrick Geric or Tri - Valley Automotive.
Lastly, regarding the filings of Financial Interests
Statements (FIS's) by Geric, he has only filed two such statements:
one in March, 1985, purportedly for the 1985 and another in
February, 1989, purportedly for the year 1989. The 1989 filing
could not be for the calendar year 1989 since it was filed in
February, 1989. The record does reflect that Geric failed to file
FIS's for the calendar years 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990; apparently,
the FIS filed in 1989 which listed the calendar year as 1989 has
been deemed to be a 1988 calendar year filing. Geric in his "1989"
filing did not list the Borough as a source of income.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 58
In applying the various provisions of the Ethics Law to the
instant matter, we shall first consider the applicability of Act
170 of 1978. As to Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978, we clearly
find a use of office on the part of Geric in terms of his lobbying
activities, his actions as Public Safety Committee chairperson
directing repairs to Tri- Valley Automotive, his making and voting
in favor of motions for Tri - Valley Automotive as well as opposing
motions which sought to remove such Borough business from Tri -
Valley Automotive and his actions in voting for payment of invoices
of Tri - Valley Automotive. The financial gain consists of the
profits made by Tri - Valley- Automotive from the repairs of Borough
vehicles. Those repairs, many of ; which were clearly duplicative,
repetitive, and totally unnecessary, are outlined in Fact Findings
29 to 38 and 51.
As to the repairs, it is possible that in some instances a
part might have been defective which would warrant its replacement
within a short time after installation. However, in this case, the
inordinately excessive and ongoing constant parade of repairs by
Tri - Valley Automotive of numerous automotive components, as listed
in the above Fact Findings which occurred in very short time
periods with relatively low mileage in said intervals, on its face
is totally unjustified. The foregoing becomes quite apprarent when
one considers that replacements were made as to vehicle parts which
have a relatively long term longevity such as radiators,
universals, voltage regulators, starters, etc. For example, Fact
Finding 51c(3)(b) reflects that three voltage regulators were
replaced in the same vehicle within the span of one year. The
characterization of the costs of these "repairs" by Council members
as "exorbitant" or "outrageous" was certainly on the mark.
Obviously, based upon the facts in this case, it would be a clear
misnomer to characterize the activities of Tri - Valley Automotive as
repairs; a more exacting terminology would be the replacement of
parts for profit.
In addition to the
question as to whether
Automotive charged might
Finding 38.
Although we clearly have a use of office by Geric and a
financial gain, we do not believe that the evidence is sufficient
to establish a financial gain to either Geric, a member of his
immediate family or a business with which Geric is associated under
Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978. As to Geric, we do note that he
financed to an extent the purchase of the garage storage lot which
was deeded to Geric and his brother Patrick as co- tenants in
partnership. In addition, Geric does have signature authority
over the Tri - Valley Automotive bank account. However, the term
"business with which he is associated" is defined under Act 170 as
follows:
above, there appears to be a serious
some "repairs" for which Tri - Valley
not even have been performed. See Fact
Qeric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 59
Section 2. Definitions.
"Business with which he is associated." Any
business in which the person or a member of
the person's immediate family is a director,
officer, owner, employee or holder of stock.
65 P.S. §402. The evidence does not establish that Geric is a
director, officer, owner, employee or holder of stock in Tri- Valley
Automotive. Due to a lack of sufficiency of evidence, we must
conclude that Tri - valley Automotive is not a business with which
Geric associated. Similarly, the term "immediate family" is
defined as follows under Act 170 of 1978:
Section 2. Definitions.
"Immediate family." A spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent
children.
65 P.S. §402. Since Patrick Geric is not a member of Geric's
immediate family as that term is defined under Act 170, the
financial gain in this case did not go to an "immediate family"
member. Lastly, as to a financial gain to Geric personally in this
case, such financial gain would have to come to him via the entity
of Tri - Valley Automotive. Since we have found that Tri - Valley
Automotive is not a business with which he is associated under Act
170, we are constrained to a conclusion that the financial gain did
not got to Geric. In light of the foregoing, we find no violation
Section 3(a) of Act 170.
So that our decision is not misunderstood, we must state that
there was a blatant use of office by Geric which resulted in a
financial gain consisting of the unnecessary, duplicate, repetitive
automotive repairs done by Tri - Valley Automotive. However, since
the evidence does not establish that this financial gain went to
Geric individually nor a member of his "immediate family" nor a
"business with which he is associated ", we are constrained to find
no violation.
In light of the above, we likewise must find no violation of
Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 for the following reason. Section
3(c) limits contracting to a public official /employee, a member of
his immediate family, or a business in which the person or member
of his immediate family is a director, officer, owner, or holder of
stock exceeding 5% of the equity of market value of the business.
Since Geric himself did not contract and Patrick Geric is not a
member of Geric's. "immediate family" and since Tri- Valley
Automotive is not a business with which Geric is associated as that
term is defined in Act 170, Section 3(c) of Act 170 referenced
above has no application.
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 60
As to allegation regarding Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978, we
find violations of Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding
Geric's failure to file FIS's for calendar years 1987, 1989. Geric
is directed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this Order to
file FIS's for the calendar years 1987 and 1989. Since the 1989
filing apparently has been deemed a filing for calendar year 1988,
Geric is directed to file an amended FIS for that year reflecting
the proper calendar year date as 1988 rather than 1989. In
addition, Geric is also directed within the above thirty (30) day
time constraint to file FIS's for the calendar years 1986 and 1990.
We note that Geric did not list the Borough as a source of income
for the "1989" year. If Geric received income over the threshold
amounts of $500 for Act 170 and $100a for Act 9, such income must
be listed on the FIS's. Failure to comply with this provision will
result in a directive of this for the institution of an
order enforcement action.
As to the one remaining allegation of whether Geric violated
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding his activities on behalf of
Tri- Valley Automotive, we find a violation of that provision of the
Ethics Law. Our review of this allegation is limited to those
activities which occurred after June 26, 1989, the effective date
of the amendment to the Ethics Law. In order to establish a
violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, there must be a showing
of a use of authority of office and a private pecuniary benefit,
which inures to a public official /employee, a member of his
immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
In the instant matter, all the requisite elements for a
violation of Section 3(a) are present. The use of authority of
office by Geric is evidenced in the record as to his actions on
Council and as Public Safety Committee. chairman, through his
lobbying on behalf of Tri. Valley Automotive, through his direction
as committee chairman for the repair of Borough vehicles to Tri -
Valley Automotive, through his making and voting in favor of
motions which support Tri - Valley Automotive and against such
motions which would take business away from Tri - Valley Automotive
and through his voting to pay invoices of Tri - Valley Automotive.
Geric also admitted that he as a Councilman supported giving his
brother Borough repair business, which continued until October,
1990 when the Solicitor advised him against further action on his
part. Such actions are clearly a use of authority of office. See,
Juliante, Order 809.
As to the second element of Section 3(a) regarding a private
pecuniary benefit, that benefit consists of the gain that Tri -
Valley Automotive made on labor and parts as to the servicing of
Borough vehicles. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit in this
case inured not only to a member of Geric's immediate family but
also to a business with which a member of Geric's immediate family
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 61
is associated. Under Act 9 of 1989, immediate family and business
with which associated are defined as follows:
Section 2. Definitions
"Business with which he is associated."
Any business in which the person or a member
of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner, employee or has a
financial interest.
"Immediate family." A parent, spouse,
child, brother ..or:sister.
65 P.S. S402. Since the term brother is encompassed within the
statutory definition of immediate family under Act 9 of 1989,
clearly Patrick Geric and Tri- Valley Automotive were the recipients
of the private pecuniary benefit through the use of authority of
office by Geric.
In light of the above, we believe that a treble penalty is
appropriate. See Fact Finding 64. Accordingly, we direct Geric
within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this Order to
pay a treble penalty of $2715.00 and forward same to this
Commission for deposit into the State Treasury.
Based upon the blatant and intentional conduct of Geric in
this case of using office to obtain private financial gain for his
brother at the expense of and in violation of the public trust, we
will refer this matter to the appropriate law enforcement
authority.
The Preamble of the Ethics Law provides in part that, ". . .
public office is a public .trust and that any effort to realize
personal financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust." As to
his future actions as a public official, we remind Geric that he
must comport himself within the limitations of the Ethics Law.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. James Geric as a Council Member for East Pittsburgh Borough is
a public official as that term is defined under Act 170 of
1978 and Act 9 of 1989.
2. Geric did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
regarding his use of office to give Borough vehicle repair
business to Tri - Valley which resulted in a financial gain to
Patrick Geric and Tri- Valley Automotive in that Tri - Valley
Automotive is not a business with which Geric is associated
and Patrick Geric is not a member of Geric's immediate family
Geric, 91- 004 -C2
Page 62
as those terms are defined under Act 170 of 1978.
3. Geric did not violate Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978
regarding contracts for repair of Borough vehicles by Tri -
Valley Automotive in that Tri- Valley Automotive is not a
business with which Geric is associated and Patrick Geric is
not a member of Geric's immediate family as those terms are
defined under Act 170 of 1978.
4. Geric violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by failing to
file Financial Interests Statements for the 1987 and 1989
calendar years.
5. Geric violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. S403(a),
when he used the authority of office to give Borough vehicle
repair business to Tri - Valley Automotive which resulted in a
private pecuniary benefit for Patrick Geric, a member of his
immediate family, and for Tri - Valley. Automotive, a business
with which a member of Geric's immediate family was
associated.
6. The private pecuniary benefit received in violation of Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 amounts to $905.00.
In re: James Geric
File Docket: 91- 004 -C2
Date Decided: December 10, 1992
Date Mailed: December 15, 1992
ORDER NO. 873
1. James Geric, as a Council Member for East Pittsburgh Borough,
did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding his
use of office to give Borough vehicle repair business to Tri -
Valley which resulted in a financial gain to Patrick Geric and
Tri- Valley Automotive in that Tri - Valley Automotive is not a
business with which Geric is associated and Patrick Geric is
not a member of Geric's immediate family as those terms are
defined under Act 170 of 1978.
2. Geric did not violate Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978
regarding contracts for repair of Borough vehicles by Tri -
Valley Automotive in that Tri- Valley Automotive is not a
business with which Geric is associated and Patrick Geric is
not a member of Geric's immediate family as those terms are
defined under Act 170 of 1978.
3. Geric violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by failing to
file Financial Interests Statements for the 1987 and 1989
calendar years.
4. Geric violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §403(x),
when he used the authority of office to give Borough vehicle
repair business to Tri - Valley Automotive which resulted in a
private pecuniary benefit for Patrick Geric, a member of his
immediate family, and for Tri - Valley Automotive, a business
with which a member of Geric's immediate family was
associated.
5. Geric is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this Order to file Statements of Financial
Interests for the 1987 and 1989 calendar years.
6. Geric is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this Order to file an amended Statement of
Financial Interests as to his "1989" calendar year to properly
reflect that the form is being filed for the calendar year
1988.
7. Geric is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this Order to file Statements of Financial
Interests for the 1986 and 1990 calendar years.
8. The private pecuniary benefit received in violation of Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 amounts to $905.00.
9. We direct Geric wit`iin thirty (30) days of the date of
issuance of this Order to pay a treble penalty of $2715.00 and
remit same to this Commission for deposit into the State
Treasury.
10. Failure to comply with the above provisions of this Order will
result in a directive of this Commission to institute an order
enforcement action.
11. This matter will be referred to the appropriate law
enforcement agency for review and appropriate action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Commissioner Dennis C. Harrington did not participate in this
matter because he acted as single hearing officer and recused
himself pursuant to 51 Pa. Code §2.34(d).