Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout878 MizakSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Mary Lou Mizak : File Docket: 92- 059 -C2 Date Decided: February 16, 1993 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, Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et. seq. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division, An Answer was filed and a hearing was 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 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 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. §409(e). Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Mary Lou Mizak, former Manager of the Borough of Emsworth, Allegheny County, violated Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Public Officials and Employees Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989), when she used the authority of her position to hire her children for part - time positions with the borough; and when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1989, 1990 and 1991 calendar years. II. FINDINGS: A. PLEADINGS: 1. Mary Lou Mizak, served the Borough of Emsworth from June 14, 1989, through September, 1991. a. Mizak was appointed borough secretary in June, 1989. b. Mizak resigned her position of Borough Manager in September, 1991. 2. Minutes of the Borough of Emsworth Council meetings reflect that Mary Lou Mizak was hired as Borough Secretary between June 14, 1989 and July 12, 1989.. a. At the January 2, 1990 reorganizational meeting of council, Mizak was reappointed borough secretary. 3. Mary Lou Mizak has three children: Kerry L. Reilly, Ken J. Hynes- Mizak, and Kelly L. Mizak. a. Kenneth J. Hynes is single, living at home, and attending Community College of Allegheny County full time beginning August 20, 1991. 4. On December 29, 1989, Emsworth Borough Council enacted Ordinance No. 87 which established the position of manager and provided for the appointment, qualifications and terms of employment of the borough manager. a. The duties and responsibilities of the manager were not defined in the ordinance at the time it was passed. b. Mary Lou Mizak signed the Ordinance as borough secretary. 5. In a memo dated June 1, 1990, to Council_ President Ida Turkovich, Mary Lou Mizak advised that, as per her request, a copy of the „Borough Manager * fob description was sent to each member of council. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 3 6. On June 13, 1990, a reorganization meeting was held resignation of Council President James Ambrass. meeting, Mary Lou Mizak was appointed borough manager. a. The minutes reflect the statement "Mary Lou appointed borough secretary /manager." b. Mizak and Hitchin discussed the projects accomplished each day. due to the At this secretary/ Mizak was The Borough of Emsworth employed a foreman, Cliff Hitchin, to supervise the street department. a. The street department utilized part -time summer help. to be c. Mizak would occasionally accompany Hitchin to check out specific problems in the borough. 8. The Borough of Emsworth employed part -time summer help in 1990. On December 29, 1989, the Borough enacted Resolution No. 3006 which fixed the wages of certain borough employees, in part as follows: Road department season labor :- $ 7,00 per - hr. Borough secretary 12.50 per hr. Part time clerical 5.00 per hr. 10 Kenneth J. Hynes submitted an application for employment with the Borough of Emsworth dated July 9, 1990. a. Hynes is the son of May Lon Mizak. 11. Hynes was hired as a part -time borough employee. a. He was paid $7.00 /hour, the rate set by Resolution 3006. No. .b. His hiring occurred after Mary Lou Mizak assumed the duties of- borough manager. 12. Employment applications on file for the Emsworth Borough Road Department for 1991 include the following: a. ,William J. Moses: Application date: April 9, 1991;. position desired with the road crew; available to start May 26, 1991. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 4 1. Moses lists Ida Turkovich, then Council President, as the person to notify in case of emergency. 2. Moses is Turkovich's grandson. b. Carl W. Hauck, Jr.: Application date: June 25, 1990; position desired with the Street Department; available to start June 25, 1990. 1. Hauck had formerly worked on a part time basis for the Emsworth Road Department, under foreman, Cliff Hitchin. c. James J. Parker, Jr.: Application date: May 28, 1991; position'desired is not identified; former experience as a laborer. d. Kenneth J. Hynes had submitted an application in July, 1990. 1. Hynes lived outside the borough. 13. Two part -time positions were filled by Mizak for the summer, 1991, which included William Moses and Kenneth Hynes. a. Road foreman Cliff Hitchin did not have any input into who was hired or for what period of time. 14. Mizak advised the Street Department Chairman, Douglas Wilson, who was in charge of the road crew, that she had contacted individuals on the "part- time" list and no one was interested in working. a. Mizak subsequently advised him that her son and another person were available. b. Wilson believed that he reviewed three or four applications, one of which was Kenneth J. Hynes. 15. Borough payroll checks required only one signature. a. Mary Lou Mizak signed payroll checks issued to Kenneth J. Hynes. b. Some checks issued to Hynes were co- endorsed by Mizak. 16. Minutes of the Borough of Emsworth Council meetings reflect the following in regard to 1991 summer help: Nizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 5 a. May 8, 1991: Ms. Mizak explained she will schedule the grass cutting on a regular basis and a few part -time applications have been received and a copy forwarded to Council person Wilson. She advised Mayor Lawry she has not advertised for employment. b. July 10, 1991: Under Streets: Council person Wilson and Council person Simmeth discussed Simmeth's concerns of an anticipated short fall within the Street /Highway Budget due to recent expenditures in the Contract Help line item. Simmeth recommended stopping all part time help and all overtime in the Road Department to ensure minimal overruns in that department. Council person Matthews suggested a Financial Review meeting with full borough council and the borough secretary. Ms. Mizak explained that a formal resolution needs to be adopted to move budget numbers around; however, until last evening's meeting with the auditors was completed, she hesitated to make a request. She indicated that she has informally discussed all financial matters dealing with the road department with Mr. Wilson and he seemed satisfied. Al]. proposed amendments to the budget numbers in the Street Department would remain within the total Street Department Budget. Upon Simmeth's questioning of what the Street Department was actually doing, Mizak replied, grass cutting, tree trimming, storm sewer cleaning, painting arrows, etc. Upon Simmeth's further questioning of part time help, Wilson replied that the increased hours over last year are for increased service, not the same level of service as last year. Matthews suggested if council doesn't want things done in the borough, then council should vote on the matter and Wilson and Mizak will comply. However, when complaints come into the borough, those who voted_to release the summer help and stop overtime, should then take those calls. Councilman Ambrass questioned Wilson if he was comfortable with the workings /spending of his department. Wilson answered, he was. Ambrass questioned Hayes 'if he was uncomfortable with the spending the Street Department, as Wilson, the chairman had no concerns. Hayes suggested there were some upsets in conditions. Mizak explained road crew overtime was necessary during Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 6 the Camp Horne Road intersection traffic signal incident; however, those hours were reimbursed by their insurance company. The pump station has contributed to our being behind in the regular schedule, and some overtime. Mizak explained she understands Simmeth's concerns; however, the Road Department may overrun line item budget numbers, but would be within it's total budget amount for the year. Matthews explained the budget is a guideline, not etched in stone. 17. Time records on file with the Borough of Emsworth indicate that prior to Mizak's appointment as borough manager, Ken Hynes - Mizak's name did not appear on the time sheets. a. In her capacity as borough secretary, Mizak did not have any authority to hire or fire employees. 18. Hynes former employers included Ross Township road crew where he worked during the summers of 1988 and 1989. a. Mizak was employed by Ross Township as Finance Director and Office Manager until April, 1989. 19. By way of memo dated June 1, 1990, Mary Lou Mizak advised council members that two individuals had been contacted regarding a part -time clerical position for the borough office, and unless there were - other` suggestions, Kelli Ross would start as soon as possible. a. Ross was a student at Avonworth High School involved in the business program. b. An employment application, dated May 24, 1990, is on file at the borough, for Kelli Ross. c. Ross left the borough's employment in the fall of 1990 to return to school. 20. Kelly Mizak began working in the borough office on October 29, 1990. a. Kelly Mizak is the daughter of Mary Lou Mizak. 21. A review of the minutes confirms that no vote was taken by council, and no discussion was recorded regarding the Cooperative /Distributive Education Training Agreement on behalf of Kelly Mizak. 22. As per Salary Resolution No. 3006, Kelly Mizak was paid at the rate of $5.00 per hour. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 7 23. Borough of Emsworth W -2 Wage and Tax Statements for Kelly L. Mizak confirm the following wages paid: 1990 - $143.75 1991 - $152.50 Total $296.25 24. Minutes of the Emsworth Borough Council meetings do not reflect any action or discussion regarding the hiring of Kelly Mizak. 25. Borough of Emsworth records include checks issued to Kelly Mizak, daughter of Borough Manager, Mary Lou Mizak, for part - time work she performed for the borough in 1990 and 1991. 26. Records of Emsworth Borough confirm that Mary Lou Mizak did not file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1991 calendar year, the year she had the positions of borough secretary and borough manager. 27. Mizak raises the following: a. The complaint(s) against her is (are) frivolous. b. The complaint(s) was (were) filed to harass and defame her. c. A factional political party change sought removal of persons from existing positions. d. Unfounded accusations that Mizak held Borough records. e. The dissemination of allegations of financial impropriety by Mizak. B. TESTIMONY: 28. Edwin Matthews was a Council member for Emsworth Borough for 19 years ending in December, 1990. a. Mary Lou Mizak was hired as Borough secretary in June or July, 1989. 1. Mizak's duties involved the road crew, hiring part - time people, overseeing projects and clerical duties. b. Prior to 1990, Council had a requirement that full or part -time help could not be hired without the approval of Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 8 the full Council. c. When Matthews learned that Mizak's son was working part - time, Matthews questioned Mizak who responded that she got her son to put in a few hours to get the job done. d. In 1990, Mizak has the authority to hire whom she wanted in the interim between Council meetings. 29. Michael Simmeth is a Council member of Emsworth Borough since April, 1990. a. Mizak served as Borough Manager. 1. The duties of Mizak consisted of financial matters, bill payment, clerical matters, filing out compliance forms and Street Department matters. b. Kenneth Hynes, Mizak's son, was hired to work for Emsworth Borough. 1. Council did not vote on the hiring of Hynes. c. Kelly Mizak, Mizak's daughter, was employed by Emsworth Borough. 1. Council did not vote to hire Kelly Mizak. 30. Ida Turkovich was a Council member and Council president of Emsworth Borough until December, 1991. a. Mizak served as Borough Manager. 1. The position of Borough secretary was previously held by Mizak. b. As Borough Manager, Mizak had responsibility for books and records and co- signing checks to pay bills. c. Turkovich believed that Mizak had authority to hire part- time help. d. Council never voted to hire part -time employees. e. Only Mizak signed the payroll checks. 31. Richard Hayes is a Council member of Emsworth Borough since January, 1990. a. Mizak was the Emsworth Borough Manager. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 9 1. Mizak had the responsibilities of 'paying bills, handling the finances, directing the street crew and fielding phone calls. b. Council did not vote to hire part -time help. c. Hayes did not authorize the hiring of Kenneth Hynes of Kelly Mizak. 32. Cliff Hitchin is a Road Department foreman of Emsworth Borough since 1989. a. Hitchin's duties consist of salting and plowing roads, patching streets, cutting grass and doing general work in the Borough. b. After Mizak was employed as Borough Manager, she instructed Hitchin as to how things needed to be done. c. Hitchin did not have the authority to hire employees. d. When summer help was needed, Mizak indicated she would take the responsibility for getting summer help. e. When an emergency occurred on a Borough road, Mizak indicated that Ken Hynes (Mizak's son) was available and could get right down to the job site. f. Mizak had day -to -day oversight over Hitchin's department. 33. Mary Albert is a special investigator with the State Ethics Commission. a. Albert conducted a review of the Statements of Financial Interests filed in Emsworth Borough. 1. The review by Albert found Statements of Financial Interests for Borough Council members other than Mizak. 2. The review by Albert found no 'Statements of Financial Interests for Mizak. 34. Douglas Wilson was appointed to Emsworth Borough Council in April, 1990. a. Wilson was in charge of the Roads Department. b. A "part -time employee list" existed where people who needed work could sign with the Borough. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 10 1. Part -time help could be involved in cutting grass or snow removal. c. As Borough Manager, Mizak was in charge of day -to -day operations. d. Council advised Mizak as to how many part -time people could be used within budgetary constraints. e. If Mizak would advise Wilson that she wanted to hire someone, Wilson had the authority to reject the hiring. f. In the Borough, there was not an abundance of names to choose for part -time help. g. Mizak, as part of her duties, had the authority to hire a part -time person from the list. h. When Mizak's son was hired, there was nobody else on the callup sheet to use. i. Wilson does not recall whether Mizak ever came to him to say that she was going to hire her son. j. Matters concerning the availability of people for part - time work came to Wilson from Mizak. 35. Mary Lou Mizak was employed by Emsworth Borough. a. Mizak has three children: Kerry Reilly, Ken Hynes and Kelly Mizak. b. The employment_ of Mizak was as Borough. Manager for Emsworth Borough from June, 1989 to September, 1991. 1. Mizak was first Borough secretary, then secretary/ treasurer and finally manager. c. Full -time employees would be approved by Council but part -time employees would be recommended by Mizak and approved by the Council member in charge of the department. d. Resident complaints would be, received by Mizak and referred to Cliff Hitchin. 1. If Hitchin needed someone part -time, Mizak would find someone off the part -time list. e. In one instance, no one on the list was available and Mizak sent her son to direct traffic which her son did Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 11 for no compensation. f. At one point, a check was made as to the availability of people on the part -time list and only two on the list responded. g. In one instance involving leave pick up Carl Hack, Jr. and Mizak's son worked part -time and were paid at the Borough ordinance rate. h. Following advertising in 1991 for part -time positions, applications were received and names were given priority on the part -time list based on the order in which received. 1. An application was not received from Mizak's son. 2. Mizak added her son's name to the part -time list. 3. Two Council members were added by Mizak to the part -time list. 4. Some people on the list had restrictions as to their availability. 5. Mizak narrowed the list down to two candidates: Bill Moses who was Ida Turkovich's grandson and Mizak's son Ken Hynes. (a) Mizak asked Council member Doug Wilson if Hynes and Moses could be hired and Wilson responded: "Run with it." i. Bill Moses and Ken Hynes were hired to work for Emsworth Borough for the summer of 1991. j. Kelly Ross worked for the Borough for a short time. 1. Mizak recommended Ross to Council who authorized Mizak to hire Ross. k. Mizak suggested to Council that her daughter Kelly could help out at the Borough office when needed. 1. Council did not object to Mizak's proposal. 1. As Borough secretary and manager, Mizak knew she was required to file the Statement of Financial Interests. 1. Mizak typed memos distributing the Statements of Financial Interests. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 12 m. Mizak claims she filed Statement of Financial Interests for the reporting years 1989, 1990 and 1991. 1. Mizak admits she failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests in 1992 for the 1991 calendar year. n. Mizak had her son fill out an application for Borough employment approximately one month after she was hired. C. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: 36. Borough of Emsworth W -2 Wage and Tax Statements for Kenneth J. Hynes confirm the following wages paid: 1990 - $ 385.00 1991 - $2583.00 Total $2968.00 III. DISCUSSION: As the former Manager of the Borough of Emsworth, Allegheny County, Mary Lou Mizak, hereinafter Mizak, was a public employee as that term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. 5402. As such, her conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions therein are applicable to her. Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as- follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act,_ and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any element's of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired after the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions. of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Section 3(a) of the Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 13 (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). 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. 5402. Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 4,. Statement of financial interests required to be filed (a) Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 14 the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section. 65 P.S. §404(a). Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that each public employee and each public official must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year for each year that he holds such position and for the year after he leaves such position. The two allegations before us are whether Mizak as the Borough Manager of Emsworth Borough violated Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the failure to file Financial Interests Statements for the 1989 through 1991 calendar years and secondly whether she violated Section 3(a) of Act 9-of 1989 regarding the hiring of two of her children, Kenneth Hynes and Kelly Mizak, for part -time positions in the Borough. Factually, Mizak was initially hired as Borough Secretary of Emsworth in June of 1989 but thereafter in December of 1989 Mizak was appointed to the position of Manager. At that time the duties and responsibilities of the Manager were not defined in the Ordinance which established that position. Although the Council was the body which hired or terminated full -time employees, questions exist as to the hiring practices' regarding part- time employees. As to part -time employees, it appears that people were hired from an authorized list. Mizak was charge of the daily operation of the Borough with oversight being performed by Council member Douglas Wilson who was in charge of the Roads Department. There were three separate instances or time, periods when Mizak's son was hired or utilized as a part -time employee by the Borough: as a flagman in July, 1990, for a road emergency as to which Hynes received no compensation; as a laborer in the fall of 1990 for collecting leaves and in the summer of 199i for the Roads Department. In the .latter two positions, Hynes received compensation. Mizak's daughter was also hired on a part -time basis for the Borough in 1990. Council member Douglas Wilson proposed that .a ".part -time employee list" be established for people who needed some part -time employment. Applications were submitted which were placed on a list based upon the chronological order in which the applications Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 15 were received. An application was not received from Mizak's son but Mizak added her son to the part -time list. Mizak asserts that she asked Council member Doug Wilson as to whether her son and the grandson of another Council member could be hired and that the response of Wilson was, "Run with it." Wilson does not recall whether Mizak came to him regarding the hiring of her son. The record reflects that there was no action by Council for the hiring of Mizak's son. As to the hiring of Mizak's daughter, Mizak asserts that she suggested to Council that her daughter Kelly could be hired to help out at the Borough office when needed and that Council did not object to Mizak's proposal. Regarding the Financial Interests Statements (FIS), for the 1989 and 1990 calendar years, Mizak claims that she had filed the forms but a review of the Borough files indicate that Mizak did not in fact file said forms. As to the 1991 calendar year, Mizak admits that she did not file the FIS for that calendar year. In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to . the above facts, we must determine whether there is clear and convincing proof that there was a use of authority of office on the part Mizak to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for a member of her immediate family. There is no- question that Mizak's son and daughter are members of her immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Law. Section 2. Definitions "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. 65 P.S. S402. In addition, since Mizak's son and daughter received compensation for the part -time work that they performed, there is no question that there - was a private pecuniary benefit to members of Mizak's immediate family. The question that we must resolve is whether there has been a use of authority of office on the part of Mizak. Our conundrum is whether Mizak took it upon her own authority to hire her immediate family members in which case such action would be a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 or whether Mizak was acting at the direction or oversight of Council member Doug Wilson or Council in which case there would be no use of authority of her part and hence no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 due to the lack of use of authority of office. Mizak asserts that she did discuss the hiring of her son and the grandson of another Council member with Council member Doug Wilson who responded to her to "run with it." However, Council member Wilson does not have a recollection of Mizak coming to him regarding such hiring. Regarding the hiring of Mizak's daughter on a part -time basis, Mizak asserts that she did discuss the .matter with Council which had no objection to said hiring. Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 16 The difficulty which we face in this case is that the record before us contains vague recollections at best of the witnesses as to the issue of these hirings. The record is lacking as to whether the hirings were done solely by the authority of Mizak or were accomplished,with the authorization of Douglas Wilson or Council. The one aspect of this case which does appear to be certain is that there is not clear and convincing proof establishing a use of authority of office on the part of Mizak and on that basis we are constrained to find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. The result we reach in this case is consonant with our decision in Latch, Order 823, wherein we were faced with the question of whether the director of the public works of the city of Johnstown hired his son at the sewage treatment plant or whether the son was hired by the director with the authorization and at the direction of the mayor. Likewise, in the cited case, there was conflicting testimony as to what transpired and we found no violation based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof. We must conclude that Mizak did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof that there was a use of authority of office on her part regarding said part -time hirings. However, as to the allegation concerning the failure to file Statements of Financial Interests (FIS), the record is clear that Mizak did not file FIS's for the calendar years 1989 through 1991. Mizak readily admitted that she knew that she was required to file. Although Mizak asserts that she did file for calendar years 1989 and 1990, the records of Emsworth Borough reflect no filing on her part. The fact that Mizak was the person responsible for collecting the FIS's reinforces the finding that she did not file. We readily accept the testimony of Ms. Albert who conducted the search of the Borough records. Further, Mizak admits that she did not file for the calendar year 1991. Accordingly, Mizak violated Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when she failed to file FIS's for the 1989 through 1991 calendar years. Mizak is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this Order to file FIS's for the 1989 through 1991 calendar years. Failure of Mizak to comply will result in a directive of this Commission to institute an order enforcement action against Mizak. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Mary Lou Mizak as the Manager of Emsworth Borough was a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Mizak did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of'1989 regarding the part -time hiring of her son and daughter in that there is Mizak, 92- 059 -C2 Page 17 not clear and convincing proof to show a use of authority of office on the part of Mizak. Mizak violated Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1989 through 1991 calendar years. In Re: Mary Lou Mizak File Docket: 91- 059 -C2 Date Decided: February 16 , 1993 Date Mailed: February 19 , 1993 ORDER NO. 878 1. Mary Lou Mizak as the Manager of Emsworth Borough did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the part -time hiring of her son and daughter in that there is not clear and convincing proo! to show a use of authority of office on the part of Mizak. 2. Mizak violated Section 4(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when she failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1989 through 1991 calendar years. 3. Mizak is directed within thirty (30) days of the date of issuance of this Order to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1989•through 1991 calendar years. 4. Failure by Mizak to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 3 will result in a directive of this Commission to institute an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWLEY, CHAf Commissioner Dennis C. Harrington did not participate in the final decision of this case because he presided at the hearing as one Commissioner and recused himself.