Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1009 RobinsonIn Re: John T. Robinson STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 95- 028 -C2 Date Decided: 8/27/96 Date Mailed: 9/6/96 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et sag.., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was held. The record is complete. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 2 1. ALLEGATION: That John T. Robinson, a public official in his capacity as the District Attorney for Snyder County, Pennsylvania, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a business with which he is associated by arranging with Modern Business Machines, Inc., to purchase a copier from his private law office and subsequently sell or attempt to sell said copier to the County without an open and public process and when said sale to the County would result in a private pecuniary benefit to himself or a business with which he was associated. Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 3. Restricte A ctivities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). Section 3. Restricted activities (f) No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 P.S. §403(f). 11. FINDINGS: A. Pleadings 1. On June 2, 1995, a letter was forwarded to John Robinson, by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, No. P 016 239 205. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of A. Buck, with a delivery date of June 5, 1995. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 3 2. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on November 29, 1995. 3. John Robinson has served as District Attorney for Snyder County since 1980. 4. Snyder County is a Seventh Class County. a. The position of District Attorney in Snyder County is a part-time position. 5. In addition to serving as the Snyder County District Attorney, John Robinson maintains a private law practice, Robinson & Robinson, based in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. 6. The 1995 proposed budget for the Snyder County District Attorney's Office reflects that $2,000 was requested for the purchase of a copying machine. a. The budget request was drafted in December, 1994, by John Robinson and submitted to the County Commissioners. 7. The proposed budget listed the purchase of a copying machine under Capital Purchases. a. Capital purchases are referred to as non - perishable items that have a life expectancy of at least ten years. 8. On December 30, 1994, the Snyder County Commissioners approved the 1995 county budget. a. The budget included $1,000 for a copier purchase by the District Attorney's Office. The copying machine that was in Robinson's law office was a Xerox copier, Model No. 5018 ZT [sic]. 10. Robinson had purchased the Xerox copying machine (Model No. 5018 ZT [sic]) on or about October 13, 1990, from Gold'N'Copy in the amount of $3,300. a. Gold'N'Copy is located in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, and deals primarily in Xerox copying machines. 11. The new copier that Robinson purchased was a Canon copier for his law office obtained from Modern Business Machines. a. Modern Business Machines is a family run business located in Sunbury, Pennsylvania. b. William Slough was the owner of the business until he died on August 7, 1995. c. Bart Slough, son of William Slough, was the vice - president of the business until he died on July 12, 1995. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 4 12. John Robinson had been a customer of Modern Business Machines on previous occasions to purchase office supplies and equipment. 13. Modern Business Machines has a policy in which a customer can trade in their old equipment for a discount on either a new or used piece of equipment. 14. Modern Business Machines submitted Invoice No. 87575 to John Robinson on February 14, 1995. a. Robinson was billed by Modern Business Machines in the amount of $4,759.77 for a Canon Copier, Model No. NP 1820. 15. Snyder County had been purchasing supplies and equipment from Modern Business Machines for other county agencies. 16. Modern Business Machines submitted Invoice No. 88980 to John Robinson on March 14, 1995. a. It was listed on the invoice that the copier had been purchased from John Robinson. 17. John Robinson's private law office checking account with Snyder County Trust Company reflects payments were made to Modern Business Machines for the purchase of two copying machines. Date Check No. Amount Payee 03/15/95 6276 $3,759.77 Modern Business Machines 03/15/95 6277 $1,000.00 Modern Business Machines 18. The Xerox copier, Model No. 5018, remained at the Snyder County District Attorney's Office throughout most of 1995. B. Testimony 19. Lee Knepp is the Chief Clerk of Snyder County, having served in that capacity since May 1, 1978. a. Snyder County's procedures for purchasing capital equipment require that an invoice be submitted before a check is issued. (1) Checks are not issued merely on the basis of a letter of request. b. The Chief Clerk reviews and verifies invoices before they are presented to the County Commissioners for payment. (1) It is one of Knepp's responsibilities as Chief Clerk to point out to the County Commissioners any concerns about the invoices and bills. c. The Snyder County Board of Commissioners must approve payment of an invoice before the check is written. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 5 d. Only the Snyder County Board of Commissioners can issue checks for Snyder County. e. The Snyder County Board of Commissioners is the sole entity authorized by law to obligate the County. (1) The District Attorney of Snyder County cannot make contracts for Snyder County. f. The County is responsible for paying expenses and buying capital equipment for the District Attorney. g. J• Requests for purchases of equipment for the District Attorney's Office come from the District Attorney or one of his subordinates. (1) Neither Knepp nor the County Commissioners get involved in the day -to -day operations of the District Attorney's Office. h. The District Attorney's Office submitted a Budget Request for 1995 which included a capital expenditure for the purchase of a copier. i. In 1995 Knepp received a letter of request from Jean Walshaw, an employee in the District Attorney's Office, requesting the issuance of a county general fund check in the amount of $1,000 as payment for a copier. This was the first time Knepp became aware of a specific transaction regarding the purchase of a copier by the Office of District Attorney. (1) The letter of request is in evidence as ID -7, page 2. (2) No invoice was attached to the request. (3) Although Knepp had previously received letters from Walshaw requesting payments to vendors, to his recollection, none such other letters had been submitted without an invoice attached. k. At the time that he received the letter of request, Knepp was not aware that the used copier was from John Robinson's private law office. I. Knepp expressed a concern to the Board of Commissioners that he had received a request without an invoice. (1) The Commissioners were in agreement that the County would not issue the check without an invoice. m. Knepp testified that when he contacted Jean Walshaw and requested an invoice for the copier, Walshaw indicated that there was no invoice and that the check should be issued on the basis of the letter. n. Knepp checked with the County Solicitor, Mr. Mihalik, who indicated that it was important that Knepp receive an invoice and that he (the Solicitor) would want to review that invoice. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 6 o. Knepp received a copy of the invoice from Walshaw on March 7, 1995, a meeting day. (1) This was the first time Knepp saw an invoice regarding this specific transaction. (2) This was the first time Knepp was aware that the used copier was from John Robinson's private law office. Upon receiving the invoice for the copier transaction, Knepp showed it to the County Solicitor who directed Knepp not to pay the invoice pending the Solicitor's review of the matter with the County Commissioners. ID -7, page 3 is a copy of the invoice Knepp received from Jean Walshaw for the copier purchase. (1) The invoice bears notations indicating that it was received by fax on March 7, 1995 at 11:16 (ID -7, page 3). r. On the left side, lower corner of the invoice there is the following handwritten notation: "Lee ok to pay 3/7/95." (1) The notation is not in Knepp's handwriting. (2) Knepp believes the notation was made by Jean Walshaw. (3) The County departments customarily made such notations for the purpose of indicating that the item had been received and the bill could be paid if approved by the Board of Commissioners. (4) Knepp never gave Walshaw any indication that the bill was going to be paid, that the County Commissioners had approved payment of the bill, or that the Solicitor had said that it was okay to pay the bill. p• q. s. The County Commissioners reviewed the invoice with the Solicitor. t. ID -10 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners on March 7, 1995. u. ID -7, page 4 is a copy of the minutes of the March 14, 1995 meeting of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners. (1) The next -to -last paragraph in the minutes (set forth at Finding 26c(1)) is the record of the Board of Commissioners' action concerning the used photocopier at issue in this case. (a) The language pertaining to the origin of the copier was inserted by action of the Board of County Commissioners based upon consultation with the Solicitor. (2) The Board of Commissioners decided that Robinson may have had at least an indirect interest in the sale. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 7 v. The Snyder County Board of Commissioners never authorized payment of the bill for the copier. w. Since 1978 when he became Chief Clerk, Knepp cannot recall any other instance of a potential interest in a contract by a County public official /public employee. 20. Jean Walshaw (Walshaw) was employed by the Snyder County District Attorney's Office for fifteen years, from 1980 to 1995. a. Respondent John Robinson was the Snyder County District Attorney during the entire time that Walshaw was employed by that Office. (1) Walshaw's employment with the District Attorney's Office ended on or about the time Robinson left office. b. Walshaw was initially employed as a Secretary in the District Attorney's Office, and after several years, was promoted to Administrative Assistant. (1) Walshaw was the Administrative Assistant in the District Attorney's Office in 1995. c. In 1994 -1995, the staff of the District Attorney's Office included: the District Attorney (Robinson), one Assistant District Attorney, Walshaw as Administrative Assistant, one secretary, and a clerical person who was hired toward the end of 1995. (1) At the top of the chain of command was the District Attorney (Robinson), followed by the Assistant District Attorney, Walshaw as Administrative Assistant, the secretary and the clerical person. d. District Attorney John Robinson and Walshaw, as Administrative Assistant, were responsible for the actual operation of the District Attorney's Office. e. Procurement for the District Attorney's Office was initiated at the District Attorney's Office level. (1) Neither the County Commissioners nor Chief Clerk Knepp ever got involved in coming into the District Attorney's Office to determine what was needed in that Office. f. Normally, the secretary or Walshaw would order the needed item and upon receipt of the invoice, would forward the invoice to the County Commissioners for approval and payment. g. Robinson prepared the budget for the District Attorney's Office, and submitted it to the Commissioners. (1) Walshaw did not play any role in preparing the budget. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 8 (2) Walshaw did not know if any other staff members played any role in preparing the budget. h. The proposed budget for 1995 included, in Robinson's handwriting, $2,000 for purchase of a copier (ID -8, page 2). i. Walshaw testified that in 1995, the District Attorney's Office needed a copier, and it had been in need of a copier for several years prior to 1995. (1) The amount of criminal discoveries had doubled in two to three years. (2) The files were not allowed out of the office, and Walshaw or the other secretary had to copy the documents. Walshaw stated that the District Attorney's Office had asked for a copier in previous years but had never gotten one. (1) Copier salesmen came to the Office, and Walshaw referred them to Robinson. (2) Brochures for new copiers were reviewed. (3) Walshaw stated that new copiers were usually expensive. k. In early February, 1995, a copy machine was delivered to the District Attorney's Office by Slough from Modern Business Machines. (1) Walshaw stated, "Mr. Slough brought the machine and told me that he was going to set it in, that we were possibly going to be able to buy it for the County." (Tr. at 67). (2) Walshaw stated that it was her understanding that the copier came to be delivered to the District Attorney's Office because Robinson purchased a new machine for his private law practice from Modern Business Machines, and Modern Business Machines purchased the copier from Robinson which it was offering to the County at the trade -in price. I. When the copier was received, the District Attorney's Office began to use it. (1) Walshaw testified that there was nothing wrong with the copier and that "it worked great." (Tr. at 76). (2) Walshaw testified that the copier from Robinson's office was much faster than the copier that the District Attorney's Office had been using because it had a feeder, while the feeder on the other copier was no longer working. m. On February 15, 1995, which was after the copier had been delivered to the District Attorney's Office, Walshaw submitted the letter which is in Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 9 evidence as ID -7, page 2, requesting $ 1,000 for payment to Modern Business Machines for the copier. (1) Walshaw initially testified that she wrote the letter because she understood that the copier had not yet been paid for. (Tr. at 64). (2) Immediately thereafter, Walshaw testified that she got the information that no payment had been made for the copier from the Commissioners after she wrote the letter. (Tr. at 64 -65). (3) A few questions later, when asked, "What caused you to write this letter ?" Walshaw responded: A. To the best of my recollection, I guess I was asked if payment was made. So I called down and asked, and then they asked me to come down and advised me that payment hadn't been made as yet because they didn't receive an invoice. (Tr. at 65 -66). (4) Walshaw later testified that Robinson probably asked her to see if the payment had been made, and she "just went ahead and wrote the letter." (Tr. at 68). (5) Still later, on cross examination, Walshaw stated that Robinson dil. ask her to see whether the copier had been paid for (Tr. at 70). n. Walshaw did not have an invoice for the copier at the time she wrote the February 15, 1995 letter requesting payment from the County Commissioners. (1) Walshaw did not attempt to get an invoice prior to sending the letter. (2) Walshaw testified, "No, I guess I had just assumed that they had already sent one." (Tr. at 69). (a) Walshaw testified that she assumed there was an invoice somewhere because Modern Business Machines always submitted invoices, sometimes by mail and sometimes to the Commissioners. o. Walshaw has previously submitted requests for payment to the County Commissioners. (1) Walshaw stated that she does not always attach invoices to letters of request because the invoices sometimes go directly to the Commissioners. (2) Walshaw testified that without an invoice, a check would probably not have been issued to pay for the copier. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 10 (3) As for the February 15, 1995 letter of request, Walshaw stated, "I would assume that at that time they would have already received an invoice or they would end up asking me about it, which they did." (Tr. at 71). (4) Walshaw testified that the letter was to alert Knepp that a purchase had been proposed, and that she wanted them to look for an invoice and approve it. (5) Walshaw stated, "We always received an invoice for everything." (Tr. at 71). P. Walshaw testified that the words in the February 15, 1995 letter of request were her own words, and that Robinson did not tell her what words to put in the letter. (Tr. at 70). Walshaw testified that at the Commissioners' meeting on March 7, 1995, after the Commissioners had reviewed Walshaw's letter, the Commissioners asked Walshaw about an invoice, and she said she didn't know they hadn't received one. (1) All of the Commissioners and Solicitor Mihalik were present. (2) Walshaw stated that the origin of the copier — the fact that it was Mr. Robinson's copier — was discussed. (a) Walshaw stated that the Commissioners had understood about the machine and where it had come from. q. (b) When asked, "Do you know how they knew where the copier had come from ?" Walshaw responded, "I suppose I told them or someone had. It didn't seem like a big concern at that point." (Tr. at 84). [ 1 ] Walshaw had previously stated that she did not recall when she would have told the Commissioners about the origin of the copier (Tr. at 81 -82). (3) Walshaw testified that Guy Mitterling questioned the propriety of the purchase. (4) Walshaw stated that the matter was discussed in her presence and that the Commissioners said that as long as they had an invoice, they saw no problem with it. (5) When she went down to the meeting, Walshaw did not have the Modern Business Machines invoice for the copier. (6) The Commissioners asked Walshaw to get an invoice. (7) Walshaw stated: Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 11 (8) Walshaw stated: My recollection is that Mr. Mihalik, the Solicitor, said, after a discussion of how the procedure was done, it was okay and I should just get them a copy of the invoice. I went upstairs and I called over, and we didn't have a fax machine so this was probably faxed to probation and given to me, and then I took it downstairs. Ed Mihalik had said, well, if that's the way it was done and he traded it in and they're selling it to us, he saw nothing wrong with it. So we continued to use it. (Tr. at 84). (9) Walshaw stated that after she left the meeting, it was her understanding that when she would present an invoice and they approved it, it would be paid. (10) Walshaw confirmed that the minutes of the March 7, 1995 meeting in evidence as ID -10 are accurate in terms of the fact that the purchase of the used copying machine by the District Attorney's Office was discussed by Walshaw with the Commissioners. r. Immediately after her meeting with the Commissioners, Walshaw called Modern Business Machines and asked for the invoice for the copier. s. Walshaw stated that she took the invoice down to the Commissioner's Office the same day, March 7, 1995. (1) Walshaw thought that she would have taken the invoice to the Commissioners as soon as she received it. (2) Walshaw did not recall whether the Commission meeting was still going on at that time. t. The notation on the March 7, 1995 invoice that says "Lee ok to pay 3/7/95" is in Walshaw's handwriting. (1) Walshaw stated that she put such a notation on every invoice, regardless of the item purchased. (2) Walshaw testified that the notation meant that the District Attorney's Office had the copier: Q. That basically told them we have the copier? A. We have it. It's here. If you want to see it, you can come look at it. Regardless of what it was, I put that on all invoices. (Tr. at 73) Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 12 (3) Walshaw stated that her signature on the invoice alone would not be enough to cause a County check to be issued. (a) Walshaw stated that the notation would be enough to send the invoice to the Commissioners for their approval. (b) Walshaw stated that as Administrative Assistant, she had the authority to forward invoices on merchandise that the District Attorney's Office had received. u. Walshaw testified that Robinson never asked her to keep any information about the copier which had originated from his office from Mr. Knepp, the Commission, or anyone else. (1) Robinson made available to Walshaw the information about the copier's origin. v. Several months after the copier was delivered to the District Attorney's Office, the ink cartridge went out. (1) Since the invoice had not been approved, the District Attorney's Office did not order a replacement ink cartridge for the copier at that point. 21. Edward G. Mihalik, Jr. (Mihalik) is the County Solicitor for Snyder County, having served in that capacity for approximately four years. a. Mihalik is familiar with, and played a role in reviewing, the attempted purchase by the District Attorney's Office of a used copier machine in 1995. b. Mihalik's first involvement in reviewing the proposed copier transaction occurred on March 7, 1995. (1) During a Commissioner's meeting, Mihalik was called out of the meeting room by Chief Clerk Lee Knepp. (2) Knepp showed Mihalik the letter from Walshaw which is in evidence as ID -7, page two (see, Finding 26a). (a) This was the first time Mihalik saw that letter. (b) This was the first time Mihalik became aware of the purchase of a copier by the District Attorney's Office. (c) At the time Mihalik saw the letter, he had no other information about the transaction. (d) Mihalik did not know where the copier came from other than what was stated in the letter. (e) Mihalik's only concern at that point in time was that the letter did not satisfy the established County procedures. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 13 (3) Knepp told Mihalik that he had told the District Attorney's Office that he could not present a bill without an invoice from the supplier. (4) Mihalik told Knepp that Knepp was correct, that Knepp could not pay the bill on the basis of the letter, and that he should tell Walshaw that an invoice was needed. (5) After so instructing Knepp, Mihalik went back into the meeting. (6) During the meeting, Mihalik informed the Commissioners of why the Chief Clerk had called him out of the meeting and of his instructions to the Chief Clerk that an invoice was required. (7) Walshaw was scheduled to speak with the Commissioners that day on another matter on the meeting agenda. (8) When Walshaw came to the meeting, it was reenforced that the Commissioners required an invoice to pay for the copier. (a) At that point in time, Mihalik still was not aware of where this copier had come from other than Modern Business Machines. (9) The Commissioners received a fax of the invoice before the meeting broke up that day. (a) To Mihalik's recollection, there was no discussion about where the copy machine had originated from prior to the faxed invoice being received by the Commissioners. (10) ID -7, page 3 is the faxed invoice for the copier that the Commissioners received. (1 1) The meeting was still going on when the faxed invoice was received. (12) Mihalik looked at the invoice and said that there could be a problem with it, and that he would have to review the County Code before the Commissioners considered approving it. (a) This occurred during the public meeting. (b) Mihalik did not recall whether Walshaw was present at that time. (13) The Commissioners indicated that they would wait for Mihalik's opinion before they approved or disapproved the invoice. (a) To Mihalik's recollection, there was no indication by him or by the Commissioners that day that it was okay to pay the invoice. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 14 c. On Friday, March 10, 1995, having researched the matter of the proposed payment of the invoice for the copier, Mihalik telephoned both Chief Clerk Knepp and District Attorney Robinson and told them that at the next meeting on the following Tuesday, he would be advising the Commissioners not to pay the bill because he believed that to pay it would be a direct violation of the County Code. d. The next -to -last paragraph of the minutes of the March 14, 1995 Commissioners' meeting (ID -7, page 4; see, Finding 26c(1)) reflects Mihalik's advice to the Commission concerning the proposed purchase of the used copier. (1) It was Mihalik's opinion that the transaction could not be completed based upon the cited Section of the County Code because the District Attorney may have had at least an indirect interest in the sale of the copier. e. Pursuant to the County Code, 16 P.S. §1801, the County Commissioners are the sole contractors for the County. f. It was Mihalik's legal opinion that neither Walshaw's letter at ID -7, page 2, nor the invoice from Modern Business Machines to the Snyder County Commissioners at ID -7, page 3, is a contract. All the information Mihalik had as to Robinson's interest in the copier was that on the invoice, Modern Business Machines indicated that they got the copier from Robinson. g. h. Mihalik had no independent knowledge of who actually owned the copier machine. (1) Mihalik had no knowledge of whether Modern Business Machines takes title or ownership of used equipment before selling it. 22. Robert H. Reigle, Sr. (Reigle) is the Chairman of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners. a. Reigle was a Snyder County Commissioner in 1995. b. The County Commissioners are responsible for passing an annual budget for the entire County. (1) Each agency on its own submits its proposed budget. (a) The base figures are usually presented by the department head. (2) The Commissioners are involved in the final decision on the budget for the agency or office. c. Only the County Commissioners have the authority to contract for the County. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 15 d In 1995, the District Attorney's Office submitted a letter requesting payment for a copy machine for which the County did not have an invoice. e. ID -7, page 2 is the letter dated February 15, 1995 from Jean Walshaw to the County Commissioners requesting payment for the copy machine. (1) Based only on that letter, there was no real possibility that a $ 1,000 check was going to be issued by Snyder County. (2) Reigle expected — and normally there would be — an invoice "out there somewhere." (Tr. at 116). (3) The letter was not an invoice. (4) The Commissioners have not made payments based solely upon such a letter. f. It was at a Commissioners' meeting that Reigle first became aware that the District Attorney's Office wanted the County to pay for a copy machine. (1) During the Commissioners' Board meeting, the Solicitor was called out and the Chief Clerk said that .the District Attorney's Office wanted the County to pay for a copy machine and that the County did not have an invoice for it. (2) The Solicitor came back into the meeting and informed the Commissioners of this matter. (3) At the time, Reigle did not have any other independent knowledge regarding this particular piece of equipment. (4) Reigle did not know from where the copier originated. Both Walshaw and Mihalik were at the March 7, 1995 meeting. (1) The purchase of the copier was discussed with Walshaw at this meeting. (a) Reigle did not recall Walshaw discussing the origin of this photocopier at anytime. (2) The invoice for the copier was faxed and arrived during the course of the meeting. h. At some point after the March 7, 1995 meeting, Robinson and Reigle had a conversation regarding the fact that the copier had originated from Robinson's law office. i. The minutes of March 14, 1995 (ID -7, page 4) (See Finding 26c(1)) accurately reflect the advice of the Solicitor that there may have at least been "an indirect interest." Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 16 23. Guy E. Mitterling has served as a Snyder County Commissioner for 16 years, and specifically served in that capacity in 1995. a. With regard to the proposed purchase of the used photocopier for the District Attorney's Office in 1995, the Chief Clerk raised the initial concern about the transaction. b. There was a consensus of the County Commissioners that there was a problem with the proposed purchase. (1) It was brought to the attention of the Commissioners that there may have been an unacceptable procedure as to the purchase. c. The District Attorney's Office routinely submitted requests and invoices for payment to the County Commissioners. d. All of the payments from County funds had to come from the County Commissioners. e. For every payment made by the County Commissioners, Knepp required an invoice. (1) The requirement of an invoice for payments from County funds was the standard procedure. f. Mitterling could not recall any other specific situations prior to the 1995 matter of the purchase of the copier machine by the District Attorney's Office where there was a problem with supporting documentation for purchases made. 24. Gregory Curran is a Special Investigator for the State Ethics Commission, having served in that capacity for approximately 51/2 years. a. Curran was assigned to the SEC investigation of the Respondent. b. ID -2 is a "time and event" chart prepared by Curran, which sets forth a chronology of events pertaining to the purchase of a copying machine for the Snyder County District Attorney's Office. (1) Curran testified that the chart was compiled from documents that Curran obtained from businesses and government entities and which have been introduced in these proceedings. (2) The chart begins with Robinson's request on October 24, 1994, that $2,000 be allocated in the District Attorney's budget for a copy machine. (a) The information for this particular entry was derived from the actual budget information which is in evidence as ID -8, page 2 (see, Finding 27). Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 17 c. Curran interviewed Robinson on October 17, 1995 regarding this case, and specifically questioned him regarding the operations of the Snyder County District Attorney's Office and its need for a copy machine. (1) Robinson indicated that his administrative assistant, Jean Walshaw, handled the day -to -day operations of the District Attorney's Office, but that Robinson himself made the final decisions. (2) Robinson proposed an allocation of funds in the County budget for capital purchases, for the purpose of purchasing a copy machine. (a) Robinson indicated that he had requested such an allocation for a number of years. (3) Robinson indicated that with the $1,000 that he was allocated, he knew he could buy a used copy machine. (4) Robinson contacted Modern Business Machines about purchasing a new copier for his private law office. (5) Robinson indicated to Curran that the reason for replacing the copier that was in his private law office was that it was a Xerox copy machine and it did not have all the accessories that he needed for his private law office. (6) Curran testified that Robinson indicated that he asked Bart Slough from Modern Business Machines if he would be willing to buy the used copy machine that was in Robinson's private law office and contact the Snyder County Commissioners to see whether they would purchase the copy machine from Modern Business Machines. (7) Robinson purchased a new Canon copier for his private law office from Modern Business Machines. (8) Curran testified that Robinson indicated that the agreement between Robinson and Modern Business Machines was that if the Snyder County Commissioners did not authorize the sale of the copy machine that he (Robinson) would subsequently buy the machine back from Modern Business Machines. (9) Robinson indicated that if the County Commissioners had authorized the sale of the copier from Modern Business Machines to the County, he would have received a $1,000 discount from the total purchase price of his own new copier, which purchase price was $4,759.00. (a) The proposed discount to Robinson in the amount of $1,000 was the same amount that the County had allocated for the purchase of a copier. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 18 (10) Robinson stated to Curran that the proposed sale of the copier to the County was a good deal for the County. (a) Robinson stated that he knew it was a good deal at the time that he proposed to Modern Business Machines that the copier be sent to the District Attorney's Office, which was in February of 1995. (b) Robinson stated that he knew the copier was worth more than $1,000, and that he had information concerning the actual value as being more than $2,000. (11) On the same day that the new Canon copier was delivered to Robinson's private law office, the used copy machine that had been in Robinson's private law office was delivered to the Snyder County District Attorney's Office. (12) Robinson opened up his files to Curran. (13) Robinson explained to Curran that the entries which appear on the March 7 invoice of Modern Business Machines (10-7, page 3; See, Finding 26b) were there for the specific purpose of putting the County Commissioners on notice of his (Robinson's) ownership interest in the used copier. d. Curran obtained records from Robinson and Modern Business Machines. (1) Curran did not find any records indicating that Modern Business Machines, Inc. made any disbursement to Robinson in the amount of $1,000 or any price for the purchase of Robinson's used copier. (2) The documents reflect an allowance of $1,000 against the purchase price of the new copier. (a) There is nothing in the documents from Modern Business Machines or from Robinson indicating that the allowance of $1,000 for the used copier was contingent upon whether the County bought the machine. (3) There are two separate checks from Robinson payable to Modern Business Machines. (a) One check, in the amount of $1,000, was paid by Robinson to Modern Business Machines after the invoices show the used copier "came back" to Robinson (Tr. at 152 -154). e. Curran has not seen the copier and so is not himself in a position to speak as to its quality or value from his own observation. f. Had not either Robinson or Slough told him, Curran would not have known that part of the deal between Robinson and Modern Business Machines was that Robinson would be willing to "buy back" the used copier. (Tr. at 156 -157). Robinson., 95- 028 -C2 Page 19 g. g. On cross examination, Curran was asked to proffer legal opinions as to whether a private pecuniary benefit would result under various scenarios involving the used copier (Tr. at 161 -164). 25. Respondent John T. Robinson is an attorney who served as the District Attorney for Snyder County from 1980 to 1995. a. During Robinson's service as District Attorney, there was only one copier in the District Attorney's Office, a Canon copier from Modern Business Machines of Sunbury, Pennsylvania. b. Robinson stated that due to overwhelming copying requirements in the District Attorney's Office, the copier was becoming obsolete by 1992- 1993. c. Although some of the other County offices had more modern copiers that were capable of handling the desired functions, Robinson stated that there were concerns with removing files from the District Attorney's Offices to those other offices for copying. (1) There was a concern with keeping the files intact and preserving confidentiality while the files were out of the District Attorney's Office. (2) There were only two secretaries in the office and in February, 1995, when one of the secretaries left, there was a concern with leaving her replacement, an inexperienced trainee, alone in the District Attorney's Office while the remaining experienced secretary left to do copying. d. Robinson testified that at the same time that the District Attorney's Office was in need of a copier, Robinson was also looking for a new copier for his private law office, to replace the Xerox copier which he had previously secured from Gold Copy of Sunbury. (1) Robinson testified that commencing in 1992 -1993, his private office staff had expressed dissatisfaction with the Xerox copier. (2) Robinson testified that the Xerox copier was not broken and "functioned fine," but that it had a loud fan motor and lacked certain attachments and collators. e. Robinson stated that during 1994 and the end of 1995, he spoke to a number of copier providers throughout the Central Susquehanna Valley and obtained some oral and some written quotes as to a trade -in. f. D -2 is an official listing of sale prices for various Xerox copy machines, including the type of machine that was in Robinson's private law office. Robinson's testimony as to what he believed the value of his Xerox copier to be ranged from $2,220 to $2,300 (Tr. at 174; 178; 214 -215). Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 20 (1) Robinson testified that the Xerox "Blue Book" value for his model of copier was approximately $2,300 (Tr. at 174). (2) Robinson testified that based upon his conversations with a number of copier dealers in Central Pennsylvania, including Gold, the dealer from whom he had obtained his Xerox copier and who had serviced it the entire time Robinson owned the machine, it was Robinson's belief and understanding that the market value of his Xerox copier model 5018DZ was approximately $2,220 (Tr. at 178). (3) Robinson testified that when he was talking to Gold on the phone about what his equipment was worth, Gold read to Robinson from a "Blue Book" list that Gold had, and shared the information with Robinson that Robinson stated he later discovered on D -2. (4) Robinson testified: My recollection of the phone conversation was we first had to decide what copier I had. As you can see by Defendant's 2, there's a long list of copiers that Xerox had . for sale. We went down the list and talked about the different things that my copier had. And when we got to 5018DZT, that seemed about right as to what I had because I was on the phone, I did not have any invoices in front of me at that time. So we had talked about the information on the document, not every word of it, no. But I do recall him telling me — see, initially, ( said I thought it was around 2300. I used a rounded off figure. And this says 2270. (Tr. at 214 -215). (5) Robinson stated that there is a significant correlation between the data on D -2 and the information Gold gave him by phone. h. Robinson had a business relationship with Modern Business Machines, having done business with it both through the District Attorney's Office and his private practice. (1) Modern Business Machines services the equipment in the District Attorney's Office. i. Robinson discussed terms with Bart Slough of Modern Business Machines prior to February 15. (1) Robinson told Slough that the District Attorney's Office was in need of a good, functioning copier. (a) Robinson stated that the Sloughs were well aware of the need in the District Attorney's Office for a better copier because they were always having to service the old one. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 21 (2) Robinson told Slough that there was $1,000 budgeted for a capital purchase. (a) It was also a matter of public record that the budget for the District Attorney's Office included $1,000 for purchase of a copier. (3) Robinson testified that he told Slough that if Slough would consider selling the Xerox copier from Robinson's private law office to the County Commissioners for use in the D.A.'s Office, Slough would have to tell them that it came from Robinson and had been traded -in by Robinson and Robinson's private practice. Robinson stated that he struck a deal with the owners of Modern Business Machines for the purchase of a new Canon copier and the trade - in of his old Xerox copier. (1) Robinson stated that this agreement was verbal. (2) Robinson stated that this agreement was made prior to February 14, 1995. (3) Robinson stated that this agreement was in his capacity as a private practitioner of law and was solely with Modern Business Machines. k. Robinson stated that the trade -in value that Modern Business Machines was willing to consider for Robinson's Xerox copier was $ 1,000. (1) Robinson stated that Modern Business Machines felt that the value of Robinson's Xerox copier was $1,000 because Modern Business Machines primarily sells used Canons and they weren't sure how much of a market they would be able to have with the new Xeroxes. (2) Robinson stated that there were certain dealers that he spoke to that were willing to give him more than $1,000 for the Xerox copier. (3) Robinson stated that it was his understanding as the owner of the copier that there was nobody indicating a value of Tess than $1,000. I• Robinson stated that he told Bart Slough of Modern Business Machines that the $1,000 trade -in for Robinson's Xerox copier would be acceptable. m. Robinson stated that he believed the copier's value to be approximately $2,000 but that he was willing to take $1,000, which he believed to be a loss to him, if there would be a way ethically and properly that his Xerox copier could go to the District Attorney's Office. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 22 P. q. (1) Robinson stated that he was interested in getting a good used copier to the District Attorney's Office if he could. (2) Robinson stated that he couldn't get a used copier for $1,000 anywhere else. (3) Robinson stated that at the same time, two things happened: (1) In his private practice, he secured a sizeable fee which gave him capital to be able to make improvements to his office, and (2) he lost his second and very important secretary in the District Attorney's Office and needed a copier there that could do a better job (See Finding 25c(2)). n. Robinson testified that it was his understanding, after talking with Bart Slough, that Modern Business Machines would supply an invoice to the Commissioners indicating Robinson's prior ownership of the copier and submit it as a proposal for purchase and see if the Commissioners would either approve or disapprove the proposal. o. Modern Business Machines was going to make no profit on the Xerox copier if it was purchased by the County. (1) Robinson stated that Modern Business Machines was going to deliver it to the Courthouse without a warranty and without any refurbishing. Robinson testified that the agreement with Modern Business Machines did not bind Modern Business Machines to deal solely with the County Commissioners or with Robinson as District Attorney. (1) Robinson stated that there were no restrictions on Modern Business Machine's ability to sell Robinson's old copier to anybody. Robinson stated that as part of his agreement with the Sloughs, he agreed to buy back the Xerox copier if it was not sold for at least $1,000. (1) Robinson initially testified that the reason he agreed to do this was that he had a prior business relationship with Modern Business Machines, and it primarily sold Canons while his copier was a Xerox product. (Tr. at 202 -203). (a) Robinson stated if Modern Business Machines did not feel that it could market the copier, he would buy it back (11). (b) Robinson stated that the buy back agreement was not only if the County Commissioners would not buy the copier (.J. (c) Robinson stated that it was not his intention for Modern Business Machines to suffer a Toss. (Tr. at 228 -229). Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 23 (2) Robinson subsequently testified that he bought back the copier from Modern Business Machines after it was suggested at or after the March 14, 1995 meeting of the County Commissioners that it might be best for him to do so (Tr. at 249 -250) (See Finding 2599(2)). r. Robinson stated that it was his understanding that if he could contract with Modern Business Machines for an independent purchase of the copier at what was believed to be a fair and appropriate price and later that equipment was sold to the County, that he would not have a direct or indirect benefit from it because, even on an indirect level, he was receiving less than what he believed the fair market value to be. (1) Robinson stated that he felt that if in fact there was some impropriety or problem, he would buy the copier back. (2) Robinson stated that he did not want Modern Business Machines to be hurt by the situation or for the County to do anything unethical or improper with regard to him. s. On February 14, 1995, the new Canon copier was delivered to Robinson's private law office, and on the same day, the old Xerox copier was removed from Robinson's office and was taken directly to the District Attorney's Office. (1) Robinson testified that it was he who suggested the Xerox copier be taken to the District Attorney's Office. (2) Robinson stated that both the Canon and Xerox copiers were approximately 3 feet wide, 2 to 21/2 feet deep, 4 feet high, and very heavy. (3) Robinson stated that he did not have the equipment needed to move copiers of that size. t. Robinson testified that when the Xerox copier from his private law office was delivered to the District Attorney's Office, it was owned by the Sloughs. (1) The Sloughs did not give Robinson a check for $ 1,000 when they took the copier. (2) Robinson testified that the purchase price paid by Modern Business Machines for the old Xerox copier was the $ 1,000 they took off the full purchase price of the new Canon copier that Robinson bought. u. Robinson stated that he did not see the Modern invoice for his new copier until March, several weeks been dropped off at his office. (1) ID -9, page 1 is the first invoice which Modern issued for the purchase of the Canon copier. Business Machines after the copier had Business Machines Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 24 (a) The invoice is dated February 14, 1995, which is the same day the Canon copier was delivered to Robinson's private law office and the Xerox copier was taken from that office to the District Attorney's Office. (b) The invoice does not reference any trade -in. (c) Robinson stated that the invoice was issued in error. (2) Robinson testified that the invoice was dropped off by Modern Business Machines, and he did not see it. (3) Robinson testified that the secretary whose name and initials are on the invoice, "K.C. Grabosky," accepted the invoice and put it in a drawer for accounts to be paid. (4) Robinson stated that if he had seen the February 14, 1995 invoice on February 14, he would have contacted Modern Business Machines immediately to change it to indicate an invoice for the purchase by Robinson from Modern Business Machines and an invoice recognizing the purchase by Modern Business Machines from Robinson. (5) Robinson stated that he wanted there to be separate transactions for the copiers because, if it was the same transaction, it would be "at least possibly inappropriate" for him (Tr. at 235). v. Robinson stated that when it was coming time to pay the bills, he saw the invoice and contacted Modern Business Machines at which time Modern Business Machines cut their second invoice which specifically refers to the $ 1,000. (1) The second invoice is ID -9, page 5 (see Finding 31). (2) The invoice is dated March 14, 1996, which was the same date that the County Commissioners decided not to go through with buying the Xerox copier. w. Robinson stated that he never saw a second invoice for $3,700. (1) Robinson stated that he does not control how Modern Business Machines writes its invoices. x. Robinson stated that he did issue two checks, one for $3,700 and one for $1,000. y. Robinson stated that the March 7,1995 invoice from Modern Business Machines to the Commissioners (Invoice number 88744, ID -7, page 3, see Finding 26b) is the only one that he is aware of to the County for the copier. (1) This invoice is the first document which reflects the purchase from Robinson of the Xerox copier. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 25 (2) Robinson stated that he did not know why the invoice was voided out (see other copy, ID -9, page 3, Finding 29a) z. Robinson testified that Jean Walshaw's letter of February 15, 1995 (ID- 7, page 2, See Finding 26a) was prepared based upon Robinson's instruction to Walshaw to get something to the County Commissioners to let them know that the Xerox copier had been received by the District Attorney's Office and that the Commissioners should consider payment to Modern Business Machines. (1) Robinson stated that historically, before the Commissioners would be willing to consider an invoice, they wanted something from his office saying that it was okay. (2) Robinson stated that he did not specifically instruct Walshaw to write a letter and that he did not provide Walshaw with any of the words that are in the said letter. (3) Robinson testified that at the time, both he and Walshaw were under the assumption that Modern Business Machines had already submitted an invoice to the Commissioners that had the "appropriate explanatory language on it," and that he did not know . until several weeks later that the invoice was not at the Commissioners' office. aa. Robinson testified that based upon his experience with the County Commission, it would not have been possible for him to have convinced the Commissioners to pay for the used Xerox copier merely with Walshaw's February 15, 1995 letter. (1) Robinson testified that the Commissioners would have wanted to see an invoice. bb. Robinson testified that about the second week of March, when he asked his private secretary about whether Modern Business Machines had been paid for the new copier yet, he contacted Walshaw in the District Attorney's Office and asked her whether the County had acted on any invoices that Modern Business Machines had sent to them. (1) Robinson testified that based upon that discussion with Walshaw, Robinson realized that there had not been an invoice sent. (2) Robinson testified that he also discovered that the invoice initially cut by Modern Business Machines to him was at full price. (3) Robinson testified that when he realized that there wasn't an invoice for the County Commissioners to look at, he spoke to William Slough, Bart Slough's father, and indicated specifically that for. the Snyder County Commissioners to consider this proposal, they needed to have an invoice and the invoice had to reflect Robinson's prior ownership. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 26 cc. Robinson stated that the March 7, 1995 invoice (ID -7, page 3, Finding 26b) was an "offer to sell" to Snyder County. dd. Prior to the March 14, 1995 meeting of the County Commissioners, Solicitor Mihalik telephoned Robinson to let him know that after research of the law, he (Mihalik) believed it would not be appropriate to approve the purchase by the County of the copier. (1) Mihalik told Robinson the matter would be on the agenda for the March 14, 1995 meeting of the County Commissioners and that Robinson could attend and voice his viewpoint. ee. Robinson attended the March 14, 1995 regular, public meeting of the Snyder County Commissioners and personally talked to the County Commissioners about the purchase of the copier. (1) Robinson testified that at the meeting, he gave a 15 -20 minute presentation as to the history of his ownership of the copier, that it was his intention to be forthcoming and not hide the fact that the copier came from his private office, and that he did not believe there was a violation of the County Code or the Ethics Law with regard to the proposed transaction. (2) Robinson stated that in speaking to the County Commissioners at that meeting, he was not addressing them in any official capacity as their lawyer or Solicitor but was himself relying upon the advice of Solicitor Mihalik. ff. Solicitor Mihalik discussed the issue with the County Commissioners at the March 14, 1995 meeting. gg. (4) Robinson testified that after he had a discussion with Slough, two invoices later appeared from Modern Business Machines. (3) Robinson stated that he knew at that time that before any invoice or proposal would be approved by the County, it would be reviewed by the Solicitor. The Commissioners' decision was to follow Solicitor Mihalik's opinion and not approve the proposal. (1) Robinson testified that the Commissioners felt that the proposal to purchase the Xerox copier would not be appropriate due to Robinson's prior ownership of that copier. (2) Robinson stated that he generally recalled a comment to the effect that it might be best for the situation to "go back to the status quo" which Robinson stated that he took to mean that it would be in his best interest to purchase the machine back from Modern Business Machines. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 27 hh. Robinson stated that on March 14, when the County turned down the proposed purchase of Robinson's old copier, he bought the copier back from Modern Business Machines for $1,000.00. (1) Robinson stated that he paid Modern Business Machines two checks that very day. ii. Robinson testified that before he spoke with Modern Business Machines, it was his understanding that as District Attorney and as a private practitioner of law, he did not want to have any direct transactions with the County because they would all be suspect under the Ethics Law as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct. Robinson testified that given his background as a Member of the Board of Directors and Secretary of the statewide District Attorneys Association, as a creator and Chair of that Association's Ethics Committee, and as a frequent lecturer for the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on topics including ethics, he was very concerned going into the transaction involving his used copier that there would be no transgressions and no attempt for him to benefit himself from the proposed transaction. kk. Robinson testified that he was very concerned about this copier transaction in his discussions with the Sloughs, and knew that his prior ownership of the copier could raise an issue. (1) Robinson stated that although he was very concerned with the issue, he may not have spent as much time on top of the situation as he should have because he was in the midst of the demands of a busy private practice, the demands of the District Attorney's Office which included preparation for a capital murder case, and the demands of a primary political campaign, and had lost a secretary who had been with him for 8 -9 years. JJ II. Although Robinson testified as to the importance he places upon making disclosure in conflict situations, Robinson did not approach the Commissioners in advance to tell them about his ownership of the copier. mm. Robinson did not talk to the Commissioners about the copier until March 7. nn. Robinson stated that the reason he did not tell the Commissioners about the copier transaction in advance was that his relationship with the Board of Commissioners had not been good. oo. Robinson stated that Jean Walshaw was his representative to the Commissioners, and that he only went down when necessary because of his relationship with the Commissioners. pp. Robinson testified that he thought the disclosure would be made by Modern Business Machines on the face of their documentation. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 28 qq. Although Robinson stated that as a matter of law he believed Solicitor Mihalik to be counsel for the District Attorney's Office, Robinson did not go to Mihalik in advance to ask for his legal advice as to the proposed copier purchase. (1) Robinson knew that once the matter would come before the Commissioners, Mihalik would be asked to tender his opinion, and that Robinson, as District Attorney, "would live by that opinion." (Tr. at 232). (2) Robinson stated that he did not go to Mihalik for advice because Mihalik has been upset with Robinson since 1980 when Robinson defeated him in the election for the Office of District Attorney, and because Mihalik represented Robinson's ex -wife in their non - amicable divorce. (3) Robinson stated that although he did not trust Mihalik, informally between the two of them, to give him (Robinson) objective advice completely devoid of personal opinion, possible animosity and "political second opinions," Robinson did feel that when Mihalik was acting before the Board of Commissioners, Mihalik would do the duty required of him by the Commissioners. (Tr. at 233). rr. Robinson stated that he felt there were "3 layers of protection" as to the copier transaction: (1) that there was a third party independently involved in the transaction; (2) that there would be full disclosure of Robinson's private ownership; and (3) that it would be up to the Commissioners, upon the advice of their Solicitor, to make the appropriate decision as to whether the proposal would be appropriate to accept. ss. As District Attorney of Snyder County, Robinson was ultimately responsible for what went on in that office, and specifically as to issues relating to the operations of the District Attorney's Office as mandated by law. tt. Robinson had the ultimate power to approve or disapprove the requests for purchases from the District Attorney's Office to the County Commissioners. (1) As District Attorney, as a matter of law, Robinson had the authority to propose purchases. (2) As District Attorney, as a matter of law, Robinson had the authority to go and look at various businesses to see if they had equipment to fulfill his needs at reasonable prices. (3) Robinson stated: "As District Attorney, I would have liked to purchase that Xerox if it was proper, appropriate and legal." (Tr. at 240). uu. Robinson noted that his suggestions and proposed purchases were not binding and that the Commissioners had to approve or disapprove all purchases. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 29 vv. Robinson stated that according to his understanding, he did not have the authority to cause the pecuniary benefit to come to himself because the Commissioners had ultimate control of the budget and the proposal would go before them as the ultimate authority. ww. Both of the owners of Modern Business Machines are now deceased. xx. The Xerox copier is now in Robinson's private office. yy. Robinson stated that the Xerox copier is operational. (1) Robinson stated that all the copier needs is new toner. (2) Robinson stated that he has not put new toner into the copier because he does not need a second copier. (3) Robinson stated that the copier has value to him because he can sell it for cash, but that he has not had the time to do that. C. Exhibits 26. ID -7 consists of documents on file at the Office of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners. a. ID -7, page 2 is a letter dated February 15, 1995 from Jean L. Walshaw, an Administrative Assistant in the Snyder County District Attorney's Office, to Lee Knepp, Chief Clerk. (1) The letter bears the following notation: "RE: Purchase of Photocopier." (2) The letter states: Dear Lee, Please be advised that our office has purchased a photocopier per agreement with the Board of Commissioners with regard to the 1995 budget. Would you please have a check issued in the amount of $ 1,000.00 made payable to Modern Business Machines and return to our office as soon as possible. Sincerely, s /Jean Jean L. Walshaw Adm. Assistant b. ID -7, page 3 is a copy of invoice number 88744 dated March 7, 1995 from Modern Business Machines, Inc. to the Snyder County Commissioners. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 30 (1) The invoice states: Purchased from Atty. John Robinson, (1) Xerox Plain Paper Copier Mod. 5018 w /auto feeder. Value $1,000.00 Sold & delivered to Snyder County Commissioners (1) Xerox Plain Paper Copier Model 5018 w /auto feeder $ Sales tax — Total $1,000 (2) On the left margin of the invoice is the following notation: Lee O.K. to pay 3/7/95 c. ID -7, page 4 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners on March 14, 1995. (1) The portion of the minutes which involves the copier transaction is in the next -to -last paragraph of the minutes, and is as follows: The Board met with the County Solicitor and the District Attorney concerning the propriety of the District Attorney's purchase of a used copier, for the District Attorney's Office, Awh1ch originated from his private practice at a cost of $1,000. On advice of the County Solicitor, the Board informed the District Attorney the transaction could not be completed based upon Section 1806 of the County Code, as the invoice on its face indicated that the District Attorney may have had at least an indirect interest in the sale of the photocopier to the county. 27. ID -8, page 2 is a copy of the "Detail Budget" submitted by the Snyder County District Attorney's Office to the Snyder County Commissioners on October 24, 1994. a. Under "Capital Purchases" the proposed budget lists $2,000 for a copier. 28. ID -9, pages 1 -2 consists of two copies of invoice number 87575 dated February 14, 1995 from Modern Business Machines, Inc. to Attorney John Robinson. a. The invoice is in the total amount of $4,759.77 and is for the following items: 1 Copier Canon NP1820 #VKB08969 3067.50 Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 31 1 ADF Feeder 1009.50 1 Cabinet 157.50 1 Power Supply A -1 110.25 4344.75 2 Box Toner 91.00 @ 182.00 less = 145.60 20% 4490.35 b. The invoice indicates that it was received by "K.C. Grabosky." c. In the upper left hand margin, the invoice bears the following notation: Pd. 3/15 6276 3759.77 6277 1000.00 29. ID -9, page 3 consists of a copy of invoice number 88744 dated March 7, 1995 from Modern Business Machines to the Snyder County Commissioners (see Finding 26b above), and a separate handwritten note. a. This particular copy of invoice number 88744 bears the following notation across its face, in large letters: "VQID." b. The handwritten note states: Atty John Robinson Purchased Xerox Plain Paper Copier 5018 w /auto feeder Amt. of 1000.00 Selling it to Sny. Co. Commissioners, Middleburg 1000.00 FAX 837 -5481 Sales tax 269.42 Total $4759.77 30. ID -9, page 4 is a handwritten note which states, in pertinent part: Sny. Co. Commissioners Billing — - Robinson told us to deliver to Courthouse - NQ warranty Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 32 31. ID -9, page 5 consists of a copy of invoice number 88980 dated March 14, 1995 from Modern Business Machines, Inc. to Attorney John Robinson, and a separate handwritten note. a. The invoice states: Purchased from Atty John Robinson 1 Xerox Plain Paper Copier Mod. 5018 -w /auto feeder Value 1000.00 Price b. The handwritten note states: Robinson will send 4800.00 check - Send Robinson (Private AN INV. FOR 1,000.00 Phone 374 -0466 Fax 374 -5204 Sales Tax X Total 1000.00 32. ID -10 is a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Snyder County Board of Commissioners on March 7, 1995. a. The minutes provide, in pertinent part: The Board met with Jean Walshaw of the District Attorney's Office to discuss the Professional Services Agreement with Wendi S. Paige for the Victim - Witness Program, and the purchase of a used copier machine by the District Attorney's Office. 33. D -1 consists of photocopies of 16 P.S. §§1801 and 1806, which are provisions of the County Code. 34. D -2 is an official listing of sale prices for various Xerox copy machines, including the type of machine that was in Robinson's private law office (see Finding 25f). a. The listing is entitled "Xerox -- Used Equipment Sale Price List." b. The listing indicates that it was effective January 1, 1995. c. All of the copiers on the list indicate a purchase price in excess of $ 1,000.00. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 33 d. The copiers bearing model number "5018" preceding various letters (D, DT, DZ, DZT, and DZTA) all indicate purchase prices in excess of $2,000, specifically ranging from $2,120.00 to $2,360.00. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, John T. Robinson, hereinafter Robinson, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, el agq. The issues before us are whether Robinson, in his capacity as the District Attorney for Snyder County, Pennsylvania, violated Section 3(a) and /or Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law when he arranged with a copier vendor, Modern Business Machines, Inc., for the purchase of a used copier from his private law office and the subsequent sale or attempt to sell that copier to the County for the District Attorney's Office. Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402. Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law, as quoted above, imposes requirements as to contracting between a public official /public employee and his governmental body where the contract is valued at $500 or more. The facts are as follows. Robinson served as the District Attorney for Snyder County from 1980 to 1995. The County was responsible for paying expenses and buying capital equipment for the District Attorney's Office. As District Attorney, Robinson had the authority to propose purchases. He could also look at various businesses to see if they had the equipment he needed at reasonable prices. However, Robinson's proposed purchases were not Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 34 binding. The Commissioners had to approve or disapprove all purchases. By law, only the Commissioners could enter into contracts for the County. During Robinson's service as District Attorney, there was only one copier in the District Attorney's Office. That copier was a Canon copier which had been purchased from Modern Business Machines of Sunbury, Pennsylvania. Robinson testified that due to overwhelming copying requirements in the District Attorney's Office, the copier was becoming obsolete by 1992 to 1993. Jean Walshaw, who was employed by the Snyder County District Attorney's Office for 15 years, from 1980 to 1995, and who was the Administrative Assistant in that office at all times relevant to this case, testified that for several years prior to 1995, the District Attorney's Office needed a copier. Walshaw stated that the District Attorney's Office had asked for a copier in previous years but had never gotten one. Although some of the other County offices had more modern copiers that were capable of handling the desired functions, Robinson stated that there were concerns with removing files from the District Attorney's Office to such other offices for copying. These concerns included keeping the files intact and preserving their confidentiality, as well as the fact that there were only two secretaries in the District Attorney's Office. In February, 1995, when one of those experienced secretaries left, there was a concern with leaving her replacement, an inexperienced trainee, alone in the District Attorney's Office while the remaining experienced secretary left to do - copying. As District Attorney, Robinson prepared the budget for the District Attorney's Office and submitted it to the Commissioners. The proposed budget which Robinson drafted and submitted for 1995 included, in Robinson's handwriting, $2,000 for the purchase of a copier. The budget as approved included $1,000 for a copier purchase by the District Attorney's Office. Meanwhile, in addition to serving as the Snyder County District Attorney, at all times relevant to this case, Robinson maintained a private law practice. In his private law office, Robinson had a Xerox copier, model no. 5018, which Robinson had purchased in 1990 from Gold'N'Copy for $3,300. Robinson testified that at the same time the District Attorney's Office needed a copier, he was also looking for a new copier for his private law office to replace that Xerox copier. Robinson stated that commencing in 1992 -1993, his private office staff had expressed dissatisfaction with the copier. Robinson testified that the copier was not broken and "functioned fine," but that it had a loud fan motor and lacked certain attachments and collators. Robinson testified that during 1994 and the end of 1995, he spoke to a number of copier providers throughout the central Susquehanna Valley and obtained some oral and some written quotes as to a trade -in. Robinson specifically spoke with Gold, the dealer from whom he had obtained the Xerox copier and who had serviced it the entire time Robinson owned the machine. Robinson's testimony as to what he believed the value of his Xerox copier to be placed the value in the range from $2,220 to $2,300. Robinson testified that when he was speaking by phone with Gold, Gold read to Robinson from a "Blue Book" list that Gold had, and shared the information with Robinson that Robinson states he later discovered on Exhibit D -2. Exhibit D -2 is an official listing of sale prices for various used Xerox copy machines and equipment, including the type of machine that was in Robinson's private law office. The price list was effective January 1, 1995. On that list, the copiers bearing model no. 5018 Robinson 95- 028 -C2 Page 35 indicate purchase prices ranging from $2,120 to $2,360. All of the copiers on the list regardless of model indicate purchase prices in excess of $1,000. Robinson had a business relationship with Modern Business Machines, Inc., a family run business in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, owned by William Slough. Bart Slough, son of William Slough, was the Vice - President of the business. Both William and Bart Slough are now deceased. Robinson had done business with Modern Business Machines both through the District Attorney's Office and his private practice. Modern Business Machines serviced the equipment in the District Attorney's Office. Prior to February 15, 1995, Robinson discussed terms with Bart Slough. Robinson told Slough that the District Attorney's Office was in need of a good, functioning copier. Robinson told Slough that there was $1,000 budgeted for a capital purchase. Of course, that fact was a matter of public record. Robinson testified that he told Slough that if Slough would consider selling the Xerox copier from Robinson's private law office to the County Commissioners for use in the D.A.'s Office, Slough would have to tell them that it came from Robinson and had been traded in by Robinson and Robinson's private practice. It is SEC Investigator Gregory Curran's testimony that when he interviewed Robinson, Robinson indicated that he asked Bart Slough from Modern Business Machines if he would be willing to buy the used Xerox machine in Robinson's private law office and contact the Snyder County Commissioners to see whether they would purchase the copy machine from Modern Business Machines. At some point prior to February 14, 1995, a deal was struck between Robinson and Modern Business Machines. Robinson purchased a new Canon copier for his private law office. It is Robinson's testimony that the deal included the trade -in of his old Xerox copier for $1,000, with the understanding that if Modern Business Machines could not market the Xerox copier for at least $1,000, Robinson would buy it back. Robinson maintained that Modern Business Machines was free to market the copier to anybody, not just Snyder County. Curran testified that when interviewed, Robinson indicated that the agreement was that if the Snyder County Commissioners did not authorize the sale of the copy machine that Robinson would buy it back from Modern Business Machines. The proposed $ 1,000 amount attributable to the Xerox copier was the precise amount that Snyder County had allocated in the budget for the purchase of a copier. Robinson stated that Modern Business Machines valued the Xerox copier at $1,000 because it primarily sold used Canons and the Sloughs weren't sure how much of a market they would be able to have with the new Xeroxes. Robinson stated that there were certain other dealers that he spoke to who were willing to give him more than $1,000 for his Xerox copier, and that it was his understanding as the owner of the copier that there was no one indicating a value of Tess than $1,000. Robinson stated that he believed the copier's value to be approximately $2,000 but that he was willing to take $1,000, which he believed to be a Toss to him, if there would be a way ethically and properly that his Xerox copier could go to the District Attorney's Office. It was Robinson's testimony that he was interested in getting a good used copier for the District Attorney's Office if he could and that he couldn't get a used copier for $1,000 anywhere else. Robinson also stated that at the same time, he secured a Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 36 sizeable fee in his private practice which gave him capital to be able to make improvements to his office and he lost his second and very important secretary in the District Attorney's Office such that he needed a copier there that could do a better job. On February 14, 1995, the new Canon copier was delivered to Robinson's private law office, and at the same time, the old Xerox copier was removed from Robinson's office and was taken directly to the District Attorney's Office. It was Robinson who suggested that Modern Business Machines take the Xerox copier to the District Attorney's Office. Robinson testified that he did not have the equipment needed to move copiers of that size. Robinson testified that when the Xerox copier from his private law office was delivered to the District Attorney's Office it was owned by the Sloughs. The Sloughs did not give Robinson a check for $ 1,000 when they took the copier. Robinson testified that the purchase price paid by Modern Business Machines for his old Xerox copier was the $ 1,000 they took off the full purchase price of the new Canon copier that Robinson bought. ID -9, page 1, is the first invoice which Modern Business Machines issued for Robinson's new Canon copier. The invoice is dated February 14, 1995, which is the same day the Canon copier was delivered to Robinson's private law office and the Xerox copier was taken from that office to the District Attorney's Office. The invoice does not reference any trade -in. Robinson stated that this invoice was issued in error, and that he did not see the invoice until March, several weeks after the copier had been dropped off at his office. Robinson testified that the secretary who accepted the invoice put it in a drawer for accounts to be paid, and that when it was time to pay the bills, he saw the invoice and contacted Modern Business Machines at which time Modern Business Machines cut the second invoice which specifically refers to the $1,000. The second invoice is in evidence as !D -9, page 5. That invoice is dated March 14, 1995 — the very date that the County Commissioners decided not to go through with buying the Xerox copier. Meanwhile, at the County, on February 15, 1995, the day after Robinson's old copier was delivered to the District Attorney's Office, Warshaw sent a letter to Chief Clerk Knepp which is in evidence as ID -7, page 2, requesting $1,000 for payment to Modern Business Machines for a copier. Walshaw did so based upon Robinson's instructions to her. The letter did not indicate the origin of the copier. Robinson and Walshaw testified that it had been written in accordance with County practice to apprise the Commissioners that an item (the copier) had been received and that the department was satisfied that payment could be made. Robinson and Walshaw testified that they were under the assumption that an invoice would already have been submitted by Modern Business Machines. Chief Clerk Knepp's testimony differed somewhat from that of Robinson and Walshaw. Knepp testified that after he received the letter from Warshaw, he contacted her and requested an invoice for the copier, but that she responded that there was no invoice and that the check should be issued on the basis of her letter. At the March 7, 1995 meeting of the Commissioners, Knepp spoke with Solicitor Mihalik who instructed that an invoice would be required. Solicitor Mihalik testified that Walshaw was at the meeting for another purpose and was advised by the Commissioners that an invoice would be required for the copier purchase. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 37 That very day, Walshaw obtained an invoice from Modern Business Machines. The invoice, dated March 7, 1995, was faxed and Walshaw submitted it before the meeting broke up. The invoice is in evidence as ID -7, page 3. The invoice reflects that the Xerox copier was purchased from Robinson with a value of $ 1,000 and was "sold and delivered" to the Snyder County Commissioners for a total price of $ 1,000. Thus, on March 7, 1995, the Commissioners became aware for the first time not only that there was a proposed purchase of a specific copier for the District Attorney's Office, but that the particular copier to be purchased originated from the District Attorney's private law office. Solicitor Mihalik researched the matter. At the March 14, 1995 meeting, Robinson presented his view, Solicitor Mihalik presented his view, and the Commissioners rejected the proposed purchase for the stated reason that the District Attorney may have had at least an indirect interest in the sale of the photocopier to the County. On the same day that the Commissioners rejected the proposed purchase of the Xerox copier — March 14, 1995 — Modern Business Machines issued invoice number 88980 (ID -9, page 5) indicating a purchase from Robinson of the Xerox copier for $ 1,000. On or about the same day, either March 14 or 15, Robinson issued two checks to Modern Business Machines in the amounts of $1,000 and $3,759.77. It is Robinson's position that with the $ 1,000 check he "bought back" the Xerox copier, and that the check for $3,759.77 was payment for his new Canon copier less the $1,000 "trade -in" that he had been given for the Xerox copier. It is the Investigative Division's position that these two checks are a mere "paperwash" and that the bill for Robinson's new Canon copier was merely broken up into two bills. Finally, it should be noted that Robinson testified at length as to his intentions and sensitivity to matters of ethics. Robinson testified that as District Attorney, he wanted the Xerox copier for the District Attorney's Office "if it was proper, appropriate and legal." (Tr. at 240). Robinson stated that it was his understanding that if he could contract with Modern Business Machines for an independent purchase of the copier at what was believed to be a fair and appropriate price and later that equipment was sold to the County, that he would not have a direct or indirect benefit from it because, even on an indirect level, he was receiving less than what he believed the fair market value to be. Robinson stated that he felt that if in fact there was some impropriety or problem, he would buy the copier back. Robinson stated that he did not want Modern Business Machines to be hurt by the situation or for the County to do anything unethical or improper with regard to him. Robinson testified that before he spoke with Modern Business Machines, it was his understanding as District Attorney and as a private practitioner of law that he did not want to have any direct transactions with the County because they would all be suspect under the Ethics Law as well as the Rules of Professional Conduct. Robinson testified as to his background as a Member of the Board of Directors and Secretary of the statewide District Attorneys' Association, as a creator and Chair of that Association's Ethics Committee, and as a frequent lecturer for the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Institute and the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on topics including ethics. Robinson stated that he was very concerned going into the transaction Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 38 involving his used copier that there would be no transgressions and no attempt for him to benefit himself from the proposed transaction. Robinson testified that based upon other demands that were made of him, he may not have spent as much time on top of the situation as he should have. Although Robinson testified as to the importance he places upon making disclosure in conflict situations, Robinson did not approach the Commissioners or Mihalik in advance to tell them about his ownership of the copier. Robinson's explanations were that his relationship with the Board of Commissioners had not been good and that he had a history with Mihalik including his defeat of Mihalik for the Office of District Attorney in 1980 and Mihalik's representation of Robinson's ex -wife in their non - amicable divorce. Finally, Robinson stated that he felt there were "three layers of protection" as to the copier transaction: (1) that there was a third party independently involved in the transaction; (2) that there would be full disclosure of Robinson's private ownership; and (3) that it would be up to the Commissioners, upon the advice of their Solicitor, to make the appropriate decision as to whether the proposal would be appropriate to accept. The owners of Modern Business Machines did not testify in this case. As noted above, William and Bart Slough are both deceased. The Xerox copier is now in Robinson's private law office. Robinson stated that the Xerox copier is operational and that all the copier needs is new toner. Walshaw similarly testified that several months after the copier was delivered to the District Attorney's Office, the ink cartridge went out and that it was not replaced since the invoice for the copier had not been approved. Robinson testified that he has not put new toner into the copier because he does not need a second copier, but that the copier has value to him because he can sell it for cash. Robinson stated that he has not had the time to do that. In applying the law to the facts in evidence, we first address the alleged violation of Section 3(f). We find that there was no violation of Section 3(f) in that there was no contract with the governmental body, Snyder County. The March 7, 1995 invoice from Modern Business Machines was not a contract. Furthermore, by law, only the County Commissioners may enter into contracts for Snyder County and that did not happen in this case. It has been argued by the Investigative Division that there was an attempt to contract, and that although this Commission has never before found a violation of Section 3(f) based upon an attempt to contract, the rationale which has been applied in certain cases in finding a violation of Section 3(a) based upon an attempt to obtain a prohibited private pecuniary benefit should be applied to Section 3(f). We reject that argument. The wording of Section 3(a) and the related definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" allow for finding a violation based upon an attempt; the wording of Section 3(f) does not. To the contrary, the express language of Section 3(f) is that "No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated . . ." without an open and public process. 65 P.S. §403(f). In this case there was no contract with the governmental body, Snyder County. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 39 Turning to Section 3(a), the element of use of authority of office is clearly established. As District Attorney, Robinson was responsible for the operations of the District Attorney's Office. He had the authority to propose purchases. He had the authority to look at various businesses to see if they had products meeting his requirements at reasonable prices. It was Robinson who had the authority to prepare the budget for the District Attorney's Office and who specifically prepared the budget for 1995 to include a request for an allocation for the purchase of a copier. It was Robinson who suggested /authorized delivery of the Xerox copier from his office to the District Attorney's Office. It was Robinson who then promptly directed Walshaw to send a request for purchase to the Commissioners for the copier. It was Robinson who advocated the purchase of that copier at the March 14, 1995 meeting of the County Commissioners. The fact that the Commissioners had to give final approval to departmental purchases and to the budget in no way diminishes Robinson's use of authority of his office in this case. In any given instance there may be, and in this case there specifically were, various individuals using the authority of their respective offices at various levels. Robinson used the authority of his office in an attempt to buy the Xerox copier which had originated from his private law office for the District Attorney's Office. Robinson's own words were that, "As District Attorney, I would have liked to purchase that Xerox if it was proper, appropriate and legal." (Tr. at 240). But for Robinson's use of the authority of his office, there would have been no provision for the purchase of a copier in the budget and there would have been no prospective purchase of that particular copier which originated from his law office. Factually, Robinson was unsuccessful — the deal did not go through. However, we have previously held that an attempt to obtain a prohibited private pecuniary benefit can be sufficient to support a violation of Section 3(a). Taylor, Order 983. We now address the crucial issue in this case: Had the deal gone through, and had Robinson been able to keep the $1,000 for his copier, would that $ 1,000 have constituted a private pecuniary benefit to him? We cannot so find. Factually, there is insufficient evidence to clearly establish the fair market value of Robinson's particular copier. There has been no appraisal. There has been no expert testimony as to the value of that copier. There certainly is no evidence to place the value of Robinson's copier at Tess than $1,000. There is a stated value of $1,000 on Modern Business Machine's invoices at ID- 7, page 3 and ID -9, page 5. The other evidence before us consists of Robinson's testimony as to what he believed the value to be based upon his purported conversations with various copier dealers including Gold, the dealer from whom he had obtained the Xerox copier and who serviced it, and the document entered into evidence as D -2 which is a listing of purchase prices for used Xerox copiers, effective January 1, 1995. Robinson's testimony as to what he was told his model of copier was worth would place the value in a range from $2,220 to $2,300 (see Finding 25g). D -2 places the value of copiers bearing model number 5018 well in excess of $2,000. If we were to accept the only evidence that we have as to the value, which indicates that such copiers are worth at least $1,000 and probably over $2,000, the acceptance of $1,000 would be, at best, breaking even, and at worst, a financial detriment, rather than a private pecuniary benefit to Robinson. Thus, we are unable to find the essential element of a private pecuniary benefit. Robinson, 95- 028 -C2 Page 40 Certainly, where the fair market value of property has been established, and the public official /public employee in question has used the authority of his public position or confidential information received by being in that position to obtain or attempt to obtain the property for less than that fair market value, a violation of Section 3(a) may be found. See, e.q., Taylor, Order 983. But where the fair market value is precisely what is proposed to be tendered, we have found that no private pecuniary benefit results. Saurman, Opinion 94 -004. The contention that the acceptance of something Tess than the fair market value of an item constitutes a private pecuniary benefit because the item is not sitting in one's basement (Tr. at 263) is unsound. We are persuaded by Respondent's argument that whether he would have the $ 1,000, or the Xerox copier worth no less than $ 1,000, there would be no change in his asset position (see, Response to Investigative Report at paragraph 41) so as to constitute a private pecuniary benefit. Although we agree with the Investigative Division's argument that conduct which violates Section 3(a) is no less a violation just because the governmental body gets a "good deal" in the process, and that a good deal for the government& body does not negate the fact that a private pecuniary benefit has been obtained by the public official (see, Tr. at 267, see also Zangrilli, Order 946 at 143), in this case, regardless of whether Snyder County would have gotten a good deal, we are not able to find any private pecuniary benefit to Robinson. Based upon all of the above, we find no violation of Section 3(a). IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. In his capacity as District Attorney of Snyder County, John T. Robinson (Robinson) has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Robinson did not violate Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 by arranging with Modern Business Machines, Inc., for the purchase of a copier from his private law office and the subsequent attempt to sell said copier to the County without an open and public process, in that factually, there was no contract with the governmental body, Snyder County. 3. Robinson did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of his office by arranging with Modern Business Machines, Inc., for the purchase of a copier from his private law office and the subsequent attempt to sell said copier to the County, in that the evidence fails to establish any private pecuniary benefit to Robinson. In Re: John T. Robinson ORDER NO. 1009 File Docket: 95- 028 -C2 Date Decided: 8/27/96 Date Mailed: 9/6/96 1. In his capacity as District Attorney of Snyder County, John T. Robinson (Robinson) did not violate Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 by arranging with Modern Business Machines, Inc., for the purchase of a copier from his private law office and the subsequent attempt to sell said copier to the County without an open and public process, in that factually, there was no contract with the governmental body, Snyder County. 2. Robinson did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of his office by arranging with Modern Business Machines, Inc., for the purchase of a copier from his private law office and the subsequent attempt to sell said copier to the County, in that the evidence fails to establish any private pecuniary benefit to Robinson. BY THE COMMISSION, cer DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR