Loading...
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