Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1015 ColluraSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Robert Collura File Docket: 95- 044 -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 gt sgq., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation. 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 waived. The record is complete. A consent agreement was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. 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. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Robert Collura, a public official /employee in his capacity as Township Engineer for Upper Mount Bethel Township and the Township Planning Commission, Northampton County, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, and /or a business with which he and /or his brother was associated, when he participated in the Township's and the Planning Commission's review, consideration and approval of plans prepared by his brother and /or his brother's company. II. FINDINGS: 1. Robert Collura has served as Township Engineer for Upper Mount Bethel Township since January, 1994. a. Collura was appointed Upper Mount Bethel Township Engineer by the Township Board of Supervisors at the January 5, 1994 Reorganizational meeting. b. Collura was reappointed during the 1995 and 1996 Reorganizational meetings. 2. Collura's duties as Township Engineer include reviewing subdivision plans submitted to the Planning Commission and the Township Board of Supervisors and making recommendations to the Commission and the Board in reference to the plans compliance with township and state rules and regulations. 3. Robert Collura has owned Robert L. Collura Engineers and Surveyors since 1967. a. Robert L. Collura Engineers and Surveyors is located at 727 Molasses Road, Bangor, Pennsylvania, which is also the residence of Robert Collura. 4. George J. Collura is a Professional Land Surveyor whose business is located at 800 Roosevelt Avenue, Roseto, Pennsylvania. 5. Robert L. Collura and George J. Collura are brothers. 6. In November of 1993, prior to his appointment as Upper Mount Bethel Township Engineer, Robert L. Collura was hired by Bobbie and Marilyn Griffith to draw up subdivision plans for a parcel of land they owned in Upper Mount Bethel Township. 7. Neil Policelli and David Bray, employees of Robert L. Collura Engineers and Surveyors, performed percolation tests on the Griffith property on November 12 and 19, 1993. a. All testing was witnessed and approved by the Township Sewage Enforcement Officer. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 3 8. In December of 1993, Robert Collura requested his brother, George Collura, finish the work on the Griffith Subdivision Plan. 9. In January of 1994, Robert Collura, as Upper Mount Bethel Township Engineer, reviewed Bobbie and Marilyn Griffith's Subdivision Plan. 10. The Griffith Subdivision Plan filed with the Township contained information which indicated it was prepared by George J. Collura on December 20, 1993. 11. The Upper Mount Bethel Township Planning Commission met on January 26, 1994, and discussed the application for Planning Commission approval of the Griffith Subdivision Plan. a. b. Robert Collura participated in the discussion, stating he reviewed the plan, and made several recommendations to the Planning Commission. Collura's comments included the following: A PennDOT Highway Occupancy Permit shall be required for Lot 3 An area near an existing well serving Lot 1 is in the dedicated portion of the right of way and may want to exclude from the right of way. Comments from the Lehigh- Northampton Counties Joint Planning Commission must be considered. Utility and drainage easements on property lines are required by most subdivision ordinances. 12. The Griffith Subdivision Plan was revised by George Collura on February 3, 1994. 13. Robert Collura reviewed the revised Griffith Subdivision Plan in February of 1994. 14. The Upper Mount Bethel Township Planning Commission met on February 16, 1994, and discussed the Griffith Subdivision Plan. a. Robert Collura was present at the February 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and informed the Commission that all of the comments he referred to in his first review were met with the exception of the Highway Occupancy Permit. b. Robert Collura prepared a report with his review which became part of the Subdivision Plan's file. c. The Planning Commission voted to approve the Griffith Subdivision Plan with the exception of the Highway Occupancy Permit. 15. Robert Collura was unaware that his participation in the approval process of the Griffith Subdivision Plan constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 4 16. George Collura prepared subdivision plans on behalf of Jacob and Betty Beers for property located in Upper Mount Bethel Township. 17. On July 20, 1994, the Upper Mount Bethel Planning Commission met and discussed the Jacob and Betty Beers Subdivision Plan. 18. Robert Collura was present at the July 20, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and presented a review of the plans he prepared on July 17, 1994. a. Robert Collura participated in the discussion of the plan and noted that his comments were limited. b. Collura's review included the following: A change in the course bearing along the northerly property line. The utility easement along the northerly property line should be shown. Areas, locations and plans required for outdoor storage should be shown. c. Collura stated there are only two issues — the fee and whether there is a preliminary and final plan requirement. 19. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Beers Subdivision Preliminary /Final Plan. 20. George Collura was presented at the July 20, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and signed an agreement prepared by Township Solicitor David Backenstoe in which he agreed to the conditions listed in Township Engineer Robert Collura's review. 21. On August 8, 1994, the Upper Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors discussed the Jacob and Betty Beers Subdivision Plan. a. The Board approved the Beers Planning Modules. b. Robert Collura was present at this meeting. 22. Robert Collura was unaware that his participation in the approval process of the Beers Subdivision Plan constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act. 23. George Collura prepared a subdivision plan for Russell and Marilyn Horn for a proposed development in the township. a. The Horn Plan consisted of construction of a single family dwelling upon a 3.5 acre tract having an existing mobile home situated on the property. 24. During the September 21, 1994 Upper Mount Bethel Township Planning Commission meeting, the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan was discussed. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 5 a. Robert Collura participated in the discussion stating the Horn Plan was pretty simple and there were no problems with it. b. The Planning Commission voted to approve the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan. 25. On September 28, 1994, the Upper Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors met and discussed the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan. a. Robert Collura participated in the discussion stating they made their revisions and they are also asking for two waivers which are before the board tonight. b. Robert Collura stated they are requesting a waiver for storm water easement along with water courses and for monuments and markers. c. Robert Collura was asked by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors if he had a problem with the requests and Collura stated he did not. d. The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan. 26. Robert Collura was unaware that his participation in the approval process of the Horn Subdivision Plan constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act. 27. George Collura prepared a subdivision plan for Susan and A.P. Klaver in April, 1995. a. The Land Development Plan was for the period of April 15, 1995 to July 17, 1995. b. The Planning Commission tabled the plan in May, 1995 because a variance was needed from the Zoning Hearing Board. c. A ninety day extension was granted from May 17, 1995 to August 17, 1995. d. The Zoning Hearing Board granted the variance on May 23, 1995. 28. On June 21, 1995, the Upper Mount Bethel Planning Commission met and discussed the E. Susan and A.P. Klaver Land Development Plan. 29. Robert Collura was present at the June 21, 1995 Planning Commission meeting and participated in the discussion. a. Robert Collura stated his review of the plan indicated that everything required as a result of the first review has been changed, modified or corrected. b. Robert Collura prepared a review letter which became part of the Klaver file. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 6 c. Robert Collura questioned Susan Klaver's failure to obtain the Joint Planning Commission's approval. 30. The Planning Commission voted to grant conditional approval to the Klaver Plan contingent upon obtaining Joint Planning Commission approval. 31. On July 10, 1995, the Upper Mount Bethel Board of Supervisors met and discussed the Ale Peter Klaver and E. Susan Klaver Land Development Plan. a. The Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the plan. b. Robert Collura was present at this meeting. c. The Board of Supervisors did not solicit comments or recommendations from Collura. 32. Robert Collura was unaware that his participation in the approval process of the Klaver Land Development Plan constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act. 33. Robert Collura has taken steps with the Upper Mount Bethel Township Supervisors and Planning Commission since the initiation of this investigation to guarantee that all subsequent submissions of plans prepared by George Collura are referred to an alternate engineer for review. a. Robert Collura had previously made similar suggestions to the Upper Mount Bethel Township Supervisors and Planning Commission, but said suggestions were not acted upon at that time. b. Robert Collura was unaware that his actions constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act, and, as such, he did not intentionally violate the Ethics Act. 111. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Robert Collura, hereinafter Collura, has been a public official /employee 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, gt seq. The issue before us is whether Collura as Upper Mount Bethel Township Municipal Engineer violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the allegation that he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to subdivision plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company. Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides as follows: 65 P.S. §403(a). Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 7 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. facts. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the salient Collura has been appointed as the Municipal Engineer in Upper Mount Bethel Township since January, 1994. In a private capacity, Collura owns Robert L. Collura Engineers & Surveyors. His brother George is a professional land surveyor who has his own business. As Municipal Engineer, Collura is required to review subdivision plans submitted to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors and make recommendations as to whether such plans are in compliance with the Township and Commonwealth rules and regulations. Collura as Municipal Engineer was involved with four subdivision plans as to which his brother performed certain services in a private capacity. As to one of the plans, Collura himself did certain private work prior to his appointment as Municipal Engineer. The four plans in question were for Bobby and Marilyn Griffith, Jacob and Betty Beers, Russell and Marilyn Horn, and Susan and A.P. Klaver. As to the Griffith property, employees of Collura's firm performed percolation tests in November, 1993. In December, 1993, Collura requested his brother to finish the work on the Griffith subdivision plan. When Collura became Municipal Engineer in January, 1994, he reviewed the Griffith subdivision plan which plan on its face reflected that his brother had prepared it. When the plan came before the Township Planning Commission in January, 1994, Collura took various actions consisting of participation, review and recommendations. After the plan was revised by his brother, Collura made another review and advised the Planning Commission Members that all of his comments in the first review were met with the exception of a highway Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 8 occupancy permit. The Planning Commission then voted to approve the Griffith subdivision plan, except for the highway occupancy permit. Turning to the subdivision plan submitted to the Township by the Beers, Collura was present at the July 20, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and presented his review of the plans which were prepared by his brother George. Following Collura's review, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Beers subdivision plan. Subsequently, on August 8, 1994, the Township Board of Supervisors, with Collura present, discussed the Beers subdivision plan and approved the Planning Modules. A third subdivision plan before the Township involved a single family dwelling for the Horns which was prepared by George Collura. At the September, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, Collura participated in the discussion and advised that he saw no problems. The Planning Commission then voted to approve the Horn subdivision plan. At a Township Board of Supervisor meeting on September 28, 1995, with Collura participating in the discussion, the Horns made certain revisions and requested two waivers. After Collura informed the Board Chairman that he had no problems with the Horns' request, the Board unanimously approved the Horns subdivision plan. The last subdivision under consideration involves the Klavers whose plan was prepared by George Collura. The Planning Commission considered the subdivision plan - at a June, 1995 meeting at which Collura was present and participated in the discussion. Collura advised that everything required was changed, modified or corrected as per his review. The Planning Commission voted to grant conditional approval of the Klaver plan contingent upon obtaining Joint Planning Commission approval. Thereafter, at a July, 1995 meeting of the Township Board of Supervisors, with Collura present, the Klaver plan was considered and unanimously approved. As to the above four subdivision plans, Collura was unaware that his participation in the process constituted a violation of the Ethics Law. Collura has now taken steps with the Township Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission to insure that any review of plans prepared by George Collura are referred to an alternate engineer for review. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. In order to establish a violation, Section 3(a) requires a use of the authority of office or confidential information by a public official /employee for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family, or business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. In this case, we find four separate violations by Collura as to his participation in the review and approval process of subdivision plans as to which his brother performed services in a private capacity. There was a use of authority of office on the part of Collura in that he as Municipal Engineer performed various review functions and participated in the approval process through making recommendations to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. That use of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the fees which Collura's brother, George, received for performing private services for those individuals. The couples submitting such subdivision plans would have an expectation that either the review process would be unencumbered or possibly facilitated, given the fact that the Municipal Engineer's Collura, 95- 044 -C2 Page 9 brother performed private services as to the subdivision plans. Lastly, that pecuniary benefit enured to Collura's brother who is a member of his immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §402. Our decision of finding violations in this case is consistent with our prior precedent. Ferrero, Order 720; Bakowicz, Order 910. Turning to the matter of restitution, Section 7(13) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §407(13), specifically empowers this Commission to impose restitution in those instances where a public official /employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Law. In this case, since the parties have determined that the financial gain amounted to $200, restitution of $200 by Collura is warranted. Collura is directed to make payment within 30 days of the date of issuance of this Order through this Commission to Upper Mount Bethel Township. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Non - compliance will result in the initiation of an order enforcement action. Lastly, we note that the parties have filed a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings which set forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. We believe that the Consent Agreement is the proper disposition for this case based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Robert Collura, as Township Engineer for Upper Mount Bethel Township and the Township Planning Commission, is a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Griffith Subdivision Plan. 3. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Jacob and Betty Beers Subdivision Plan. 4. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan. 5. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the A.P. Klaver and E. Susan Klaver Subdivision Plan. In Re: Robert Collura ORDER NO. 1015 File Docket: 95- 044 -C2 Date Decided: 8/27/96 Date Mailed: 9/6/96 1. Robert Collura, as Township Engineer for Upper Mount Bethel Township and the Township Planning Commission, violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Griffith Subdivision Plan. 2. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Jacob and Betty Beers Subdivision Plan. 3. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the Russell and Marilyn Horn Subdivision Plan. 4. Collura violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of office for the private pecuniary benefit of his brother, George Collura, by participating in actions of the Township and the Planning Commission as to plans prepared by his brother or his brother's company regarding the A.P. Klaver and E. Susan Klaver Subdivision Plan. 5. Collura is directed to make restitution to Upper Mount Bethel Township through this Commission in the amount of $200.00 within thirty days of the date of mailing of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Failure to comply will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, c6ckitt.w E &a.' DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR