Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1033 BowmanSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Richard C. Bowman, Jr. : File Docket: 96- 007 -C2 Date Decided: 11/25/96 Date Mailed: 12/2/96 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 el seq., 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 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. Bowman,, 96- 007 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Richard C. Bowman, Jr., a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Lamar Township, Clinton County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when a business with which he and /or members of his immediate family is associated, R.C. Bowman & Sons, contracted with the township in excess of $500 without an open and public process; and when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit of a member of his immediate family and /or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions and /or discussions of the board of supervisors to award contracts and make payments to R.C. Bowman & Sons and Richard Bowman, Sr. Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. (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(a), (f). II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that Richard C. Bowman, Jr., 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. 3. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on February 14, 1996. 4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. Bowman 96- 007 -C2 Page 3 5. On April 12, 1996, a letter was forwarded to Richard C. Bowman, Jr., 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. Z 129 438 610. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Richard Bowman, Jr., with a delivery date of April 13, 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 C. Bowman, Jr., 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 October 8, 1996. 9. Richard C. Bowman, Jr., has served as a Lamar Township Supervisor since 1991. a. Bowman also serves as a Township Roadmaster. b. All three members of the board of supervisors are appointed roadmasters. 10. Bowman owned his own excavating business from 1970 until 1995. a. The name of the business was R.C. Bowman Excavating. b. The business address was Box 492 -C, R.D. #1, Mili Hall, Pennsylvania, which is Bowman's personal residence. 11. On January 1, 1995, Bowman transferred ownership of the excavating business to his two sons, Robert K. Bowman and Richard C. Bowman, III. a. Bowman's sons worked in the business since they were young children. b. The business continues to operate from Box 492 -C, Mili Hall, Pennsylvania. c. Both Robert K. Bowman and Richard C. Bowman, III, reside at this address. 12. Richard C. Bowman, Jr., and his wife have real estate holdings known as =R.K. Enterprises. 13. R.K. Enterprises rents building space to R.C. Bowman Excavating for the storage of equipment. 14. In 1995 Bowman's sons doing business as R.C. Bowman Excavating paid $24,000 rent to R.K. Enterprises. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 4 15. In January, 1995, the Lamar Township Supervisors solicited bids for heavy equipment rental, including truck excavator, front end loader, backhoe, tandem dump truck, single axle dump truck and skid steer loader. a. The supervisors were planning repairs to Duck Run Road. 16. The bid specifications for the heavy equipment rental included the following: a. 36,000 to 38,000 Ib class truck excavator 120 hp minimum 40" bucket Full hydraulic with pilot controls b. 1 1/2 cubic yard track type front end loader 75 hp minimum Minimum 20,000 Ib machine c. Backhoe Loader 580k case or equal 4 wheel Extendable Hoe d. Tandem dump truck Minimum 54,000 Ib GVW 210 hp minimum e. Single axle dump truck Minimum 35,000 Ib GVW 210 hp minimum f. Skid steer loader 675 -B John Deere or equal 17. One bid was submitted for the equipment rental. 18. On January 9, 1995, Lamar Township Supervisors voted to reject the bids [sic] because it did not include an operator with the equipment. a. Nevin Courter, the only bidder pointed out the specs did not request bids with operator. Dick Bowman made a motion to reject all bids and rewrite specs to include operator. Bill Garbrick seconded, passed 3/0. 19. Lamar Township Supervisors Richard C. Bowman, Jr. , and William Garbrick rewrote the bid specifications for the heavy equipment rental. 20. The Lamar Township Supervisors advertised in the Lock Haven Express on January 18 and 24, 1995, announcing they were accepting bids for heavy equipment rental at the meeting on February 13, 1995. 21. The new bid specifications prepared by Bowman and Garbrick for the equipment was itemized as follows: a. All equipment must be 1985 model year or newer. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 5 b. Equipment must be in good operating condition. c. All equipment must be free of engine oil leaks, hydraulic oil leaks, and fuel leakage. d. All equipment shall be solely owned by the bidder, and at the request of a supervisor, written proof of ownership shall be provided. e. All equipment shall be made available to the township within a two hour notice. f. At the request of the supervisor the bidder shall provide a $5,000.00 performance bond and certificate of liability insurance. 22. The Equipment List which had to be bid with an operator and without one, listed the equipment needed for the bid. a. Respondent disputes the accuracy of the Investigative Complaint's recitation of the equipment list. (1) Per the Investigative Complaint, the equipment list was as follows: a. A 32,000 Ibs to 38,000 Ibs track excavator with a 40" rock bucket and pilot controls. b. A track loader with a maximum operating weight of 20,000 Ibs minimum of 85 horsepower, and a 11/2 cubic yard bucket. c. A four wheel drive backhoe with extendable boom, and weight and power specifications equal to that of a Case 580 super K. d. A tandem dump truck with a G.V.W. of 54,000 lbs and a minimum horsepower of 190. e. A single axle dump truck with a G.V.W. of 35,000 Ibs and a minimum horsepower of 190. f. A skid steer loader with specifications equal to that of a 675 -B John Deere. b. Respondent has submitted a copy of the equipment list which, if true, only differs from the list set forth in the Investigative Complaint in the following two respects. (1) As to the first item on the list, Respondent's copy bears the handwritten notation, "No horsepower requirement." (2) As to the horsepower of the fourth item on the list, a tandem dump truck, the Investigative Complaint indicates the horsepower as 190 and the Respondent's list indicates the horsepower as 210. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 6 23. Robert K. Bowman and Richard C. Bowman, III, of R.C. Bowman Excavating, submitted the only bid. 24. The Bowman Excavating bid included the following: With Operator Without Operator a. $65.00 $50.00 A 32,000 Ibs to 38,000 Ibs track excavator with a 40" rock bucket and pilot controls b. $50.00 $40.00 c. $45.00 $35.00 d. $35.00 $25.00 b. The invoice included the following: A track loader with a maximum operating weight of 20,000 Ibs minimum of 85 horsepower, and a 1 1/2 cubic yard bucket A four wheel drive backhoe with extendable boom, and weight and power specifications equal to that of a Case 580 super K A single axle dump truck with a G.V.W. of 35,000 lbs and a minimum horsepower of 190. 25. The specifications in No. [211 were not included in the original bid. a. Supervisors Bowman and Garbrick heard rumors that some of Courter's equipment leaked oil. 26. On February 13, 1995, the Lamar Township Supervisors voted to accept the bid of R.C. Bowman Excavating for heavy equipment. a. This was the only bid received. b. Township Supervisor Bowman was not present at the meeting. c. The vote to approve was by a 2 to 0 vote. 27. R.C. Bowman Excavating was utilized for the placement of Rip -rap on the embankment of Duck Run Road. a. This occurred during the period from March 7, 1995, through March 10, 1995. 28. R.C. Bowman & Sons Excavating billed Lamar Township on June 30, 1995, in the amount of $1,395.00 for work that was completed March 7, 1995, through March 10, 1995. a. Payment was to be made payable to Richard C. Bowman or Robert K. Bowman. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 7 29. The Bowman bill was part of a listing of bills approved for payment. a. Township Supervisor Bowman was not present at the meeting. b. The vote to approve payment was 2 to 0. c. Check Number 172 from the Lamar Township Supervisors State Account was paid to the order of Robert K. Bowman in the amount of $1,395.00 on July 10, 1995. d. Check Number 172 was signed by Supervisors William Garbrick and Robert Miller. 30. The estimated profit made by R.C. Bowman Excavating for the work performed at Duck Run Road was $558.00. a. The estimate was determined by Richard and Robert Bowman. 31. Bowman Excavating was also used by Lamar Township to clear a nuisance property. a. The property was owned by a George and Muriel Styers. 32. On June 21, 1995, the Styers' gave Lamar Township the permission to dispose of their house and shed on the property they owned. The township employees performed work on the property which included cutting the grass, cleaning up the property and the use of equipment. 33. R.C. Bowman and Sons Excavating was authorized by Secretary /Treasurer Miller to perform demolition work at the Styers' property. a. 27 hours 1 hour 888 Case Truck Hoe Mack Truck & Rogers TOTAL DUE $50 /hour $45 /hour $1,350.00 $ 45.00 $1,395.00 34. R.C. Bowman and Sons Excavating billed Lamar Township on July 31, 1995, in the amount of $140.00 for the work they completed at the Styers' property. 35. The check [paying the bill] was signed by Township Supervisor Richard C. Bowman, William Garbrick, and Secretary /Treasurer Robert Miller. 36. On August 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors approved bill listings for payment which included the payment made to R.C. Bowman Excavating by a 3 -0 margin. a. Richard C. Bowman was present and participated in the vote. 37. The estimated profit made by R.C. Bowman Excavating for the work performed at the Styers' property amounted to $109.00. 38. Richard C. Bowman, Sr., is the father of Township Supervisor Richard C. Bowman, Jr. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 8 39. During the summer of 1994, Secretary /Treasurer Robert Miller contacted Richard C. Bowman, Sr., to inquire about the township using his air compressor. a. The air compressor was to be used on the township roads. 40. The township did not advertise or obtain any bids for the use of an air compressor. 41. Bowman was not aware the township was using his father's air compressor until he saw it at the township building. 42. Richard C. Bowman, Sr., billed Lamar Township on August 20, 1994, in the amount of $1,085.00 for the rental of an air compressor for seven weeks. a. The rate charged was $155.00 per week. b. The rate charged by Richard C. Bowman, Sr., was competitive with what other businesses charge. 43. Check number 129 from the Lamar Township Supervisors State Account was paid to the order of Richard C. Bowman, Sr., on August 22, 1994, in the amount of $1,085. 44. At the September 12, 1994, Lamar Township Supervisors Meeting for September 12, 1994 [sic], indicated all bills were approved for payment which included the payment made to Richard C. Bowman, Sr., by a 3 -0 margin. a. Richard C. Bowman, Jr., participated in the vote. 45. The estimated profit made by Richard C. Bowman, Sr., for the rental of the air compressor was $ 542.50. 46. Total profit made for the excavation work and rental of air compressor by members of Richard C. Bowman's immediate family: a. Duck Run Road (See Finding No. [301) $ 558.00 b. Air Compressor (See Finding No. [371) $ 542.50 c. Styers' Property (See Finding No. [45]) $ 109.00 TOTAL $1,209.50 47. In commentary to his Answer, Respondent has asserted that the bid list was rewritten to be Tess restrictive than the first, in the hope of getting more bidders; that items were added to protect the Township at the advice of the Department of Environmental Protection and County Conservation Office staff; and that seven specified contractors who had previously bid and rented equipment to the Township could have bid, and that it was hoped they would bid since the Duck Run project had to be completed before April 15, 1995. a. Respondent has submitted a copy of "Guidelines for Preparation of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan" published by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission which states, inter alia: Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 9 III. DISCUSSION: Any and all equipment work will be done from the stream bank. Equipment should be inspected to ensure that there is no leaking of lubricants, fuels, hydraulic fluids, etc. At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Richard C. Bowman, Jr., hereinafter Bowman, 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 sea. The issues before us are whether Bowman violated Sections 3(a) and 3(f) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) as to the allegations that a business with which he and /or members of his immediate family is associated, R.C. Bowman Excavating, contracted with the township in excess of $500 without an open and public process; and when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit of a member of his immediate family and /or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions and /or discussions of the board of supervisors to award contracts and make payments to R.C. Bowman Excavating and Richard Bowman, Sr. 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: 65 P.S. §402. 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. Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law quoted above imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Section 3(f) specifically provides in part that no business with which a public official /public employee, his spouse, or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 10 Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the material facts. Richard C. Bowman, Jr. ( "Bowman "), has served as one of the three Township Supervisors in Lamar Township since 1991. All three Supervisors, including Bowman, also serve as appointed Township Roadmasters. In his private capacity, from 1970 until 1995, Bowman owned an excavating business named "R.C. Bowman Excavating." On January 1, 1995, Bowman transferred ownership of the excavating business to his two sons, Robert K. Bowman and Richard C. Bowman, III. There are three factual scenarios set forth in the Findings that must be addressed in this case. The first factual scenario involves bidding and subsequent work performed for the Township at "Duck Run Road." In January, 1995, the Lamar Township Supervisors were in the process of soliciting bids for the rental of six pieces of heavy equipment for making repairs to Duck Run Road. The original bid specifications were as set forth in Finding 16. Initially, only one bid was submitted for the equipment rental. That bid was submitted by Nevin Courter, not R.C. Bowman Excavating. Respondent Bowman made a motion to reject the bid and to rewrite the specifications to include an operator. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, 3 -0. Thereafter, Respondent Bowman and one of the other Supervisors, William Garbrick, rewrote the bid specifications to not only require the inclusion of an operator, but to also change the particular requirements for four of the six pieces of heavy equipment — the four pieces of equipment for which R.C. Bowman Excavating ultimately submitted a bid. The specifications for the other two pieces of heavy equipment for which Bowman's sons did not submit a bid were not changed. Furthermore, Bowman had heard rumors that some of Courter's equipment leaked oil (see, Finding 25a). The new bid specifications as co- authored by Bowman excluded any such equipment. The new requirements included restrictions as to the age, condition, ownership, and availability of the equipment and in particular, required that "All equipment must be free of engine oil Teaks, hydraulic oil leaks, and fuel leakage." (Finding 21c). We note that in commentary submitted with his Answer to the Investigative Complaint, Bowman has proffered that the bid list was rewritten to be less restrictive than the first, in the hope of getting more bidders; that items were added to protect the Township at the advice of the Department of Environmental Protection and County Conservation Office staff; and that seven specified contractors who had previously bid and rented equipment to the Township could have bid, and that it was hoped that they would, bid since the "Duck Run Project" had to be completed before April 15, 1995. Respondent has also submitted a copy of "Guidelines for Preparation of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan" published by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission which states, inter alia: "Any and all equipment work will be done from the stream bank. Equipment should be inspected to ensure that there is no leaking of lubricants, fuels, hydraulic fluids, etc." Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 11 The Lamar Township Supervisors advertised in the Lock Haven Express on January 18 and 24, 1995, announcing that they were accepting bids for heavy equipment rental at the meeting on February 13, 1995. The new bid specifications were as prepared by Bowman and Garbrick. This time, R.C. Bowman Excavating submitted the only bid. On February 13, 1995, the Lamar Township Supervisors voted to accept that bid. Bowman was not present at the meeting and the vote to approve was 2 -0 by the other two Supervisors. From March 7, 1995 through March 10, 1995, R.C. Bowman Excavating worked on the embankment of Duck Run Road. R.C. Bowman Excavating billed the Township in the amounf of $1,395 for that work. The Bowman bill was part of a listing of bills approved for payment. The Respondent was not present at the meeting when the bill was approved, and the vote to approve payment was 2 -0. The Township's check paying R.C. Bowman Excavating was not signed by the Respondent — it was signed by the other two Supervisors. Respondent's sons estimate that the profit made by R.C. Bowman Excavating for the work performed at Duck Run Road was $558. The second factual scenario involves the Township's use of R.C. Bowman Excavating for demolition work to clear a nuisance property owned by George and Muriel Styers. R.C. Bowman Excavating was authorized to perform the demolition work by the Township Secretary /Treasurer, Robert Miller. On July 31, 1995, R.C. Bowman Excavating billed Lamar Township in the amount of $140 for the work. On August 14, 1995, all three Supervisors, including the Respondent, voted to approve bill listings which included the payment to R.C. Bowman Excavating for that work. All three Supervisors, including the Respondent, signed the check to pay that particular bill. The estimated profit made by R.C. Bowman Excavating for the demolition work performed at the Styers' property amounted to $109. The third and final factual scenario involves the Township's rental of an air compressor owned by the Respondent's father. During the summer of 1994, the Township Secretary /Treasurer, Robert Miller, contacted Respondent's father, Richard C. Bowman, Sr., to inquire about the Township using his air compressor on the Township roads. The Township did not advertise or obtain any bids for the use of an air compressor. Respondent Bowman was not aware that the Township was using his father's air compressor until he saw it at the Township Building. On August 20, 1994, Respondent's father billed Lamar Township in the amount of $1,085 for the rental of the air compressor for seven weeks. The rate was competitive with rates charged by other businesses. On August 22, 1994, a Township check was issued to Respondent's father in the amount of $1,085. Subsequently, at the September 12, 1994 Township meeting, Respondent participated in the 3 -0 vote to approve all bills for payment, including the payment to his father. The estimated profit made by Respondent's father from the rental of the air compressor was $542.50. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Bowman violated Section 3(a) and /or Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989. With regard to the first factual scenario involving the Duck Run Road Project, the Investigative Division is seeking Section 3(a) violations (Closing Statement of the Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 12 Investigative Division at 9, paragraphs 1 -2). The elements of a Section 3(a) violation are the use of the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Two uses of authority of office have been established. At about the same time he transferred his company to his sons, Respondent used the authority of his public office to make a motion and vote to reject the only bid — Courter's bid — that had been submitted for the Township project and to rewrite the specifications to include an operator. The second use of authority of office occurred when Bowman, together with another Supervisor, rewrote those specifications to not only require the inclusion of an operator, but to change the actual specifications for the four individual pieces of equipment for which his sons' company subsequently submitted a bid. As noted above, there were also new specifications which specifically excluded any leaky equipment. After rewriting the specifications, Respondent took no further action in this matter. The admitted averments of the Investigative Complaint establish that Bowman was not present at either the meeting to accept the bid submitted by his son's company or at the meeting to approve payment of the bill, and that the check issued to R.C. Bowman Excavating for the work at Duck Run Road was signed by the other two Supervisors, not by Bowman. We find that although the above facts could be viewed as suspicious, they do not rise to the level of "clear and convincing evidence" to support a Section 3(a) violation. Both of Respondent's uses of authority of office occurred before his sons' company submitted any bid as to the Duck Run Road project. There are no facts to establish that Respondent knew his sons would be submitting a bid. After his sons had submitted a bid, Bowman took no action in the matter. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any history of prior dealings between the Township and R.C. Bowman Excavating, so there is no basis in the record to conclude that there was a reasonable and legitimate expectation that R.C. Bowman Excavating would submit a bid (see,, Garner, Opinion 93 -004; Snyder, Order 979 -2). We are constrained to find that there was no violation of Section 3(a) as to the first factual scenario. Turning to the second factual scenario involving demolition work at the Styers' "nuisance" property, we find that Respondent Bowman committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) when he participated in the Township's approval of the payment for that work by R.C. Bowman Excavating and when he signed the check that was issued to pay for same. The finding of a technical Section 3(a) violation as to this factual scenario is in accordance with our prior precedent. Perino, Order No. 980. Turning to the third and final scenario involving the Township's rental of the Respondent's father's air compressor, we find a technical violation of Section 3(a) and no violation of Section 3(f). As for the Section 3(a) technical violation, although Bowman did not authorize the acquisition of his father's air compressor for the Township's use, and indeed was not even aware that the Township was using the air compressor until he saw it at the Township building, Respondent Bowman did participate in the vote that approved his father's bill among the other bills approved for payment at the September 1 2, 1 994 meeting. The finding of a technical violation is supported by our prior precedent. See, Perino, Order No. 980, supra. Bowman, 96- 007 -C2 Page 13 As for Section 3(f), no violation occurred in that Section 3(f) is statutorily limited to contracts involving the public official /public employee, his spouse or child, or a business with which the public official /public employee, his spouse or child is associated. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Richard C. Bowman, Jr., as a Supervisor in Lamar Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, Bowman did not violate Section 3(a) when, in January- February, 1995, he made the motion and voted to reject the initial bid received on the Duck Run Road project and participated in rewriting the bid specifications for the rental of equipment for that project for which his sons' company was subsequently the successful bidder. 3. Bowman committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) when, in July- August, 1995, he participated in the Township's approval of payment and signed the check for demolition work performed by his sons' company, R.C. Bowman Excavating, at the Styers' property. 4. Bowman committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) when, on September 12, 1994, he participated in the Township's approval of payment for the Township's rental of an air compressor from Bowman's father. 5. Bowman did not violate Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to his father's rental to the Township of an air compressor in that Section 3(f) is limited to contracts involving the public official /public employee, his spouse or child, or a business with which the public official /public employee, his spouse or child is associated. In Re: Richard C. Bowman, Jr. : File Docket: 96- 007 -C2 Date Decided: 11/25/96 Date Mailed: 12/2/96 ORDER NO. 1033 1 In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, Richard C. Bowman, Jr., as a Supervisor in Lamar Township, Clinton County, Pennsylvania, did not violate Section 3(a) when, in January- February, 1995, he made the motion and voted to reject the initial bid received on the Duck Run Road project and participated in rewriting the bid specifications for the rental of equipment for that project for which his sons' company was subsequently the successful bidder. 2. Bowman committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) when, in July - August, 1995, he participated in the Township's approval of payment and signed the check for demolition work performed by his sons' company, R.C. Bowman Excavating, at the Styers' property. 3. Bowman committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) when, on September 12, 1994, he participated in the Township's approval of payment for the Township's rental of an air compressor from Bowman's father. 4. Bowman did not violate Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to his father's rental to the Township of an air compressor in that Section 3(f) is limited to contracts involving the public official /public employee, his spouse or child, or a business with which the public official /public employee, his spouse or child is associated. BY THE COMMISSION, c v' /2 t DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR