Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout069-S WorkmanIN RE: Raymond Workman Respondent STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 95 -002 -P Date Decided: 08/03/95 Date Mailed: 08/14/95 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger John R. Showers Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff The Investigative Division of 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 sea. Written Notice was mailed to Respondent by the Investigative Division in accordance with Section (7)(5) of the Ethics Law, as to which there was no response. The Investigative Division filed with the State Ethics Commission and served upon Respondent a Petition for Civil Penalties. An Order to Show Cause was issued and served upon Respondent. An Answer was not 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 thirty 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) /21.29 (b) . Workman, 95 -002 -P Page 2 I. FINDINGS: 1. Respondent Raymond Workman is an adult individual who resides or maintains a mailing address at P.O. Box 7, Markleysburg, PA 15459. 2. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent has been the Mayor of Markleysburg Borough. (a) Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in 1991. 3. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Markleysburg Borough on or before May 1, 1992. 4. A first Notice letter dated January 23, 1995 and a final Notice letter dated February 23, 1995 were served upon Respondent by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics 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. 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 dates of the respective Notice letters. 5. Respondent did not file a Statement of Financial Interests with Markleysburg Borough for calendar year 1991 on or before the expiration of twenty days from the date of the said final Notice letter. II. DISCUSSION: Respondent has been the Mayor of Markleysburg Borough at all times relevant to these proceedings. Respondent specifically held the aforesaid position in 1991. As the Mayor of Markleysburg Borough, 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 seq., 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 Markleysburg Borough, which constitutes a failure to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law. 65 P.S. §§404, 405. Workman, 95 -002 -P Page 3 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. 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 each such delinquent or deficient Statement of Financial Interests. The prerequisite service of a Notice letter in accordance with Section 7(5) was satisfied. Respondent did not remedy the failure to file the Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 although given twenty days from the date of the final Notice letter in which to do so. The Investigative Division then instituted formal proceedings against Respondent by filing with the State Ethics Commission and serving upon Respondent a Petition for Civil Penalties. The State Ethics Commission issued an Order to Show Cause, ordering Respondent to show cause why a civil penalty should not be levied against Respondent. Respondent did not file an answer to the Order to Show Cause. There is nothing of record which would constitute a defense or excuse for Respondent's failure to comply with the Ethics Law. Respondent has failed to show cause why a civil penalty .should not be levied against him in this matter. Based upon the totality of circumstances in this case, we hereby levy one civil penalty against Respondent Raymond Workman, at the rate of $25.00 per day, for each day Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 has remained delinquent. Given the number of days during which the said Statement of Financial Interests has remained delinquent, the resultant amount to be levied against Respondent is $250.00. Respondent shall be ordered to file a complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991. III. CO}CLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Respondent Raymond Workman was at all times relevant to these Workman, 95 -002 -P Page 4 proceedings the Mayor of Markleysburg Borough and as such Respondent was at all times relevant to these proceedings a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989. 2. Respondent failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law when Respondent failed to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Markleysburg Borough. 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. 5407(5). 4. Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, a maximum civil penalty is warranted. IN RE: Raymond Workman Respondent File Docket: 95 -002 -P Date Decided: 08/03/95 Date Mailed: 08/14/95 ORDER NO. 069 - 1. Raymond Workman, as the Mayor of Markleysburg Borough, failed to comply with Sections 4 and 5 of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. § §404, 405, by failing to timely file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Markleysburg Borough. 2. Based upon the circumstances of this case, this Commission hereby levies one civil penalty against Respondent Raymond Workman, at the rate of $25.00 per day for each day Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 has remained delinquent, for a total civil penalty of $250.00. 3. Respondent Raymond Workman is ordered to pay the above civil penalty in the total amount of $250.00 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. 4. Respondent Raymond Workman is directed within 30 days of issuance of this Order to file a complete and accurate Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1991 with Markleysburg Borough providing full financial disclosure as required by the Ethics Law, and to forward a copy of same to this Commission at the following address to evidence compliance: State Ethics Commission 309 Finance Building P.O. Box 11470 Harrisburg, PA 17108 -1470 Attention: Robin M. Hittie, Assistant Counsel 5. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order will result in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, et t / y u E a t Daneen E. Reese, Chair