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