Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout875 PomeroySTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In re: Gary Pomeroy File Docket: 87 -004 -C Date Decided: February 16, 1991 Date Mailed: February 19, 1993 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair Dennis C. Harrington Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluger Joseph W. Marshall, III The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, P.L. 883. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. A Consent Order was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code $2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 during the fifteen day period and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e). Pomeroy,, 87 -004 -C Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Gary Pomeroy, a member of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978) when he participated in the decisions by the Authority to use his firm, H.L. Pomeroy & Son, to perform various repairs, including, but not limited to sewer line, and pump station repairs; and when he served as Sewer Line Inspector for the Authority: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 5403(a). Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act provides: (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 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. 5403(c). II. FINDINGS: 1. Gary Pomeroy has served as an appointed member of Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority since December, 1980. a. He has served as Sewer Authority Chairman since approximately 1990. b. He was appointed as an Authority member by Cranesville Borough Council. Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 3 c . He has also served as a lateral and connection inspector for the Authority. from April 6, 1981, until. September 6, 1990. . Gary Pomeroy owns an excavating business known as H.L. Pomeroy & Son, 10400 Bowman Avenue, Cranesville, PA 16410. a. H.L. Pomeroy is Gary Pomeroy's father. b. Gary Pomeroy purchased the business froth nis father (H.L. Pomeroy) in 1983. c. H.L. Pomeroy continued to work for the business until his retirement, approximately in January, 1991. 3. H.L. Pomeroy & Son specializes in backhoe, grading, excavating and bulldozer work. a. Excavation of grave sites and sewer systems is the business's mainstay. 4. H.L. Pomeroy & Son is the only such contractor within Cranesville Borough. Cranesville Borough has a population of approximately 600 people. 5. Effective December 1, 1984, a lease agreement was entered into between the Cranesville Sewer Authority and Cranesville Borough. a. Terms of the lease were from December 1, 1984, through November 28, 2026. b. Semi - annual rental payments due on or before May 28 and November 28 of each year were due the Authority from the Borough. . c. Section 3 of the Lease Agreement requires that the Borough will enact and keep in force . an - ordinance imposing annual sewer rentals and other` charges upon users of the sewer system. The Borough shall deposit all revenue collected in a Sewer Revenue ;account. 1. Tap -in fees of $350 and inspection fees of $25 were required. 2. These fees are. co].lected by the Borough. 6. Section 5 of the 1984 lease agreement provides that the Borough, out of sewer revenues, shall maintain the sewer Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 4 system in good repair, working order and condition; and make all needful proper repairs, renewals, replacements and improvements in order to maintain adequate service. 7. The Cranesville's Borough sewer system has a lift station as an integral component part. a. The initial lift station was designed by Hill & Hill Engineering, Northeast, PA. 8. As part of the system designed,, all pumps, compressors and electrical components were housed below ground. a. This created a continual overheating problem. b. Motors were burned up at a rate of approximately three per year. 1. The Sewer Authority had secured a fund by way of settlement with the consulting .engineer in an amount of $10,000 to provide for lift station repairs. 9. On June 20, 1986, aweld on a holding pot ruptured flooding the lift station and overflowing it into adjacent Temple Creek. a. The - damage was discovered by Edward Jones during his . routine morning maintenance check. 10. On June 20, 1986, Cranesville Borough Council held a special meeting to discuss the damage to the sewer lift station. a. The meeting convened at the garage of Gary Pomeroy. b. Maintenance man, Edward Jones, discovered the shutdown, and that pumps and compressors were not working. c. Council agreed that they needed to acquire pumps and compressors immediately to get the lift station working. d. Gary Pomeroy offered suggestions where to get sludge trucks, pumps and compressors. e. A motion was passed authorizing Gary Pomeroy to do the necessary work on the lift station. 1. Borough Council believed that the repairs would not exceed $4,000. 11. Members of Cranesville Borough Council characterized the Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 5 shutdown as an emergency situation. a. Council did not the project out for bids due to the emergency situation. b. Pomeroy was chosen to_clothe repair as he was considered the most knowledgeable- of the system because of his familiarity with the construction of the lift station. 12. Cranesville Borough _Council conducted a special meeting on June 23,1986, to discuss the sewer lift - station repairs. a. Gary Pomeroy and George Thomas, Mayor of Cranesville, reported on the temporary repairs and various options. b. Bills for a shutdown on June 4, 1986, Were discussed. The secretary /treasurer reported that the bills amounted to $4,400 and the Borough had less than $300 in the sewer fund. c. The Sewer Authority Chairman, Harold Goeble, advised that the Sewer Authority would assume responsibility for the bills with the exception of $2,400 for compressors and motors. 13.. At the July 7, 1986, meeting of Cranesville Borough, Council discussed the lack -of funds available to repair the sewer system. Minutes confirm as follows: a. The Sewer Authority needed a resolution from Council to pay bills incurred at the lift station since the Borough did not have the funds available. b. Motion to. .form a resolution for the Sewer Authority to pay bills known as Resolution 86 -G made and seconded. No record of vote taken. c. Listing of bills for repairs to the' lift station included`: Aon Kinney (sludge removal) $2,800.00 H.L. Pomeroy $2,346.00 Tri -State Electric $.1,232.74 Compressor - Rental $ 720.00 Total $ 7,098.72 14. By invoice dated August 4, 1986, LL. Pomeroy & Son billed Cranesville Borough for services performed in relation to the lift station shut - down. a. Services rendered: Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 6 Lift Station Cleanup: Beginning June 20, 1986: Cleaning Materials /Supplies (Kennedy's) $ 50.00 Boyer's Rental - -2" sump pump 32.80 Knickerbocker's Rental - -2" pump 159.00 Knickerbocker's Rental - -3" pump 209.88 Accumulated Labor 175 Hrs. @ $10 1,750.00 4 nylon slings 80.00 Telephone calls 23.32 Total $ 2,305.00 b. Pomeroy billed for accumulated labor and telephone calls. 15. At the August 4, 1986, meeting of Cranesville Borough Council bills in relation to the lift- station repairs were reviewed and discussed. a. Bills included: Ron Kinney (sludge removal) $ 2, 0 0 0. 0 0 (Adjusted) H.L. Pomeroy $ 2,305.00 Knox Air (compressor rental) $ 1,440.00 Tri -State Electric $ 235.80 b. The Borough Treasurer reported that the Borough could possibly pay the Tri -State Electric bill but not the others as the balance (Borough checking account) is only $1,031.00 after bills are paid. c. Harold Geoble (Chairman of the Cranesville, Sewer Authority) stated that the Sewer Authority could possibly loan the Borough the money to pay the remainder due this month. d. The secretary was to supply a copy of bills to Geoble. 16. By letter dated August 11, 1986, Harold Goeble, Chairman of the Cranesville Sewer Authority, forwarded the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority check #392 in an amount of $4,259.11 as a loan to cover expenses related to the shut -down of the sewer system lift station. The covered expenses included: a. Earl Knox Co. Invoice #85 -2693 $ 720.00 Earl Knox Co. Invoice #85 -2740 734.11 H.L. Pomeroy's Son 2,305.00 Ron's Septic Tank Cleaning 500.00 Total $ 4.259.11 fomerov, 87 -004 -C Page 7 b. Check No. 392 was signed by Edward Podell and Gary Pomeroy. c . 1. Podell and Pomeroy were the only authorized signatories and Authority checks required both signatures. This check was not approved by the Authority prior to being sent to the Borough. 1. The Authority previously approved a motion at its March 7, 1986, meeting to authorize the chairman to sign a Borough request to have lift station repairs paid by the Authority. d. The Borough has not repaid this loan. 17. At a special meeting of Cranesville Borough held on August 11, 1986, the Borough acknowledged receipt of the Goeble letter and the check in an amount of $4,259.11 a. The following items were noted to be paid: Know Air $ 1,454.11 H.L. Pomeroy 2,305.00 Ron Kinney 500.00 Total $ ,4.259.11 18. At a special meeting on October 14, 1986, included the $4,259. 1986. of the Cranesville Sewer Authority held the Authority voted to pay bills which 11 loaned to the Borough in August 11, a. The motion was made by Gary Pomeroy seconded by Ed Podoll and carried unanimously. 19., At the November 18, 1986, meeting of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority bills, which included an invoice in an amount of $690.55 from H.L. Pomeroy & Son, were approved. a. Gary Pomeroy abstained from the paying of bills. b. A motion was approved to pay any on -going bills before the next scheduled meeting. 20. Minutes of the May 19, 1987, meeting of the Sewer Authority confirm that (10) bills were paid based on the approval of the Authority members at November 18, 1986, meeting (see Finding 19b). a. Included was a bill from H.L. Pomeroy & Son in an amount Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 8 of $1,159.80 for repairs to the lift station. 21. Minutes of the November 17, 1987, meeting of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority confirm that bills were approved including a $350.00 bill from H.L. Pomeroy & Son for work on the lift- station. a. The motion to pay bills carried. b. Gary Pomeroy was present at this meeting. c. No roll call vote was recorded. 22. Invoices sent by H.L. Pomeroy & Son to the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority for repairs and related work to the lift - station included the following: a. November 18, 1986: b. Work on Lift Station Building: 10/02/86 16 Hrs. Labor @ $10 Gravel, delivered 2 Hrs. Backhoe @ $35 11/04/86 9 Hrs. Labor 11/05/86 8 Hrs. Labor 11/15/86 16 Hrs. Labor Material, Zurns Phone Calls relative to Lift Station: 07/16/86 06/26/86 07/15/86 07/15/86 09/02/86 08/15/86 08/18/86 09/08/86 09/18/86 10/06/87 10/07/86 10/07/86 Total 606- 283 -2133 455 -9076 455 -907.6 455 -9076 455 -9076 606 - 283 -2133 606 - 283 -2121 606- 283 -2133 606- 283 -2121 606 - 283 =2-133 606 - 283 -2121 606 - 283 -2121 Clow Tri- State Tri-State Tri -State Tri -State Clow Clow Clow Clow Clow Clow Clow January 7, 1987: Life Station installation of new equipment: 160.00 84.80 70.00 90.00 80.00 160.00 1 27.03 3.97 .47 .47 .23 .83 .77 5.25 3.01 .77 .77 .45 1.73 690.55 Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 9 c . a. DATE 11/18/86 01/17/87 11/17/87 Total 11/25/86 11/25/86 12/06/86 12/08/86 12/08/86 12/09/86 12/10/86 12/12/86 12/18/86 12/05 to Total 02/26/87 02/26/87. 03/12/87 04/16/87 07/10/87 08/28/87 2 Hrs. Backhoe @ $35 $ Gravel Built Steps, NC Labor Labor, with Clow 16 Hrs. 1 Hr. Backhoe Labor, with Clow 16 Hrs. Labor, with Clow 16 Hrs. Backhoe, NC Truck to take rental compressor back to now 12/14 Labor (Ed Jones) ,46 1/2 Hrs. November 17, 1987: Final renovations to Lift Station: Putting on latches Floor Braces - Re-plumbing Know Air Inspection Air vents and Staining Installing check valves Total labor for above 23. The Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority made direct payments to H.L. Pomeroy & Sons for repairs to the lift station at the sewer treatment facility. (see finding #22) AMOUNT $ 690.55 1,159.80 350. $ 2,200.35 CHECK NO. :408 412 434 70.00 84.80 .00 160.00 35.00 160.00 160.00 .00 25.00 465.00 1,159.80 $ 350.00 All of the payments made to H.L. Pomeroy & Son were co- signed by Edward Podoll and Gary Pomeroy, sole members of the Authority authorized to sign checks. 24. H.L. Pomeroy & Son was paid a total of $4,505.35 for repairs to the lift station from June, 1986, through November, 1987. a. The sums paid to Pomeroy were reasonable compensation for the services performed. b. Pomeroy and the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority believed they -were acting in good faith in securing repairs to the lift station. Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 10 25. Gary Pomeroy was appointed inspector of laterals and connections for the Cranesville Sewer Authority on April 6, 1981. a. He responded to advertisement by Sewer Authority Chairman, Harold Geoble. b. He served in this position until September 6, 1990. 26. Prior to applying for the inspector's position, Pomeroy checked with Solicitor Lawrence C. Bolla for an opinion on whether he could serve as . line inspector and be a member of the Authority. 27. By way of undated correspondence to Pomeroy, Bolla referenced to State Ethics Commission Opinion No. 80 -019, determining that an Authority can employ a member of the Authority or a member of that Authority's family, providing there is a prior public notice of the position available, it's terms, and subsequent public disclosure of the identity of the individual receiving the position. a. These conditions were all met. 28. A $25.00 inspection fee is included as part of the sewer tap application process. a. This amountjs paid by the property owner.:_ b. The Borough in turn pays $20.00. of the $25.00 to the inspector. 29. Pomeroy inspected all laterals and connections to the sewer system from April, 1981, until his resignation effective September 6, 1990. 30. Since 1981, Pomeroy's business, H.L. Pomeroy & Son has installed (93) laterals and connections. a. 1981- 89 1982 - 1 1984 - 1 1989 - 2 b. All of the laterals and connections installed by H.L. Pomeroy & Sons were inspected by Gary Pomeroy. 1. This included a tap -in to Pomeroy's personal residence in 1989. 31. Gary Pomeroy was paid $2,360 by the Cranesville Sewer Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 11 Authority for sewer lateral and connection inspections between 1981 and 1990. a. Of this amount, $1,860 was for inspections of his own work. 32. Pomeroy sought the position of sewer lateral and connection inspector to save time while installing the Borough's sewer system. a. Pomeroy believed it was quicker for him to serve as inspector than arranging independent outside inspections and minimized the period of time during which the lateral was exposed. III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority, Gary Pomeroy, hereinafter Pomeroy, is a public official as that term is defined in the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted -that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989, P.L. 26, provides, in part, as follows:- "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act,. 'and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in . force : . For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 170 of 1978, P.L. 883, to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Under Section 3(a), quoted above, this Commission has determined that use of office by a public official to obtain a financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated which is not provided for in law transgresses .the above provision of law. Thus, use of office by a public official to obtain a - financial gain, which is not authorized as part of his compensation is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak /KcCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v. State Ethics Commission, Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 12 109 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, officer, 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. The allegation before us is whether Pomeroy as an Authority board member violated either Section 3(a) or 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 quoted above regarding various repairs that were performed by H.L. Pomeroy & Son relative to sewer line and pump station repair work for the Authority. A second allegation is whether Pomeroy violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 as to his service as a Sewer Line Inspector for the Authority. Factually, Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority appointed Pomeroy to the Authority in 1980 wherein Pomeroy also served as a Lateral and Connection Inspector between April, 1981, and September, 1990. . In a private capacity, Pomeroy is the owner of the excavating business known as H.L. Pomeroy & Son since 1983. H.L. Pomeroy & Son specializes in backhoe grading, excavating and bulldozer work, being the only such contractor within the Borough. A contractual lease agreement exists between the Cranesville Borough and Cranesville Sewer Authority regarding the Borough's sewer system. The lease agreement provides in part that the Borough will impose and collect user fees for the sewer system which it will segregate in a separate account; however, the Borough is required to maintain the sewer system in good repair and working order. Part of the sewer system in the Borough consists of a lift station which is comprised of pumps, compressors and electrical components. The housing of such components below ground created continuous overheating problems and motor burnups. In June, 1986, a holding pot rupture occurred which resulted in the flooding of the lift station. On that day, Borough council held a special meeting in Pomeroy's garage to deal with the emergency situation. After Pomeroy offered suggestions for a quick restart by obtaining sludge trucks, pumps and compressors, Pomeroy was chosen to do the repairs in that he was considered most knowledgeable; council, did not put the project out for bids due to the emergency situation. The bills for the lift station shutdown amounted to $4400 and the Borough only had $300 in the sewer fund. Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 13 The sewer Authority agreed to assume all bills with the exception of $2400 for the compressors and motors. At a July 7, 1986, Cranesville Borough Council meeting, the minutes reflect that a resolution was passed which'authorized the Authority to pay the bills incurred relative to the lift station shutdown which included a bill from H.L. Pomeroy in the amount of $2346. The actual invoice submitted by H.L. Pomeroy & Son dated August 4, 1986 amounted to $2305. At the August 4, 1986 Borough Council meeting, it was determined that the Borough could not pay any of the bills with the exception of one submitted electric bill. Thereafter, on August 11, 1986 the Authority forwarded a check in the amount of $4259.11 to the Borough as a loan to cover expenses resulting from the shutdown of the sewer system lift station. The check was not approved by the Authority until after it was sent by the Borough; approval came at an October 14, 1986 Authority meeting based upon a motion of Pomeroy which carried unanimously. At a November 18, 1986 Authority board meeting, Pomeroy abstained on paying a bill which included an invoice in the amount of $4690.55 of H.L. Pomeroy & Son. The minutes of a November 17, 1987 meeting of the Authority reflect that bills including one from H.L. Pomeroy & Son in the amount of $350 for work on the lift station were approved although no roil call vote is recorded for such vote. Based upon the various invoices submitted by 'H.L. Pomeroy & Son relative to work on the lift station building, the installation of new equipment and renovations, a total of $4505.35 was paid to H.L. Pomeroy & Son. Lastly, regarding the appointment of Pomeroy as Inspector of Laterals and Connections for the Authority, prior to undertaking such position, Pomeroy checked with the solicitor who advised that the opinion of this Commission No. 80 -19 reflected that an Authority member could be employed by the Authority if certain conditions were met. Pomeroy did meet those conditions. Pomeroy performed the inspections which generated a fee of $25 per inspection as to which $20 was paid to Pomeroy. Pomeroy performed eighty -nine inspections in 1981, one inspection in 1982 and 1984 and two inspections in 1989. In this regard, we should parenthetically mote that we did not determine that Authority board members were covered and had to file Financial Interest Statements until our decision in Dice, Opinion 85 -021. In applying the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 to the instant matter, we find that Pomeroy did violate. Section 3(a),but not 3(c) regarding the work that H.L. Pomeroy & did with respect to the lift station work. Although it was Borough Council that decided to use Authority Board Member `Pomeroy to perform services for the emergency work at the lift station, Pomeroy did use public office regarding making the motion and voting as an Authority board member Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 14 to pay the Borough's bill for such services by H.L. Pomeroy & Son. The term business with which he is associated is defined under Act 170 of 1978 as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Business with which 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. S402. Clearly, since Pomeroy owned the business, H.L. Pomeroy & Son was indeed a business with which he was associated. In addition, there was a financial gain consisting of the profit which was made by H.L. Pomeroy & Son. Lastly, the financial gain is other than compensation provided for by law because there is no provision in the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 which authorizes such compensation. In fact, Section 10D of the Municipality Authorities Act, 53 P.S. 312D, explicitly states that no Authority member may be directly or indirectly involved in any contract on agreement with the Authority. Hence, we have a violation of Section 3(a). As to.Section.3(c),:we do not believe that a violation occurred in this instance. Section 3(c) of Act. 170 of 1978 restricts contracting between a public official and his governmental body. In the instant : matter, the facts., of_: record_ =;: reflect that the contracting occurred between the Borough and Pomeroy's business H.L. Pomeroy & Son; conversely, such contracting was not between the business and the Authority on which Pomeroy served. Since Pomeroy is not 'a member of Council but sits on the Authority, we find no violation of Section 3(c) of Act 170 because the contracting did not occur with Pomeroy's governmental. body. Turning to the matter of Pomeroy's service as a sewer line inspector for the Authority, we are constrained to find no violation in this case because uncompensated members of Authorities were not covered by the Ethics Law prior to our 1985 opinion in Dice, supra. Thus, since ninety -one of the ninety - three inspections that Pomeroy performed occurred prior to 1985 which was prior to the point in time where we said that there was Ethics Law coverage, we must find no violation as to Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding Pomeroy's service as a sewer line inspector. Lastly, as to the violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 concerning the lift station repairs /services by H.L. Pomeroy & Son, we will take no further action based upon the total totality of facts and circumstances as outlined in the findings. Pomeroy, 87 -004 -C Page 15 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Gary Pomeroy as a member of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority is a public dfficial subject to the,provisions of Act 170 of 1978. • 2. Pomeroy violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he participated in Authority decisioois.r-elative to repair services which were performed by H.L. Pomeroy & Son, a business with which he was associated which constituted a financial gain other than ':compensation provided for by law. 3. Pomeroy did not violate Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding various repairs which were contracted between H.L. Pomeroy & Son, a business with which he was associated and the Cranesville Borough in-that the Council was not the governmental body of Pomeroy who served on the Authority. 4. Pomeroy did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding his service as a sewer line inspector for the Authority relative to sewer inspection-fees he received at a time when non - compensated Authority Board Members were not considered covered by the Ethics Law. - __ In re: Gary Pomeroy File Docket: 87 -004 -C Date Decided: February 16, 1993 Date Mailed: February 19, 1993 ORDER NO. 875 1. Gary Pomeroy as a member of the Cranesville Borough Sewer Authority violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he participated in Authority decisions relative to repair services which were performed by H.L. Pomeroy & Son, a business with which he was associated which constituted a financial gain other than compensation provided for by law. 2. Pomeroy did not violate. Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding various repairs which were contracted between H.L. Pomeroy & Son, a business with which he was associated -and the Cranesville Borough in that the Council was not the governmental body of Pomeroy who served on the Authority. 3. Pomeroy did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding his service as a sewer line inspector for the Authority relative to sewer inspection fees he received at a time when non - compensated Authority Board Members were not considered covered by the Ethics Law. 4. Based upon the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission will take no further action. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. H HAIR