HomeMy WebLinkAbout1028 WagnerIn Re: Ronald Wagner
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
Allan M. Kluger
Boyd E. Wolff
96- 012 -C2
11/4/96
11/13/96
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 seq., 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 deemed 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.
Waaner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Ronald Wagner, a public official, in his capacity as Mayor of Saltsburg
Borough, Indiana County, violated the following provision of the State Ethics Act (Act
9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit
of a member of his immediate family when through his position he caused the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to conduct a survey in an effort to have
a speed zone in the Borough declared illegal resulting in speeding charges being
dismissed against his son.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public employee shall
engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65
P.S. §403(a).
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 of
his immediate family or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S.
§402.
II. FINDINGS:
1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed,
sworn complaint alleging that Ronald Wagner violated provisions of the State
Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989).
2. Upon review of the complaint by the Director of Investigations a
recommendation was made to the Executive Director to commence a preliminary
inquiry.
3. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated a
preliminary inquiry on February 27, 1996.
4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
5. On April 25, 1996, a letter was forwarded to Ronald Wagner, 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.
Waner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 3
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, No. Z 129 433 664.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Betty Wagner with a
delivery date of April 29, 1996.
c. Said letter provided a statement of the alleged violations of the Act.
6. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the Executive Director
of the State Ethics Commission.
7. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on September 19,
1996.
8. Ronald Wagner has served as the Mayor of Saltsburg Borough from January,
1993, to the present.
a. Wagner's term of office will expire on December 31, 1996.
b. Wagner previously held the position of Borough Councilman for Saltsburg
for one term.
9. Saltsburg Borough maintains a part -time police department.
a. The Chief of Police works approximately twenty hours per week, and
schedules the shifts of the part-time officers.
b. There are currently three part-time police officers.
10. Wagner, in his capacity as Mayor has oversight responsibility for the police
department.
a. Wagner reports to council on the activities of the police department.
b. Prior to the hiring of the Chief of Police, the Mayor supervised the
activities of the police department.
11. The borough council maintains a three member Police Committee consisting of
borough council members.
a. The committee is advisory in nature recommending actions to the
borough council.
b. In 1995, police committee members were Councilmen Arthur Jurisch,
Jack Cunningham and Franklin McGregor.
12. In November 1994, Frank Stanley was hired as Saltsburg Borough Chief of
Police.
13. Stanley implemented a policy to monitor vehicle speed through the borough
which included the use of speed traps.
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 4
14. In March or April, 1995, Saltsburg Borough began utilizing an Accutrak device
to monitor vehicle speed through the borough.
a. Accutrak is a stop watch device, which is calibrated to give vehicle speed
through hand -eye coordination on the part of the operator in conjunction
with painted lines across the roadway.
15. A section of Route 286, which runs through Saltsburg Borough, was selected
by the Chief to become a speed safety zone.
a. The Chief had lines painted across the roadway on Route 286 for visual
coordination.
b. He had signs erected indicating a speed reduction alongside Route 286.
c. The borough police officers began to employ the Accutrak device in
enforcing the speed zone.
d. The speed limit in the zone was 25 m.p.h.
16. Some borough residents and business owners were concerned with the number
of speeding citations issued by the police department.
a. There was a concern that it would hurt the local economy.
17. During the spring and summer of 1995, Mayor Wagner discussed the speed trap
with James McGuire, a local merchant.
a. McGuire had previously worked as an engineer for PennDOT and believed
the speed trap on Route 286 was illegal due to the placements of signs.
b. McGuire believed the matter should be reviewed by PennDOT and
encouraged the Mayor to send a letter.
c. The Mayor took no action at that time.
18. On October 10, 1995, Saltsburg Borough Police Officer Peter Henderson was
operating the Accutrak device at the speed safety zone on Route 286.
19. Through the use of the Accutrak device, Officer Henderson apprehended a 1984
Ford truck traveling through the 25 m.p.h. zone at a speed of 43 m.p.h.,
eastbound on Route 286.
a. The operator of the vehicle was Todd Wagner, the son of Mayor Richard
Wagner.
b. After the police officer stopped the vehicle, Todd Wagner exited his
vehicle and had a verbal confrontation with the Saltsburg Police Officer.
20. Todd Wagner was issued two citations by Saltsburg Police Officer Henderson.
a. Citation No. 0350220, was issued for exceeding the speed limit by 18
m.p.h.
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 5
1. The citation included the following breakdown of costs:
Fine: $ 61.00
EMS: 10.00
CAT: 40.00
Costs: 24.00
JCP: 1,50
Total Due: $ 136.50
b. Citation No. P37384, was also issued to Todd Wagner for disorderly
conduct, subsequent to his speeding violation.
1. The citation included the following breakdown of costs:
Fine: $ 50.00
Cost: 74,52
Total Due: $ 124.52
21. If found guilty of the speeding violations, Todd Wagner could have received four
points against his driving record.
a. The disorderly conduct offense was summary and did not carry any
additional penalties.
22. Shortly after receiving the two citations, Todd Wagner entered pleas of not
guilty regarding the speeding and disorderly conduct citations.
a. A hearing before a District Justice was requested.
23. After the arrest of his son, Mayor Wagner voiced his disapproval with the speed
trap to Chief of Police Stanley.
a. Wagner believed the zone was improperly signed.
24. Following Todd Wagner's arrest, Mayor Wagner contacted James McGuire and
requested his assistance in writing a letter to PennDOT regarding the placement
of speed zone signs in relation to the speed trap.
a. McGuire was contacted because he was previously employed by
PennDOT and his prior discussions with the Mayor regarding the speed
trap.
25. On October 18, 1995, McGuire composed a letter to D.P. McNeal, P.E., District
Engineer for PennDOT, Engineering District 10 -0.
a. The letter contained the home address of Mayor Ronald Wagner.
b. The letter was signed by Ronald Wagner, Mayor, Saltsburg Borough.
c. The letter was not typed on borough letterhead.
26. The text of Wagner's October 18, 1995, letter to PennDOT contained the
following:
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 6
As Mayor of Saltsburg, I respectfully request PennDOT's
assistance in ensuring that the speed limits in our borough are properly
posted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State. I have
received numerous complaints from residents of the County concerning
the speed violations issued by our Borough police officers.
I am aware of the regulation that the rate of speed of vehicles may
not be timed within 500 feet after a speed limit sign indicating a decrease
in speed. The issue needing clarification is this: Can the speed of
vehicles be timed 500 feet after an "advance" or 25 m.p.h. Ahead sign,
or must it be 500 feet after the beginning of the speed zone.
Your assistance in reviewing our present speed signs and a
response to my question on the 500 fee issue will be greatly appreciated.
27. Official borough correspondence is prepared by the borough secretary using
borough letterhead.
a. The October 18, 1995, letter was not typed on borough letterhead.
b. The borough secretary did not usually prepare correspondence for the
Mayor.
28. Chief of Police Stanley was not notified of Mayor Wagner's request to
PennDOT.
29. On October 20, 1995, Police Chief Stanley wrote a letter to PennDOT
requesting a sign survey regarding the speed zone in question.
30. Prior to sending the request to PennDOT, Chief Stanley advised the Mayor of
his intended actions.
a. Mayor Wagner did not advise the Chief that he had made a request of
PennDOT.
31. On or about October 29, 1995, Mayor Wagner received a phone call at his
residence from a PennDOT representative concerning his request for a sign
survey.
a. November 1, 1995, was agreed upon as the date for the survey.
b. The location and time was agreed upon to be the Glass Mart
Convenience Store at 9:30 a.m., in Saltsburg.
32. Prior to the scheduled sign survey, Mayor Wagner contacted Jim McGuire to
accompany him.
a. McGuire was out of town and unable to attend.
b. Mayor Wagner then contacted Councilman Cunningham, who agreed to
participate.
c. The Mayor did not contact the Chief of Police.
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 7
33. On November 1, 1995, Mayor Wagner and Councilman Cunningham met with
PennDOT representative Dave Brunner.
a. The concerns cited in Wagner's letter were reviewed by traveling the
roadways in the borough.
b. Brunner prepared two drawings for Wagner, which he believed were the
proper locations for signs in the borough.
c. The meeting lasted one to two hours.
34. On November 1, 1995, Donald McNeal, PennDOT District 10 -0 Engineer,
advised Wagner by letter of the review of the borough speed limit signs and
Wagner's request of whether it was permissible to time vehicles in a speed
zone. The letter provided in part:
a. Title 75, Section 5368(c) provides that mechanical, electrical or
electronic devices may not be used to time the rate of speed of vehicles
within 500 feet after a speed limit sign indicating a decrease in speed.
b. The first sign indicating a decrease in speed would be the speed limit sign
and not the reduced speed ahead sign. The speed limit sign is placed
where the actual speed limit is permitted to begin. A reduced speed sign
is not always required.
c. The 500 feet distance is considered a reasonable distance to allow
vehicles time to see the speed limit sign and react.
d. The letter confirmed the meeting of November 1, 1995, and noted that
the Mayor was provided with corrective measures to bring the borough's
speed limits into compliance with current regulations.
35. The November 1, 1995, letter was sent to Wagner's home at 506 Market
Street, Saltsburg.
36. The Mayor did not provide the Chief of Police or members of borough council
with the November 1, 1995, letter from PennDOT.
a. Chief and Council would have been responsible for making the necessary
changes to the signs and speed zones.
b. Wagner asserts that since the survey was completed, it would be
forwarded to the Police Chief and Borough Council and the matter would
be rectified.
37. The Mayor did provide his son with PennDOT's letter and drawings.
a. Wagner states that he would have provided any other Borough resident
or citizen with the same information.
38. On November 8, 1995, Saltsburg Police Chief Stanley received a response to
his letter of October 20, 1995, from PennDOT Engineer McNeal.
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 8
a. The letter stated that Stanley's concerns were discussed on November
1, 1995, at a meeting held with mayor Wagner and PennDOT
Representative Brunner.
b. The letter also stated that PennDOT furnished the Mayor with
recommendations to improve signs and to make it enforceable in
accordance with the Vehicle Code.
c. This letter was Chief Stanley's first knowledge of the November 1, 1995,
sign survey meeting, scheduled by Wagner.
39. On November 28, 1995, a hearing was held before District Justice Dolores
DeGruttola in Blairsville for the two citations issued to Todd Wagner by
Saltsburg Police Officer Henderson on October 10, 1995.
a. Todd Wagner was present.
b. Mayor Wagner was not present.
c. Saltsburg Police Officer Henderson was present.
40. In reference to exceeding the speed limit violation (Citation No. 0350220), Todd
Wagner introduced the following documents into evidence:
a. A one page photostatic copy of a PennDOT letter addressed to Mayor
Ronald Wagner, dated November 1, 1995, from PennDOT Engineer
McNeal.
b. A one page photostatic copy of a PennDOT sign installation instruction
sheet.
41. Both of the documents introduced by Todd Wagner were obtained through
Mayor Wagner, based on his requested sign survey.
a. The documents were identical to those furnished to Mayor Wagner by
PennDOT.
42. Magistrate DeGruttola ruled that Todd Wagner was innocent of exceeding the
speed limit based on the documents entered into evidence.
a. The documents were obtained by Todd Wagner from his father, Mayor
Wagner.
b. The documents were those supplied to Mayor Wagner from PennDOT.
43. Todd Wagner was found guilty of disorderly conduct (Citation No. P37384) and
was ordered to pay a fine of $ 124.52.
44. If Todd Wagner would have been found guilty of exceeding the speed limit, he
would of received a fine and driver's license points.
a. The fine would have been $ 136.50.
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 9
b. The levied points against his driver's license would have been four.
45. The information obtained by Mayor Wagner from PennDOT which was used in
his son's successful defense of traffic citation no. 0350220 could only have
been obtained by the Mayor in his official capacity.
a. Requests for surveys to PennDOT as made in Mayor Wagner's letter of
October 18, 1995, will only be honored if the request is made by a public
official. (See Finding Nos. 25 & 26)
b. Wagner signed the letter as Mayor of Saltsburg Borough.
c. Wagner denies that such information could only be obtained by a public
official and avers that any citizen could obtain such information or any
party through legal action.
46. Wagner seeks a dismissal of the Investigative Complaint arguing inter alia:
a. His actions were taken to alleviate the general complaints of the public
and not to benefit his son as to a minimal traffic violation.
b. His concerns (as to the speed trap) were correct.
c. It is not illegal to transmit legal information to assist another in a legal
defense.
facts.
d. The action taken was de minimis.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Ronald Wagner, hereinafter
Wagner, 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,
The issue before us is whether Wagner, in his capacity as Mayor of Saltsburg
Borough, Indiana County, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) as
to the allegation that he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary
benefit of a member of his immediate family when through his position he caused the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to conduct a survey in an effort to have
a speed zone in the Borough declared illegal resulting in speeding charges being
dismissed against his son.
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" as defined under Act 9 of 1989 is quoted above.
Having noted the issue and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant
Wagner has served as Saltsburg Borough Mayor from January, 1993 to the
present. Saltsburg Borough maintains a part -time Police Department as to which
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 10
Wagner as Mayor has oversight responsibility. Wagner supervised the activities of the
Police Department until a Police Chief was hired. The Borough police force now
consists of a Chief who works approximately 20 hours a week and three part-time
officers.
After Frank Stanley (Stanley) was hired as the Saltsburg Borough Police Chief
in November, 1994, he implemented a policy to monitor vehicle speed within the
Borough through a speed trap utilizing an Accutrak device. Stanley selected one
particular section in the Borough to become a speed safety zone and had signs erected
indicating a speed reduction.
Borough residents and business owners were concerned about the number of
speed citations issued by the Police Department. One local merchant discussed the
problem with Wagner. The local merchant suggested that the matter be reviewed by
PennDOT and encouraged Wagner as Mayor to send a letter. However, Wagner took
no action at that time.
On October 10, 1995, a part-time Police Officer, who was operating the
Accutrak speed zone device, apprehended Wagner's son, Todd, for speeding in the
Borough. Todd Wagner then had a verbal confrontation with the Police Officer. Two
citations were issued to Todd Wagner: the first citation was for exceeding the speed
limit by 18 mph with fine and costs totaling $ 136.50 and the second citation was for
disorderly conduct with a fine and costs totaling $124.52. The speeding citation could
have added 4 points to Todd Wagner's record if he were found guilty. Todd Wagner
entered pleas of not guilty as to both citations and requested a hearing before a
District Justice.
After his son's arrest, Wagner voiced disapproval with the Borough speed trap
asserting that that zone was improperly signed. Wagner solicited the assistance of a
local merchant who was a former employee of PennDOT to compose a letter to
PennDOT concerning the speed trap. Although the letter was not on Borough
stationery, it was signed by Wagner as Saltsburg Borough Mayor. In the letter,
Wagner requested PennDOT's assistance in insuring that the speed limits in the
Borough were properly posted and enforced according to state law. Wagner further
wrote that he received numerous complaints concerning speed violation citations and
then posed a question as to whether the speed of vehicles could be timed 500 feet
after the warning sign or 500 feet after the actual beginning of the reduced speed
zone.
Wagner did not notify Stanley of his request to PennDOT. On October 20,
1995, Stanley, after advising Wagner of his intent, also wrote a letter to PennDOT
requesting a sign survey regarding the speed zone.
Wagner was subsequently contacted by PennDOT and advised that a Borough
survey was scheduled on November 1, 1995. Wagner and a Council Member met
with the PennDOT representative who prepared drawings as to the proper location for
speed signs in the Borough. Wagner was then formally advised by PennDOT as
follows: the Vehicle Code requires that speed devices may not be used within 500 feet
after a sign which indicates an upcoming decrease in speed; the "first" sign (to be
used for a speed check) would be the decreased speed sign but not a reduced speed
ahead warning sign; the 500 feet distance is considered a reasonable distance to allow
vehicles time to see the speed sign and react; and the letter was considered notice of
corrective measures to bring the Borough's speed zone into compliance. PennDOT's
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 11
letter was sent to Wagner at his home address. Wagner did not provide the Police
Chief or Members of Council with the letter. Wagner provided his son with the
PennDOT letter and sign drawings.
Stanley received a response from PennDOT wherein he was advised that a
meeting had occurred between PennDOT and Wagner and that PennDOT furnished the
Mayor with recommendations to make the speed safety zone enforceable in
accordance with the Vehicle Code.
As to Todd Wagner's hearing before a District Justice concerning the two
citations, Wagner was not present. Todd Wagner introduced into evidence the
PennDOT letter and a copy of a PennDOT speed sign installation sheet which had been
obtained by his father in his capacity as Mayor. The District Justice ruled that Todd
Wagner was innocent of the speeding charges but guilty of disorderly conduct. By
being found innocent of the speeding charge, Todd Wagner did not have to pay the
fine of $ 136.50 nor did he receive four points on his driving record.
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether
the actions of Wagner violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989.
Initially we note that Wagner in his Answer and in a Motion seeks a dismissal
of the Complaint arguing: his action was motivated to alleviate general complaints of
the public as to the speed trap; his concerns were shown to be correct; it is not illegal
to provide such information to assist another in legal proceedings; and lastly, his action
was de minimis.
As to the issue of Wagner's motivation, such matters are irrelevant as to the
issue of whether a violation of the Ethics Law occurred. See, Yocabet v. State Ethics
Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (1987). Regarding the argument that the action taken
was de minimis and involved a minimal traffic violation, we do not find such to be the
case. Schweinsburq, Order 900. The fact that Wagner's concerns were correct has
no impact upon whether a violation of the Ethics Law occurred. On the issue of
whether it is legal to transmit information to assist another in a legal defense, we do
not believe that the argument as phrased relates to the legal issue in this case.
Accordingly, we deny the Motion to Dismiss.
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. Each element of that statutory
definition must be operative to find a violation.
In this case, we find that Wagner used the authority of office. But for the fact
that Wagner was Mayor, he could not have requested the PennDOT analysis of the
speed zone in the Borough. The record reflects that it is only a public official who may
request such a survey from PennDOT. Further, Wagner made the request in a letter
signed as Mayor of Saltsburg Borough. Such actions clearly constituted a use of
authority of office. Juliante, Order 809.
The use of authority of office was for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary
benefit for Wagner's son. Although there were complaints about the speed trap prior
to Todd Wagner being arrested, Wagner took no action. It was only after Wagner's
son was issued speeding and disorderly conduct citations that Wagner wrote a letter
Wagner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 12
to PennDOT requesting a survey. Once that review was done and a letter and sign
drawings were received from PennDOT, Wagner gave those documents to his son for
the purpose of providing a defense at the hearing before the District Justice on the
matter of the two citations. The pecuniary benefit was for a member of Wagner's
immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Law:
Section 2. Definitions
"Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother
or sister.
65 P.S. §402.
The only remaining issue before us is whether the use of authority of office by
Wagner to obtain a pecuniary benefit for his son was a private pecuniary benefit.
There is prior Commission precedent on the issue of whether a pecuniary benefit
is private. We have held that if a financial gain is authorized in law, then the pecuniary
benefit is not private. Ackerly, Order 976. However, if a public official /employee uses
the authority of office for a financial gain which is not authorized in law, then such a
pecuniary benefit is private. See, Hessinger, Order 931 and Wassiela, Order 932,
affirmed in part and reversed in part (on other grounds), 673 A.2d 1004 (1996). We
have also held that a pecuniary benefit is private if the action of the public
official /employee eliminates or reduces out -of- pocket expenses which the public
official /employee is personally obligated to pay. Brink, Order 1007.
In the instant matter, the specific question is whether the use of authority of
office by Wagner to obtain a pecuniary benefit for his son is considered private when
the pecuniary benefit constitutes an exaction of a motor vehicle fine which is
demonstrated by a PennDOT study to be out of compliance with state law. It is our
view that since the traffic citation issued to Todd Wagner was illegal under state law
and PennDOT regulation, there was no basis in law for Todd Wagner to pay any fine
or costs as to the speeding citation. Thus, since there was no basis in law to exact
the payment of the fine and costs in the first instance, the use of authority of office
by Wagner to aid his son in not paying the illegal exaction did not constitute a private
pecuniary benefit. Since the pecuniary benefit in this case cannot be considered as
private, we find as a matter of law that there was no Section 3(a) violation by Wagner.
Restating and summarizing the above, it is clear to us that there was a use of
authority of office by Wagner for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary benefit for his
son. Wagner was motivated to aid his son as to the speeding citation and not the
general public since he took no action until after his son was issued a speeding
citation. However, as a matter of law, we must find no violation of Section 3(a) of the
Ethics Law because a use of authority of office to avoid paying an illegal exaction does
not constitute a private pecuniary benefit.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Ronald Wagner, as Mayor of Saltsburg Borough, Indiana County, is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
Wacaner, 96- 012 -C2
Page 13
2. Wagner did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he, as Mayor,
obtained a PennDOT analysis of a speed trap in the Borough which he gave to
his son which resulted in a dismissal of a speeding citation which, being an
illegal exaction by the Borough, did not constitute a private pecuniary benefit.
In Re: Ronald Wagner
File Docket:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
ORDER NO. 1028
BY THE COMMISSION,
96- 012 -C2
11/4/98
11/13/96
1. Ronald Wagner, as Mayor of Saltsburg Borough, Indiana County, did not violate
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he, as Mayor, obtained a PennDOT analysis
of a speed trap in the Borough which he gave to his son which resulted in a
dismissal of a speeding citation which, being an illegal exaction by the Borough,
did not constitute a private pecuniary benefit.
Au. E e d
DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR