Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1024 CampbellIn Re: Richard Campbell, Esquire STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 96- 001 -C2 Date Decided: 9/19/96 Date Mailed: 9/24/96 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger Rev. Joseph G. Quinn 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 el sea., 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 waived. 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. Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Richard Campbell, a public official /employee in his capacity as a Solicitor for Lamar Township, Clinton County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1st of each year that he holds such a position by failing to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years with Lamar Township; and when he backdated Statement of Financial Interests forms for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years. Section 4. Statement of financial interests required to be filed (a) Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part-time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section. 65 P.S. §404(a). Section 5. Statement of financial interests (a) The statement of financial interests filed pursuant to this act shall be on a form prescribed by the commission. All information requested on the statement shall be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person required to file and shall be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation. 65 P.S. §405(a). I1. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that Richard Campbell violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989). 2. Upon review of the information by the Director of Investigations a recommendation was made to the Executive Director to commence an own - motion preliminary inquiry. Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 3 3. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on January 5, 1996. 4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 5. On March 5, 1996, a letter was forwarded to Richard Campbell, 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 281 100 761. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Joan Kerstetter, with a delivery date of March 7, 1996. 6. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission. 7. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Richard Campbell in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation. 8. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on August 19, 1996. 9. Richard Campbell has been an attorney since 1966. 10. Campbell is a partner with the law firm of Miller, Kistler, Campbell, Miller & Williams, Inc. in State College, Pennsylvania. a. Campbell's law practice primarily involves municipal law. 11. Campbell has also served as a board member for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania since 1990. a. He currently serves as the Chairman. 12. Richard Campbell has served as solicitor for Lamar Township since 1992. a. Campbell has been appointed on an annual basis by the board of supervisors. b. Campbell previously served as solicitor for Lamar Township from 1974 through 1989. 13. No retainer for Richard Campbell's service as solicitor was set by the board of supervisors. a. Campbell has been paid for services rendered. b. Campbell does not regularly attend board of supervisor meetings. Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 4 14. Campbell has been compensated as follows by Lamar Township for legal services as township solicitor: so. 1992: 1993: 1994: 1995: $ 836.00 $1,256.00 $1,605.79 $1,156.50 15. Campbell also serves as solicitor for the following governmental entities: a. College- Harris Joint Authority b. Ferguson Township Water and Sewer Authority c. Howard Borough Authority d. Lamar Township Supervisors e. Liberty Township Sewer Authority f. Mountaintop Area Municipal Authority g. Patton Township h. Patton Township Authority Patton - Ferguson Joint Authority j. Port Matilda Borough Authority k. Mid- Centre County Authority I. Snow Shoe Township Municipal Authority m. South Philipsburg Borough n. Spring- Benner - Walker Joint Authority o. University Area Joint Authority. 16. Richard Campbell has annually filed Statements of Financial Interests with Patton Township. a. Campbell has filed statements with any municipality requesting him to do 17. Richard Campbell, in his capacity as solicitor for Patton Township, Centre County, filed Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992 through 1994. a. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1992 was dated April 5, 1993. The form was filed on SEC Revised Form 1/93. Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 5 b. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1993 was dated April 3, 1994. The form was filed on SEC Revised Form 1/94. c. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1994 was dated March 6, 1995. The form was filed on SEC Revised Form 1/95. 18. A compliance review conducted in Lamar Township on October 11, 1995, for the 1992 through 1994 calendar years concluded that no forms were on file for Richard Campbell. 19. On November 30, 1995, Campbell was sent a Notice of Intent to Commence Civil Penalty Proceedings for delinquency of Statements of Financial Interests. a. The notice stated that Campbell had failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years. b. The notice advised Campbell that Civil Penalty Proceedings could be avoided if Statements of Financial Interests were filed during the 20 day grace period. 20. Statements of Financial Interests for Richard Campbell were provided to the Ethics Commission by Lamar Township Secretary /Treasurer Robert Miller on December 13, 1995. a. The Statements of Financial Interests obtained for Campbell were for the calendar years 1992, 1993 and 1994. 21. The Statements of Financial Interests filed by Campbell listed his signature and the date when he filed the form. a. b. c. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1992 was dated March 15, 1992. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1993 was dated April 10, 1993. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1994 was dated May 10, 1994. 22. Campbell filed all the Statements of Financial Interests listed in Finding No. 20 on SEC Revised Form 1/95. a. SEC Revised Form 1/95 was not available for distribution until January, 1995. 23. Richard Campbell filed the Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992 through 1994 with Lamar Township after the compliance review was conducted on October 11, 1995. (See Finding No. 17) 24. The Statements of Financial Interests filed by Campbell for Lamar Township were backdated giving the impression that they were timely filed. Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 6 25. Campbell confirmed the Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993 and 1994 were not filed with Lamar Township until December, 1995. a. Campbell asserts there was no intent to deceive on his part when he dated the Statements of Financial Interests. b. It was an oversight and misinterpretation on his part on how he should have filled out the form. 26. Campbell arbitrarily picked out dates for each of the three Statements of Financial Interests he filed so as to reflect the accuracy of the information as of these dates. a. Campbell assumed the information was true and correct at that point in time. b. Campbell used information from Statements of Financial Interests he previously submitted to Patton Township. c. All three forms were then submitted to Lamar Township. 27. Campbell did not make copies of the Statements of Financial Interests he filed with Patton Township for the 1992 through 1994 calendar years with Lamar Township because Lamar Township Secretary /Treasurer Robert Miller wanted the forms returned as soon as possible. a. Campbell did not have any copies of the Statements of Financial Interests he filed with Patton Township. b. Campbell believed it would have taken too long to wait for copies from Patton Township. 28. Campbell filed Statements of Financial Interests with the following Authorities on February 13, 1996, for calendar years 1992 through 1994. a. University Area Joint Authority b. Patton - Ferguson Joint Authority c. College- Harris Joint Authority 29. The Statements of Financial Interests Campbell filed were copies of the forms he filed with Patton Township in 1992 through 1994. a. He changed the name of the political subdivision in Item Seven of the form for each Authority. 30. Campbell did not deny any of the Findings set forth in the Investigative Complaint, but Campbell did proffer the following supplemental information in a Response, to which supplemental information the Investigative Division has stipulated: Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 7 a. As supplemental information to Finding 10 of the Investigative Complaint and above, Campbell is an officer /shareholder /employee of Miller, Kistler, Campbell, Miller & Williams, Inc. (1) Approximately 25% of Campbell's law practice involves municipal law. b. As supplemental information to Finding 11 of the Investigative Complaint and above, Campbell previously served as a member of a hearing committee for the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and currently serves as a chairman of Hearing Committee No. 3.08. c. As supplemental information to Finding 21 of the Investigative Complaint and above, the Statements of Financial Interests filed by Campbell were signed by Campbell. The forms were not dated when he filed the forms but when he believed the forms were due. The forms do not indicate when they should be dated. d. As supplemental information to Finding 24 of the Investigative Complaint and above, the Statements of Financial Interests filed by Campbell for Lamar Township were backdated so as to reflect the accuracy of the information as of the dates of the years in question. The forms were filed at the request of the Ethics Commission with the promise that civil penalties could be avoided if Statements of Financial Interests were filed within 20 days so there could be no intent to deceive. Campbell promptly complied with that request. e. As supplemental information to Finding 27a of the Investigative Complaint and above, Campbell had copies of Statements of Financial Interests filed with Patton Township, but the forms were undated. Because of concern to meet the deadline imposed, Campbell used the only blank forms available (1995) and inserted the information from the Patton Township Statements of Financial Interests and then assigned the arbitrary dates since the actual dates On the Patton Township forms were unavailable. Campbell felt his actions in filing backdated forms was as demanded by the Commission. f. As supplemental information to Finding 29 of the Investigative Complaint and above, the Statements of Financial Interests Campbell filed with these three authorities were actual copies of the Patton Township forms for 1992 through 1994 which he later acquired after the Commission's 20 -day imposed deadline. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Richard Campbell, Esquire, hereinafter Campbell, has been the Solicitor for Lamar Township in Clinton County, Pennsylvania. The issue before us is whether Campbell violated Sections 4(a) and 5(a)of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq., when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with Campbell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 8 Lamar Township for the 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years, and when he backdated Statement of Financial Interests forms for those calendar years. Section 4(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above requires that each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 4(a) also specifically mandates: "Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section." Section 5(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above requires that the Statement of Financial Interests be filed on the form prescribed by the Commission. All information requested on the statement must be provided to the best of the knowledge, information and belief of the person required to file, and the form must be signed under oath or equivalent affirmation. Preliminarily, we shall address the legal issues. In his response to the Investigative Complaint, Campbell proffers two "proposed additional findings," which are really legal arguments. First, Campbell states that he does not believe that a solicitor representing multiple municipal clients is a public official or public employee as those terms are used in Act 9. Second, Campbell states that he also believes that a definitive judicial interpretation of Act 9's application to attorneys representing municipal entities has not been obtained, and that Section 5 filings are therefore non - mandatory unless requested by the appropriate political subdivision. We reject both of Campbell's arguments. First, this Commission is of the view — and has so held — that a Solicitor is a public official /public employee as defined in Act 9. See, e.g., Medico, Order 822. However, we need not revisit that issue in this case. This case pertains exclusively to the FIS filing requirements of the Ethics Law, and Section 4(a) expressly and specifically includes Solicitors as among those who must comply with those requirements (see also, State Ethics Commission Regulations at 51 Pa.Code §15.2(g)). Furthermore, we reject Campbell's suggestion that he need not obey the law pending a "definitive judicial interpretation." We find that the law as promulgated by the Legislature is clear, j . definitive, and j . in full force and effect. We shall enforce the filing requirement as it is clearly stated in Sections 4 and 5 of Act 9 of 1989. Having dispelled the legal issues which have been raised, we shall now summarize the facts. Campbell serves as Solicitor for numerous governmental entities, two of which are Lamar Township and Patton Township. Although Campbell has annually filed Statements of Financial Interests with Patton Township, and with any municipality that has requested that he do so, Lamar Township is the filing location which is of concern in this case. The delinquent filings which are in question in this case are for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994. At all times relevant to this case, Campbell has served as Solicitor for Lamar Township. He has specifically served in that position since 1992. A Statement of Financial Interests compliance review was conducted by the Investigative Division in ". Campbell 96- 001 -C2 Page 9 Lamar Township on October 11, 1995, for the 1992 through 1994 calendar years. No forms were on file there for Richard Campbell. Campbell did file Statements of Financial Interests for those calendar years with Patton Township. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1992 was dated April 5, 1993. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1993 was dated April 3, 1994. The Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 1994 was dated March 6, 1995. In enforcing the filing requirement as to Lamar Township, the Investigative Division initially proceeded under the civil penalty process of this Commission, rather than the investigative process. The civil penalty process is founded in Section 9(f) of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §409(f) (for applicable Regulations, see, 51 Pa.Code §19.3). On November 30, 1995, the Investigative Division issued to Campbell a Notice of Intent to Commence Civil Penalty Proceedings as to these delinquent Statements of Financial Interests. The Notice stated that Campbell had failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1992, 1993, and 1994 calendar years. The Notice advised Campbell that civil penalty proceedings could be avoided if Statements of Financial Interests were filed within 20 days. In December, 1995, in response to the aforesaid Notice letter of the Investigative Division and within the 20 -day grace period, Campbell filed Statements of Financial Interests with Lamar Township for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994. The problem with those forms is that Campbell "backdated" them. Campbell has admitted that he backdated the forms. Moreover, the fact that the forms were backdated is clear on the face of the documents: each filing was on SEC revised form 1/95, that was not available for distribution until January, 1995. The form for calendar year 1992 was dated March 15, 1992. The form for calendar year 1993 was dated April 10, 1993. The form for calendar year 1994 was dated May 10, 1994. After Campbell filed the backdated forms, rather than proceeding under the civil penalty process, the Executive Director initiated a preliminary inquiry, which was followed by a full investigation. The Investigative Division avers, and Campbell does not deny, that in backdating the forms, Campbell was giving the impression that they were timely filed. However, Campbell asserts, and the Investigative Division does not deny, that Campbell did not intend to deceive when he backdated the Statements of Financial Interests. It was an oversight and misinterpretation as to how he should fill out the forms. Campbell dated the forms according to when he believed they had been due. The forms were backdated so as to reflect the accuracy of the information as of the dates of the years in question. Campbell arbitrarily picked out the dates and he assumed the information was true and correct at such points in time. In completing the forms, Campbell inserted the information from Statements of Financial Interests which he previously filed with Patton Township. However, the copies of the Patton Township forms which Campbell had were undated, and the actual dates on the Patton Township forms were unavailable. Campbell therefore assigned the arbitrary dates, feeling that his actions in filing backdated forms was as demanded by the Commission. Camobell, 96- 001 -C2 Page 10 Campbell has noted that the forms themselves do not indicate how they should be dated. Campbell has also noted that the forms were filed at the request of the State Ethics Commission with the promise that civil penalties could be avoided if the Statements of Financial Interests were filed within 20 days, such that Campbell states there could have been no intent to deceive. In applying the law to the relevant facts, we determine that Campbell did violate Sections 4(a) and 5(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 with Lamar Township on the form as prescribed by the State Ethics Commission. There really is no question that the forms were untimely. The form for calendar year 1992 was due on or before May 1, 1993. The form for calendar year 1993 was due on or before May 1, 1994. The form for calendar year 1994 was due on or before May 1, 1995. None of the three forms were filed with Lamar Township until December, 1995. As for the backdating portion of the allegation in particular, we find that under the circumstances of this case, the proper disposition is for Campbell to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 using a current date. If Campbell complies within thirty days of this Order, no further action will be taken. Failure to comply will result in an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Richard Campbell, Esquire (Campbell), as Solicitor for Lamar Township in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, is required to file Statements of Financial Interests in compliance with the Ethics Law. 2. Campbell technically violated Sections 4(a) and 5(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 with Lamar Township on the form as prescribed by the State Ethics Commission. 3. Campbell shall be directed to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 with Lamar Township using a current date. In Re: Richard Campbell, Esquire File Docket: 96- 001 -C2 Date Decided: 9/19/96 Date Mailed: 9/24/96 ORDER NO. 1024 • 1. Richard Campbell, Esquire (Campbell), as Solicitor for Lamar Township in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, is required to file Statements of Financial Interests in compliance with the Ethics Law. 2. Campbell technically violated Sections 4(a) and 5(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 with Lamar Township on the form as prescribed by the State Ethics Commission. 3. Campbell is directed within thirty days of issuance of this Order to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1992, 1993, and 1994 with Lamar Township using a current date. a. Compliance with the above will result in the closing of this case with no further action. b. Failure to comply with the above will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR