HomeMy WebLinkAbout056-S StraussIN RE: WILLIAM E. STRAUSS : File Docket: 92 -088 -P
Date Decided: February 16, 1993
Respondent : Date Mailed: February 19, 1993
Before:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
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 information regarding
possible violation(s) of Section 4 and /or Section 5 of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), Act 9 of 1989, 65
P.S. §401 et see. Written Notice was mailed to Respondent in
accordance with Section (7)(5) of the Ethics Law, as to which there
was no response. A Notice and Order to Show Cause was issued and
served upon Respondent. An Answer was filed and a hearing was
deemed waived. The record is complete. This adjudication of the
Commission is hereby issued, which sets forth Findings of Fact,
Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order.
This Adjudication is final and is a public document.
Reconsideration may be requested. 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(b),(c).
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 2
I. FINDINGS:
1. Respondent William E. Strauss is an adult individual who
maintains a mailing address at 5510 Allentown Boulevard,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112.
2. Respondent is now and at all times relevant to these
proceedings has been a Member of the Underground Storage Tank
Indemnification Board.
(a) Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in
1992.
(b) Respondent states that he has served as a Member of the
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board for three
years.
(c) Respondent states that he now understands that he is
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law.
3. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for
calendar year 1991 with the State Ethics Commission and the
Governor's Office of Administration on or before May 1, 1992.
(a) In his Answer dated December 5, 1992, Respondent admits
that he had failed to provide his full financial
statement to that point.
(b) Respondent states that having served as a Member of the
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board for three
years, he was never before asked to submit such
information.
4. A Notice letter dated June 16 or June 17, 1992, and a final
Notice letter dated July 20, 1992, were served upon Respondent
by this Commission. The said Notice letters stated in detail
the specific allegations against Respondent concerning the
delinquency of Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests
for calendar year 1991 and the penalties for failure to file
or for filing a deficient Statement of Financial Interests.
Each of the said Notice letters provided Respondent an
opportunity to avoid the institution of these civil penalty
proceedings by filing an accurate and complete Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 within twenty (20)
days of the date of the Notice letter.
(a) After noting that he was never before asked to submit
such information, Respondent states that when these
Notices came to him he read them, but did not fully
comprehend why he was being told to file the Statement of
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 3
Financial Interests.
5. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests
with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of
Administration for calendar year 1991 within twenty days of
the date of the said final Notice letter.
(a) Respondent states that he looked at the Notices, but they
did not seem like a priority.
(b) Respondent states that the past few years have been very
hectic for him.
(1)
Respondent states that he has been working twelve
and fourteen hour days at his business after a
"near disaster" which he attributes to misuse of
business funds by his former wife.
(2) Respondent states that he has been battling with
the Internal Revenue Service regarding thousands of
dollars for 941 forms for the year 1989 that
Respondent states his former wife did not pay.
Respondent states that he has been in endless
litigation regarding his divorce.
(4) Respondent states that he has been attending
various meetings of service station dealers; the
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board; and
lobbyists trying to save the small service station
dealers of Pennsylvania.
(c) Respondent states that he now better understands the
position of the State Ethics Commission and the
importance of the Statement of Financial Interests.
6. The records of the State Ethics Commission reflect that
Pontius, Advice No. 92 -582, issued on May 14, 1992, concluded
that Members of the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification
Board are within the purview of the definition of "public
official" set forth in the Ethics Law and Regulations of the
Commission, and are required by the Ethics Law to file
Statements of Financial Interests.
(a) The said Advice appears to have been the first formal
review of the status of Members of the Underground
Storage Tank Indemnification Board under the Ethics Law.
(b) 1992 was the first year in which this Commission issued
Notices to Members of the Underground Storage Tank
(3)
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 4
Indemnification Board regarding the requirement to file
a Statement of Financial Interests.
(c) Said Notices pertained to calendar year 1991.
7. As a matter of public record, Respondent filed a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 after issuance of
the Order to Show Cause which Statement of Financial Interests
is dated December 4, 1992, and was received by this Commission
on December 8, 1992.
(a) Block 8 does not designate a calendar year but indicates
the letters "N /A."
(b) Blocks 11 ( "Direct or Indirect Sources of Income ") and 15
( "Financial Interest in Any Legal Entity in Business for
Profit ") designate the letters "N /A" yet according to
Blocks 8 and 14 of said form, Respondent is a service
station dealer and owner of "Bill's Texaco Service."
II. DISCUSSION:
Respondent is now and at all times relevant to these
proceedings has been a Member of the Underground Storage Tank
Indemnification Board. Respondent specifically held the aforesaid
position in 1992.
As a Member of the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification
Board, Respondent is a "public official" as that term is defined
under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ("Ethics Law"),
65 P.S. §401, et seg., and as such, Respondent is subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Law.
Factually, Respondent failed to timely file a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with the State Ethics
Commission and the Governor's Office of Administration, which
constitutes a failure to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics
Law. 65 P.S. §S404,405.
Section 9(f) of the Ethics Law provides as follows:
(f) In addition to any other civil remedy or
criminal penalty provided for in this act, the commission
may, after notice has been served in accordance with
section 7(5) and upon a majority vote of its members,
levy a civil penalty upon any person subject to this act
who fails to file a statement of financial interests in
a timely manner or who files a deficient statement of
financial interests, at a rate of not more than $25 for
each day such statement remains delinquent or deficient.
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 5
The maximum penalty payable under this paragraph is $250.
65 P.S. §409(f).
An application of Section 9(f) to this case establishes that
this Commission has the discretion to levy a maximum civil penalty
against the Respondent for the delinquent Statement of Financial
Interests for calendar year 1991. The prerequisite service of a
Notice letter in accordance with Section 7(5) was satisfied.
Respondent did not remedy the failure to file a Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 although given twenty
days from the date of the aforesaid final Notice letter in which to
do so. This Commission then instituted formal proceedings against
Respondent by issuing an Order to Show Cause, ordering Respondent
to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against
Respondent.
Respondent's Answer to the Order to Show Cause admits that he
had failed to provide his full financial statement to that point.
Respondent alleges that having served as a Member of the
Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board for three years, he
was never before asked to submit a Statement of Financial
Interests. Thus, Respondent states that when he received the
Notice letters, he read them but did not fully comprehend why he
was being told to file a Statement of Financial Interests.
Respondent states that although he looked at the Notices, they did
not seem like a priority. Respondent avers numerous problems,
which he states have caused the past few years to be very hectic
for him. (Finding 5(b) above). Respondent states that he now
better understands the position of the State Ethics Commission and
the importance of the Statement of Financial Interests. Respondent
states that he now understands that he is subject to the provisions
of the Ethics Law. Respondent further admits that he now
understands that a penalty may be assessed against him.
Respondent's proffered explanations do not fully excuse his
failure to file the Statement of Financial Interests for calendar
year 1991. However, in this case there are mitigating
circumstances which shall be considered in determining the amount
of the civil penalty to be levied.
We recognize as a mitigating circumstance that this was the
first instance in which the Respondent was advised of the
requirement to file a Statement of Financial Interests. The
Commission records reflect that Pontius, Advice No. 92 -582, issued
on May 14, 1992, was the first formal review of the status of
Members of the Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board under
the Ethics Law. Furthermore, 1992 was the first year in which
Section 9(5) Notice letters were issued to Members . of the Board,
including Respondent. Although Respondent's failure to respond as
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 6
instructed by the Notice letters is not justified, it is
nevertheless mitigated by the circumstances in this case.
Additionally, it is noted that following the issuance of the
Order to Show Cause, Respondent filed a Statement of Financial
Interests dated December 4, 1992 for calendar year 1991. The
Statement of Financial Interests is technically deficient. Block
8 does not designate the calendar year but rather indicates the
letters "N /A." Blocks 11 and 15 similarly designate the letters
"N /A" yet it appears that at least one source of income for the
Respondent should be disclosed in Block 11 -- specifically Bill's
Texaco Service -- and that the same business entity should be
listed in Block 15, specifying the interest which Respondent holds
in this entity. This conclusion is based upon Respondent's
completion of Blocks 8 and 14 which indicate that he is a service
station dealer and the owner of Bill's Texaco Service.
Based upon the totality of circumstances in this case, we
hereby levy one civil penalty against Respondent William E. Strauss
in the total amount of $25.00. In levying the aforesaid civil
penalty, we are cognizant that we could assess a per diem civil
penalty against Respondent up to the total maximum amount of Two -
Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($250.00) allowed by the Ethics Law, but
have determined that an appropriate exercise of our discretion in
this case would be to assess a lesser civil penalty in the total
amount of $25.00.
Respondent shall be ordered to file an amended, complete and
accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Respondent William E. Strauss is now and at all times relevant
to these proceedings has been a Member of the Underground
Storage Tank Indemnification Board and as such Respondent is
a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics
Law, Act 9 of 1989.
2. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Sections
4 and 5 of the Ethics Law when Respondent failed to timely
file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991
with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's Office of
Administration.
3. Notice of the delinquency of Respondent's Statement of
Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 was previously
served upon Respondent in accordance with Section 7(5) of the
Ethics Law, 65 P.S. S407(5).
4. Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, a
William E. Strauss
February 19, 1993
Page 7
civil penalty is warranted.
5. Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar
year 1991, dated December 4, 1992, and received by this
Commission on December 8, 1992, is technically deficient.
IN RE: WILLIAM E. STRAUSS : File Docket: 92 -088 -P
Date Decided: February 16, 1993
Respondent : Date Mailed: February 19, 1993
ORDER NO. 056 -S
1. William E. Strauss, as a Member of the Underground Storage
Tank Indemnification Board, failed to comply with Sections 4
and 5 of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §S404, 405, by failing to
timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar
year 1991 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's
Office of Administration.
2. Based upon the circumstances of this case, a total civil
penalty in the amount of $25.00 is hereby levied against
Respondent William E. Strauss. Respondent is ordered to pay
the above civil penalty in the total amount of $25.00 within
thirty days of the issuance of this Order, by forwarding a
check to this Commission payable to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for deposit in the State Treasury.
3. Respondent William E. Strauss is directed within 30 days of
issuance of this Order to file an amended, complete and
accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year
1991 with the State Ethics Commission and the Governor's
Office of Administration, correcting all technical
deficiencies noted above and providing full financial
disclosure as required by the Ethics Law.
4. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order will result
in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
James M. Howley