Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout058SR DipaoloIn Re: JAMES D. DIPAOLO : File Docket: 93 -002 -P : Date Decided: June 28, 1993 Date Mailed: June 30, 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 request for reconsider- ation on May 25, 1993, with respect to Order No. 058 -S issued on May 11, 1993. Pursuant to Section 21.29(e) of the regulations of the Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is properly invoked as follows: 521.29. Finality: reconsideration. (e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if: made. made. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 (1) A material error of law has been (2) A material error of fact has been (3) New facts or evidence are provided which would lead to reversal or modification of the order or opinion and if these could not be or were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence. 51 Pa. Code §21.29(e). This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the Discussion and Reconsideration Order. This Reconsideration Order as with Order No. 058 -S is final and is a public document. James D. DiPaolo June 29, 1993 Page 2 ADJUDICATION DISCUSSION: James D. DiPaolo, hereinafter DiPaolo, has timely requested reconsideration of DiPaolo, Order No. 058 -S, issued on May 11, 1993. In the foregoing Order, we determined that DiPaolo, as a former Township Supervisor for Upper Mt. Bethel Township, failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989), 65 P.S. SS404, 405, by failing to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Upper Mt. Bethel Township. We levied one civil penalty against DiPaolo at the rate of Twenty - Five Dollars ($25.00) per day for each day DiPaolo's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 had remained delinquent, for the total civil penalty of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) . We ordered DiPaolo to pay the above civil penalty in the total amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) within thirty days of the issuance of Order No. 058 -S, by forwarding a check to this Commission payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for deposit in the State Treasury. We directed DiPaolo within thirty days of issuance of Order No. 058 -S to file a complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with the State Ethics Commission and with Upper Mt. Bethel Township, providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Law. DiPaolo raises the following arguments in support'of the for reconsideration. DiPaolo states that :he ,_:filed 'a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Upper Mt. Bethel Township, Northampton County. In his request for reconsideration, he provided a copy of a signed Statement of Financial Interest, dated January 6, 1992, which he allegedly filed with the Township on or after that date. Further, DiPaolo enclosed a copy of a cover letter dated January 6, 1992, which he claims accompanied the Statement of Financial Interests. DiPaolo also argues that the "investigation" conducted by the State Ethics Commission should have disclosed such Statement. DiPaolo alleges that Upper Mt. Bethel Township acted negligently in failing to make the Statement of Financial Interests available to the State Ethics Commission. Accordingly, he claims that a material error of law and fact exists which warrants reconsideration of Order No. 058 -S. We shall consider each of the above arguments seriatim to determine whether the proffered reasons in support of the request for reconsideration meet the standard set forth in 51 Pa. Code James D. DiPaolo June 29, 1993 Page 3 §21.29(e), supra. It must initially be noted that DiPaolo failed to file an Answer to the Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the allegations therein are deemed admitted. For the sake of argument, even if DiPaolo could advance facts or evidence in support of his case at this time, any new facts or evidence would be legally insufficient to justify reconsideration unless those facts could not be or were not discovered previously by the exercise of due dilingence. As for DiPaolo's claim that he previously filed his Statement of Financial Interests, the records of the State Ethics Commission reflect that DiPaolo was previously served with two Notices of delinquency of his Statement of Financial Interests and DiPaolo failed to respond to either of these Notices. Furthermore, there is no explanation as to why this argument was not timely raised in an Answer to the Order to Show Cause. The documents submitted by DiPaolo are legally insufficient to warrant reconsideration. They are mere photocopies of documents alleged to have been filed by DiPaolo with Upper Mt. Bethel Township on or after January 6, 1992. There is no time stamp indicating when the documents were received by the Township. There is no supporting verification, affidavit, or other indication certifying the authenticity of such documents. Accordingly, the documents must be summarily dismissed as lacking any evidentiary or probative value whatsoever. As to the argument that the Township was negligent in failing to provide a copy of the Statement of Financial Interests, a review of the Commission file reveals a copy of a certified letter from the Township Clerk to DiPaolo dated April 7, 1992, and received by DiPaolo on April 10, 1992. The letter requested DiPaolo to complete the Statement of Financial Interests which was enclosed and return it to the Township before the May 1, 1992 deadline. The Township would not have sent DiPaolo a blank Statement of Financial Interests to complete if it already had the form which DiPaolo claims he completed in January. More importantly, DiPaolo could not have completed the form in January, 1992 when he did not receive that form until April, 1992. Finally, on January 7, 1993, Assistant Counsel of this Commission confirmed by telephone conference with the Township Secretary that DiPaolo's Statement of Financial Interests for 1991 still had not been filed with the Township. Thus, the Township could not have provided a copy of a Statement that it did not have. One additional concern regarding the Statement of Financial Interests which DiPaolo claims to have filed must be addressed. The form which was submitted by DiPaolo as an exhibit in his Request for Reconsideration is form number "SEC -1 REV. 1/92 ", and James D. DiPaolo June 29, 1993 Page 4 is dated "1- 6 -92 ". It is noted that such form was not ordered by the Commission until the middle of January, 1992, and was not received by the Commission or made available to the public until February 19, 1992. Clearly, the document submitted by DiPaolo could not have been prepared and filed at the time he alleges to have done so. Unquestionably, the document was falsified as to its date in that it was prepared sometime later. This case will be referred to law enforcement authorities for review and appropriate action. Upon review of the Order in conjunction with the arguments which have been made, there has been no showing of a material error of law, a material error of fact, or new facts or evidence which would warrant reconsideration. In Re: JAMES D. DIPAOLO : File Docket: 93 -002 -P Date Decided: June 28. 1993 Date Mailed: June 30. 1993 RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 058 -S -R 1. The request by James D. DiPaolo to reconsider Order No. 058 -S issued on May 11, 1993, is denied. 2. This matter will be referred to law enforcement authorities for review and appropriate action. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWLEY, R