HomeMy WebLinkAbout1037 MetrickIn Re: Michael Metrick
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 95- 035 -C2
Date Decided: 2/20/97
Date Mailed: 3/7/97
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
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 gi 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 held. The record is complete.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission will be made available as a
public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However,
reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at
this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed
explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity
with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality
of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by
the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Act 9 of 1989,
65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty
of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not
more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this
case with an attorney at law.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
II. FINDINGS:
That Michael Metrick, a public employee in his capacity as an Income
Maintenance Caseworker for the Department of Public Welfare, Butler Office, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his
office, and /or the offices of the Department of Public Welfare, and /or confidential
information obtained in said position in an effort to obtain a private pecuniary benefit
for himself and /or the Primerica Insurance Company, a business with which he is
associated.
A. Pleadings
1. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated an
own - motion preliminary inquiry on May 12, 1995.
2. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
3. On July 11, 1995, a letter was forwarded to Michael Metrick, by the Executive
Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against
him was initiated by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was
being commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. P 016 239 535.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of M. Metrick with a
delivery date of July 15, 1995.
4. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the Executive Director
of the State Ethics Commission.
5. On September 22, 1995, the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission
filed an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the
Investigation.
6. The Commission issued an order on October 26, 1995, granting the ninety day
extension.
7. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on April 5, 1996.
8. Michael G. Metrick was employed by the Butler County Assistance Office of the
Department of Public Welfare from January 3, 1972 through July 7, 1994.
a. Metrick was suspended on June 9, 1994, and terminated on July 7,
1994.
9. Metrick held the position of Income Maintenance Caseworker (IMC) from
August 31, 1973 to July 7, 1994.
a. Between 12/14/84 and 04/14/91, his responsibilities changed to that of
a Screener.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 3
(1) During this time, Metrick was still considered an IMC.
10. The classification specification for an income maintenance caseworker provides
as follows:
a. This is professional work assessing clients' social services and
employment needs, determining client eligibility for Income Maintenance
Program services and making appropriate referrals for services.
b. An employee in this class performs a variety of professional duties in the
determination of eligibility for financial assistance and related income
maintenance program services. Eligibility determination work involves
interviewing clients in the office and in the field and investigating
resources to secure, evaluate and interpret date essential to making a
decision on eligibility.
c. Responsibility for determination or redetermination action rests with the
worker.
d. Employees assist clients in preparing for and locating employment.
Employees may also become involved with representing selected clients
in applying for and receiving federally funded benefits under the SSI
program.
e. EXAMPLES OF WORK: Interviews applicants to determine eligibility for
financial assistance and related income maintenance programs, such as,
but not limited to, Cash Assistance, Medical Assistance, Food Stamps,
Nursing Home Care, and Employment Referrals.
Determines eligibility for various categories of assistance based on such
factors as income, personal property, real property, legally responsible
relatives and employment status.
Evaluates special needs of clients; authorizes grants which conform to
agency requirements, or makes referrals to other community resources.
Redetermines eligibility through periodic review of client situations.
Determines occurrence and circumstances of overpayments and refers
information to the Office of Fraud and Abuse Investigation and
Restitution for resolution.
Provides clients or members of their family with information regarding
services available from other social agencies, hospitals, clinics, courts
and community resources, as needed.
Assists clients in locating employment through the Pennsylvania
Employables Programs; develop job listing of prospective employers; and
monitors clients in Community Work Experience Program; and imposes
sanctions as necessary.
Represents one or more clients in the process of obtaining SSI benefits.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 4
11. The job duties of an Income Maintenance Caseworker are as follows, as set
forth in Metrick's job description:
• Interview clients in order to secure, evaluate, and interpret data essential
to determining eligibility for cash grant, food stamps, and medical
assistance (NMP and MNO).
• Obtain information from applicants and recipients by telephone, postal
service, office visits, and monthly reporting forms. When appropriate,
make home visits (OM 86 -3 -7). If necessary, verify eligibility factors
through third parties.
• All work is performed in accordance with established policy and
procedure.
• Evaluate requests for special needs grants and authorization of the same
in compliance with regulations.
• Evaluate all inquiries from applicants or recipients for eligibility for
expedited services.
• Explore potential resources and explain reimbursement policies to clients.
Make appropriate referrals to FAIR. Determine the occurrence of
overpayments and under - issuances and take corrective action.
• Explain client's rights and responsibilities. Refer clients to other agencies
when appropriate. Explain all programs available to clients, including but
not limited to, EPSDT, LIHEAP, and emergency assistance.
• Use VDT to obtain case information. Maintain and update all reference
material, IMBs, and Operations Memoranda.
• Attend training classes as required.
• Perform other related duties as required.
12. Metrick obtained supplementary employment in 1992, white working as an
Income Maintenance Caseworker for the Butler County Assistance Office of the
Department of Public Welfare.
13. Metrick received his license to sell life insurance on July 6, 1992.
a. Metrick's license authorized him to sell life insurance only.
b. Metrick was licensed to sell life insurance from July 6, 1992 through July
7, 1994, during which time period he was employed as an Income
Maintenance Caseworker II by the BCAO.
(1) As of 09/14/95, Metrick's license was active.
14. Metrick began working as an independent agent for Primerica Life Insurance
Company, 3120 Brackenridge Boulevard, Duluth, Georgia 30199 in July 1992.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 5
a. Metrick reported to the Primerica Financial Services Office located at
2661 Clearview Road, Allison Park, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but did not
have an office there.
b. Primerica Life Insurance Company provides Term Life policies only.
15. In his capacity as an independent contractor for Primerica Life Insurance
Company, Metrick was compensated as follows:
a. Commissions on policies sold were advanced upon the company's receipt
of a signed application for a life insurance policy.
(1) Commissions paid on policies that were subsequently canceled
were charged back against the agent's account.
b. Override commissions from policies sold by agents recruited by Metrick
to work for Primerica.
16. The Department of Public Welfare County Assistance Offices utilize a generic
twelve page application which allows an applicant for assistance to choose the
benefit(s) they wish to apply for, and if eligible, receive. The front page of the
application (page 1) lists the types of assistance as follows:
Cash Assistance Food Stamps
Medical Assistance Other
17. Applicant eligibility is determined by the Income Maintenance Caseworker at the
time of interview, when the Caseworker reviews the information supplied with
the applicant.
a. Applicants are present during the interview by the Income Maintenance
Caseworker.
18. According to the Department of Public Welfare guidelines, eligibility for
assistance is determined when the following factors are completed:
• Collecting information from clients and third party sources.
• Using collateral contacts to verify the validity of information provided.
• Documenting the information in case record or computer (Client
Information System).
• Interpreting regulations.
• Notifying client in writing of agency /caseworker decision.
• Authorizing or denying benefits for various cash, medical, or food stamp
programs.
• In the event of client appeal, representing the Department at hearings.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 6
19. Client confidentiality is a standard policy which applies to all programs
administered by the Department of Public Welfare, including the application
process for assistance at the county level.
a. Paragraph three of the "Client Rights" section on page 11 of the standard
application includes the following provision on client confidentiality:
"We keep information you give confidential and use it only to administer
the programs you apply for and /or may be eligible for..."
20. Applicants are required to sign an "Authorization for Release of Information"
(DPW PA 4 Form) which authorizes the County Assistance Office to obtain
confidential information in order to determine eligibility.
a. A restriction on the use of that information provides that information will
be used only for purposes directly related to eligibility.
21. In his position as an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO, Metrick
reviewed and approved applications for public assistance.
a. This included applications submitted by all of the individuals listed in
Finding No. 23.
22. Metrick provided his telephone number at the BCAO to clients if they needed to
reach him about their life insurance.
a. Metrick referred clients to Primerica for employment.
23. Metrick made contact with eleven DPW clients as an agent of Primerica while
in his capacity as an Income Maintenance Caseworker.
a. Clients are referenced by name at DPW at the time of their application.
b. Clients, [T.K.], [D.L.] and [P.M.], were referred by Metrick to Primerica
for employment.
c. Clients, [G.M.] and [M.P.] refused Metrick's solicitation.
d. Clients, [L.H.], [T.B.], [D.L.], [N.E.], [T.S.] and [K.C.], submitted
applications for life insurance policies through Metrick.
24. Eight clients of the Butler County Assistance Office (BCAO), who were
interviewed by Metrick, applied for life insurance policies with Primerica Life
Insurance Company between April 1992, and July 1994.
a. Active policies are held by [M. and L.H.] and [B.D.].
(1) [B.D.'s] application interview was not conducted by Metrick.
b. Active policies subsequently were cancelled by the following clients:
[T.B.]
[D.L.]
Metrick 95- 035 -C2
Page 7
[T.S.]
[N.E.]
c. The policy of [K.C.] and [P.M.] were declined by Primerica Insurance
Company.
25. [T.B.'s] first applied for medical assistance and food stamps and was
interviewed by Metrick, an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [T.B.].
b. The Affidavit is signed by [T.B.] and Metrick.
c. The application includes life insurance information in [T.B.'s] handwriting.
(1) Two policies with American General Insurance Company are
identified, one for $10,000.00 coverage on [T.B.], and one for
$25,000.00 coverage on her child.
26. [T.B.] re- applied for medical assistance, food stamps and cash assistance and
was interviewed by Metrick.
27. Upon review of [T.B.'s] original (1993) Application, Metrick determined that she
was eligible for food stamps and medical assistance.
28. During the interview, Metrick told [T.B.] that he could introduce her to some
people at a meeting, which could lead to earning extra money to supplement her
income.
a. The meeting was held at the Primerica Office, located at 2661 Clearview
Road, Allison Park, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
(1) This was the office that Metrick was assigned to.
(2) [T.B.] was told to bring a friend.
b. At the meeting, [T.B.] observed video presentations on the approach of
Primerica Financial Services to selling insurance.
(1) [T.B.] did not realize that Metrick was talking about selling
insurance when he talked about the meeting at the BCAO.
c. [T.B.] advised Metrick that they were not interested in selling insurance,
but would be interested in a new insurance policy.
(1) [T.B.] had two existing policies with American General Insurance
Company, and had recently increased the coverage.
(2) [T.B.] did purchase insurance from Primerica.
d. Metrick advised [T.B.] that the majority of the policy should be on her,
and that only a rider was needed for her child.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 8
(1) [T.B.]'s policy premium doubled when changed to Primerica.
(2) The policy coverage increased to $50,000.00 on [T.B.], which
included a $5,000.00 child rider for her son.
29. Primerica Financial Services insurance policy #0430184315 was obtained for
[T.B.], by Metrick.
a. The monthly premium payments were $48.51.
b. The application for insurance was signed.
c. [T.B.] was interviewed at the BCAO.
d. Metrick signed the Agent Certification, attached to the application.
30. Metrick solicited [T.B.], and subsequently sold insurance to her within one
month of her interview at the County Assistance Office.
31. The information used by Metrick to determine what life insurance [T.B.] had
was confidential information that he obtained through his public position.
32. [K.C.] submitted an application for medical assistance dated.
33. The application reflects the following:
a. An interview date is reflected on the Affidavit.
b. Metrick's signature, as the Intake Maintenance Caseworker, appears on
the Affidavit.
c. Life insurance information is reflected in Metrick's handwriting on the
application.
d. DPW Form PA 4, Authorization for Release of Information was signed by
[K.C.] and Metrick.
34. Upon review of [K.C.]'s application, Metrick determined that she was eligible for
medical assistance.
a. The cover page of the Application reflects authorization of the benefits
in Metrick's handwriting.
35. During the interview, Metrick advised [K.C.] that, in his opinion, [K.C.]'s life
insurance company was taking advantage of her.
a. The life insurance information is reflected in Metrick's handwriting.
b. [K.C.] had two policies with Prudential Insurance Company. A
$20,000.00 policy covered her and her spouse. A $15,216.00 policy
covered her spouse and two children.
Metricl, 95- 035 -C2
Page 9
c. When [K.C.] asked if the life insurance made them ineligible for medical
assistance, Metrick told her that the present company was taking
advantage of them.
d. Metrick told [K.C.] that her money could be put to better use if someone
knew how to manage it for them, and that he could help her with it.
(1) [K.C.] felt compelled to respond positively to Metrick's offer so as
not to jeopardize the medical assistance.
(2) Metrick supplied [K.C.] with his name and phone number on a
piece of paper.
36. During the appointment at [K.C.]'s home, Metrick requested a check from her
and her spouse after completing an application for life insurance with Primerica.
a. [K.C.] gave Metrick a post dated check to get him to leave. She had no
intention of obtaining a policy with Primerica at the time the check was
given to Metrick.
b. [K.C.] either cancelled the check with the bank or wrote to Primerica to
cancel.
37. [K.C.] completed an application for life insurance for Primerica Life Insurance
Company.
a. The Agent Certification attached to the application was signed by Metrick
as the licensed agent.
b. The application was completed three days after [K.C.] was interviewed
by Metrick at the BCAO.
38. Records of Primerica Life Insurance Company reflect that the application of
[K.C.] was declined or closed as incomplete by the company on 07/14/93.
a. A policy was never issued for [K.C.].
39. [L.H.] was referred to the BCAO by Butler Hospital to apply for medical
assistance to pay bills incurred by her spouse's hospital stay.
40. [L.H.] was interviewed by Metrick, Income Maintenance Caseworker, the same
day she went to the BCAO.
a. Metrick completed the application.
41. Upon review of [L.H.'s] application, Metrick determined that she was eligible for
medical assistance.
a. The cover page of both applications reflects authorization of the benefits
in Metrick's handwriting.
42. DPW Form PA 4, Authorization for Release of Information, was signed by [L.H.]
and Metrick on 02/16/94.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 10
43. During the interview, Metrick asked [L.H.] questions about life insurance
policies.
a. The application reflects three policies: a $10,000.00 policy with Met
Life in [M.H.'s] name; a $50,000.00 policy with Kansas City Life in
[M.H.'s] name; a $25,000.00 policy with Kansas City Life in [L.H.'s]
name.
b. Metrick told [M. and L.H.] he knew someone who could save them
money on their life insurance policies and get them better coverage.
(1) Metrick advised [L.H.] that he could not discuss it in detail at the
BCAO.
44. Metrick sold [M. and L.H.] a Primerica policy, for essentially the same premium
they were paying, with an additional $40,000.00 coverage.
a. [M. and L.H.] gave Metrick a post dated check for the premium.
45. Metrick successfully convinced [M. and L.H.] to drop their existing policies, but
was not successful in convincing them to invest the cash value of the policies
with him.
46. Metrick made three visits to [M. and L.H.]'s home:
a. The first visit was to discuss their insurance policies;
b. The second visit was to provide them with the Primerica policy;
c. The third unannounced visit was to inform them that he had retired from
the BCAO.
47. Metrick tried to recruit [M. and L.H.] as agents for Primerica on two of the three
visits to their home.
48. As a result of cashing in the whole life policies with Met Life and Kansas City,
[M. and L.H.] have no financial back -up.
a. If delinquent on the premium payments on the whole life policies, the
payment would be made from the cash value of the policy.
b. Since the Primerica policy is term insurance, with no cash value, if [M.
and L.H.] miss a payment, the policy is lost.
49. Records of Primerica Life Insurance Company reflect that policy #0430512412
was obtained for [L.H.] by Metrick.
a. The monthly premiums are $50.83.
b. The application was signed.
c. [L.H.] was interviewed at the BCOA.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 11
d. Metrick signed the Agent Certification attached to the application, as the
licensed agent.
e. The policy is active.
50. [P.M.] applied for medical assistance and food stamps in October, 1993, and
was interviewed by Metrick, an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the Application is signed by [P.M.] and dated
10/21/93.
b. The Affidavit is signed by [P.M.] and Metrick, and dated 10/28/93.
51. [P.M.] completed the life insurance information of the October, 1993,
application to the Butler County Assistance Office.
a. During the interview, Metrick asked [P.M.] if the $ 100,000.00 policy on
his spouse had a cash value.
b. [P.M.] informed Metrick that the policy had been obtained only one
month before the application with the BCAO.
c. Metrick did not comment further on the life insurance.
52. Metrick offered [P.M.] a name and phone number of someone at Primerica to
contact about a sales related position.
a. Metrick's offer was in response to [P.M.'s] comment that he did not
intend to rely on public assistance and was on his way to a job interview
in auto sales.
b. [P.M.] called the phone number supplied by Metrick and met with the
individual on the same day as the interview with Metrick.
c. [P.M.] learned that Primerica sells term insurance and encourages the
individual to invest the money they are saving on premiums.
53. Records of Primerica Life Insurance Company reflect that the life insurance
application of [P.M.] was declined by the company.
a. The records do not indicate the date the application was declined.
b. The application was dated 11/15/93.
c. [P.M.] was interviewed at the BCAO on 10/28/93.
d. Metrick signed the Agent Certification attached to the application, as
licensed agent.
54. The information obtained by Metrick to determine the life insurance that [P.M.]
had was confidential information that Metrick obtained through his public
position.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 12
55. [N.E.] applied for food stamps and was interviewed by Metrick, an Income
Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [N.E.].
b. The Affidavit is signed by [N.E.) and Metrick.
56. [N.E.'s] application for public assistance, in the form of food stamps, was
denied because her income exceeded the income eligibility guidelines.
57. Metrick reviewed [N.E.'s] application and asked if she had life insurance.
a. Metrick advised [N.E.] that the premiums were high, and expressed
concern about the cost to her and her family.
b Metrick told [N.E.] he was a financial advisor and that he could "show
them where they were spending too much money and could save
money ".
c. Metrick offered to go to [N.E.'s] home to discuss the life insurance
matter.
(1) Metrick provided [N.E.] with a daytime phone #284 -8824.
(2) The number Metrick provided was to the BCAO.
58. At [N.E.'s] home, Metrick evaluated the life insurance policies of her.
a. [N.E.] and her spouse realized Metrick was an insurance agent and not a
financial advisor with the Department of Public Welfare.
59. On 03/20/94, Metrick returned to [N.E.'s] home with a life insurance policy
proposal and a comparison of their insurance company and Primerica.
a. Based on Metrick's proposal, [N.E.] and her spouse decided to purchase
the Primerica policy and gave Metrick a check for the initial payment.
60. When Metrick returned with the finalized insurance policy, between 05/22/94
and 05/28/94, [N.E.] and her spouse advised Metrick that they were
discontinuing the Primerica Policy.
61. Metrick attempted to recruit [N.E.'s] spouse as a sales person for Primerica.
62. [N.E.] issued a personal check #1007, dated March 20, 1994, payable to
Primerica Life Insurance Company, in the amount of $39.79, drawn on [N.E.]
and her spouse's account.
a. Metrick signed a receipt, showing he received [N.E.'s] check on
03/20/94.
b. An application was filed by [N.E.] on 3/20/94.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 13
63. On March 18, 1994, Metrick prepared a PFS Insurance Analysis (proposal), for
[N.E.] and her spouse.
a. Page one identified Metrick as the preparer.
b. A Pennsylvania Disclosure Statement identified Metrick as the agent
preparing the disclosure.
c. Metrick's signature appears on the certification that the Disclosure
Statement was provided to the applicant prior to the signing of the
application, dated 03/20/94.
d. On 05/12/94, Primerica Life Insurance Company acknowledging the
issuance of a policy to [N.E.] to be personally delivered by the PFS
representative.
(1) The focus of the letter is on investments.
64. The information obtained by Metrick to determine the life insurance that [N.E.]
had was confidential information that Metrick obtained through his public
position.
65. [D.L.] applied for food stamps and medical assistance in December 1993, and
was interviewed by Metrick, an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [D.L.] and dated 12/01/93.
b. The Affidavit is signed by [D.L.] and Metrick, and dated 12/06/93.
c. The Application includes life insurance information in [D.L.'s]
handwriting.
d. DPW PA 4 form, Authorization for Release of Information, was signed by
[D.L.) and Metrick on 12/06/93.
66. [D.L.'sl application for public assistance in the form of food stamps and medical
assistance was authorized.
67. During the interview with Metrick, he asked if [D.L.] was interested in making
extra money.
a. Metrick supplied [D.L.] with a phone number for Primerica to set up an
interview.
b. [D.L.] visited the Primerica office in Allison Park on two occasions.
(1) On the first visit, [D.L.] sat in on a presentation of Primerica with
a group of people.
(2) The second visit was for an interview with Metrick and his boss
during which they tried to convince [D.L.] to sell insurance house
to house.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 14
c. [D.L.] declined the job offer.
d. [D.L.] expressed an interest in increasing her life insurance coverage.
68. Metrick made an appointment to discuss insurance with [D.L.].
a. [D.L.] agreed to buy a Primerica policy from Metrick.
b. Metrick did not try to convince her to drop any other policies.
69. Records of Primerica Life Insurance Company include the application for life
insurance for [D.L.], dated 12/20/93.
a. The date of issue of policy #0430455838, was 03/09/94.
70. [D.L.] subsequently decided against purchasing a policy from Metrick.
71. The information used by Metrick to determine what life insurance [D.L.] had
was confidential information that he obtained through his public position.
72. [T.K.] applied for food stamps and was interviewed by Metrick, an Income
Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [T.K.].
b. The Affidavit is signed by [T.K.] and Metrick.
c. No life insurance information is indicated on the application.
73. [T.K.'s] application for public assistance in the form of food stamps was
authorized.
a. The application covered [T.K.] and her child.
74. During the interview with Metrick, [T.K.] advised him that she was on
unemployment and was having a difficult time finding a decent paying job.
a. Metrick told [T.K.] he knew of a job that could be part-time or full -time
and could pay $ 10,000 per year for part -time work.
b. [T.K.] did not follow up on the job with Primerica.
75. [T.S.] applied for cash assistance, medical assistance and food stamps and was
interviewed by Metrick, an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [T.S.I.
b. The Affidavit contains the hand - printed name of [T.S.] and Metrick's
signature.
c. The application includes life insurance information which confirms a
policy with Prudential.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 15
d. DPW Form PA 4, Authorization for Release of Information is signed by
Metrick and [T.S.].
76. [T.S.'s] application for public assistance, in the form of food stamps and
medical assistance, was authorized by Metrick.
a. [T.S.] was not eligible for cash assistance.
(1) The cash value of the life insurance caused [T.S.'s] assets to
exceed the income eligibility guidelines for cash assistance.
77. Metrick completed a DAP Referral Form (Disability Advocacy Program) on behalf
of [T.S.], dated 09/08/93, due to [T.S.'s] visual impairment.
a. The application was denied on 03/24/94.
78. Records of Primerica Insurance Company confirm that [T.S.] applied for life
insurance, on 12/31/93.
a. Policy #0430459991 was issued to [T.S.] on 02/02/94.
b. Metrick's signature appears as the licensed agent on the Agent
Certification contained on the application.
c. The application occurred four months after [T.S.'s] application for
assistance.
d. The policy was subsequently terminated on an undisclosed date.
79. [M.P.] applied for medical assistance.
a. Metrick was the Intake Maintenance Caseworker. His signature appears
on the Affidavit.
b. Life insurance information, regarding American General Life Insurance
Company, is reflected in [M.P.'s] handwriting on the application.
c. DPW Form PA 4, Authorization for Release of Information was signed by
[M.P.] and Metrick.
80. Upon review of [M.P.'s] application, Metrick determined that she was eligible
for medical assistance.
a. The cover page of the Application for Benefits, reflects authorization of
the benefits in Metrick's handwriting.
81. During the interview, Metrick advised [M.P.] that the premium on the American
General policies was excessive and that he could advise her on how to get
better coverage for a cheaper premium.
a. Metrick stated he could not discuss the matter at the Assistance Office.
b. Metrick made an appointment to go to [M.P.'s] home.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 16
c. [M.P.] did not realize Metrick was an insurance agent.
d. [M.P.] believed the questions regarding insurance that Metrick asked
during the interview at the BCAO had to do with determining eligibility.
e. Once [M.P.] agreed to the home appointment, Metrick concluded the
interview at the BCAO.
f. Metrick approved [M.P.'s] application for medical assistance.
82. [G.M.] applied for child care assistance and food stamps in March 1994, and
was interviewed by Metrick, an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the BCAO.
a. The cover page of the application is signed by [G.M.] and dated 03/17/94
b. The Affidavit is signed by [G.M.] and Metrick, and dated 03/17/94.
c. The Application includes life insurance information in [G.M.'s]
handwriting.
(1) One policy with Prudential Insurance Company is identified, for
$60,000.00 coverage on [G.M.].
83. [G.M.'s] application for public assistance, in the form of food stamps, was
denied because her gross income exceeded the guidelines for two persons.
84. When Metrick began asking [G.M.] about life insurance, she believed that the
questions had something to do with the application process.
85. Metrick advised [G.M.] that he could get her a life insurance policy that had
more coverage for a lower premium payment.
a. Metrick had asked [G.M.] what company the life insurance policy was
with and the amount of the premiums.
b. Metrick advised [G.M.] that her insurance company, Prudential, was
going under and had a newspaper article to that effect.
c. [G.M.] realized Metrick was an insurance agent, although he never
disclosed the name of the company that he worked for.
d. Metrick insisted [G.M.] take his name and phone number, and pressured
her to call him to set up an appointment to discuss insurance at her
house.
e. [G.M.] had no intention of calling Metrick about the insurance issue, and
had no further contact with him.
86. [G.M.) did not apply for a life insurance policy through Primerica.
87. The information obtained by Metrick to determine the life insurance that [G.M.]
had was confidential information that Metrick obtained through his public
position.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 17
88. Metrick received a commission from Primerica Life Insurance Company at the
time that he submitted applications for insurance policies to the company.
89. Primerica Life Insurance Company paid Metrick a one -time up- front commission
on each insurance policy application that he submitted.
a. Commissions paid to Metrick on applications that were declined by the
company or policies that were subsequently cancelled were charged back
against Metrick's account.
b. Metrick received commissions on policies he sold to clients of BCAO.
90. Primerica Life Insurance Company 1099 Miscellaneous Income Statements
issued to Metrick in the years 1992 -1994 - disclosed the following income:
1992 - $ 9.92
1993 - $ 275.33
1994 - $ 911.15
Total $1,196.40
a. Checks were issued to Metrick as advances on applications submitted.
1992 - 2 checks $ 318.57
1993 - 6 checks 962.37
1994 - 8 checks 992.65
Total $2,273.59
b. Charge -backs were made against Metrick's account for policies cancelled
or applications rejected.
Total charge -backs for 1992 through 1994 - $1,753.64
91. The Department of Public Welfare Supplemental Handbook (55 PA Code),
Section on Safeguarding Information (930.1- 930.6), provides the following in
relation to the confidentiality of client information:
930.1 General Policy
"The Department of Public Welfare will keep client information
confidential. Confidentiality applies to collecting, using, and
safeguarding client information for all assistance programs..."
"Information obtained about clients is used only for: establishing
eligibility, computing benefit amounts and providing services;..."
930.11 Information to be Safeguarded
The CAO (County Assistance Office) will safeguard:
-names of clients;
- addresses of clients;
- amounts of benefits received by individual
recipients; etc.
-any other recorded or unrecorded information related to the
conditions or circumstances of specific clients.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 18
930.2 Collection and Use of Information
The CAO will collect only that information which is necessary to
determine initial and continued eligibility for assistance programs,
establish the amount of benefits, and provide related services.
Providing Information on Behalf of a Client
The CAO will provide information on behalf of a client to another
individual and /or agency when:
-it is necessary to give the information so that the client can get
services that he or his representative requests;
-and, the requested service is related to the type of assistance he
receives.
930.21
Only those employees who need client information to perform their
jobs or who must handle the records in the performance of their
jobs will have access to records and files. This rule applies to
CAO Board members as well as employees.
930.3 Disclosure of Client Information
Within the limits of this chapter, the Executive Director of each
CAO may give information to private individuals, officials, or
agencies outside the department. The Executive Director may
delegate the authority, but only to top level supervisors.
930.31 Disclosure of Address and Amount of Assistance to Individuals
Outside the Department.
The CAO will disclose the address and the amount of benefits the
client receives only when:
- ...the requester does not want the information for political or
commercial purposes.
92. Metrick participated in three training classes between January 3, 1982, and
July 7, 1994.
93. PA Management Directive 515.18, relating to Supplementary Employment, was
distributed to all BCAO employees on (but not necessarily limited to) August 31,
1984.
94. The Investigative Division filed a "Motion to Protect the Identity of Recipients
of Public Assistance Benefits."
B. Testimony
95. Timothy Cornell is the Executive Director of the Butler County Assistance Office
(BCOA) in the Department of Public Welfare (DPW).
a. BCOA has the responsibility to administer all entitlement programs, such
as cash assistance, food stamps, medical assistance, nursing home and
energy assistance programs.
(1) Applications are submitted by persons who are interviewed by a
caseworker who determines eligibility for assistance.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 19
(a) A caseworker may authorize or deny benefits.
b. Metrick was employed over 23 years at BCOA.
c. DPW uses a generic application for benefits for all programs except
medical and energy assistance.
(1) There is a release form, when signed by an applicant, which allows
DPW to obtain financial or medical records.
(2) The applicant provides family and background information on the
form.
d. The caseworker will review the completed application looking at
household composition and resources, like bank accounts, insurance
policies, and income so that an eligibility determination can be made.
(1) A caseworker will make a determination at the interview unless
the applicant has not provided some information or verification.
(2) Insurance policies are considered because high cash surrender
values or high face values could result in ineligibility.
e. An applicant's file will contain a case record narrative which identifies the
client contacts and issues that need to be resolved.
f. On 5/9/94, Cornell met with Metrick concerning allegations that Metrick
attempted to sell life insurance to DPW applicants whom he was
interviewing.
(1) Metrick was evasive and responded he was self - employed.
(2) Subsequently, Metrick indicated he was employed by Primerica.
(3) As to the allegation, Metrick responded that he may have taken
such actions if it benefitted the DPW applicants.
(4) Metrick admitted he received compensation through commissions
for selling insurance.
(5) Metrick stated that any referrals of people to Primerica for
employment in insurance sales would give Metrick compensation
as to any life insurance sold by such people.
(6) Metrick told Cornell that he would advise applicants how they
were being "ripped off" by their insurance companies.
An application for assistance advises a client of his /her rights which
includes keeping supplied information confidential.
h. Management Directives are issued by the Office of Administration in the
Governor's Office as to personnel issues and standards of conduct.
g.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 20
ID -16 is a portion of the DPW personnel handbook.
(1) Chapter 7170, Standards of Conduct, deals with supplementary
employment.
(a) The chapter contains the following prohibition:
J•
(1) ID -15 is a directive which references the prohibition inter alia
against soliciting or invading the privacy of recipients of
governmental services.
Solicitations for work associated with
supplementary employment may not be made during
work hours, or at department facilities offices, on
Commonwealth property, may not be used to benefit
supplementary employment unless such employment
is dual employment.
Misuse of Commonwealth information, work
hours and property that benefits supplemental
employment interests shall constitute grounds for
discipline, up to and including removal from
Commonwealth employment for violation of this
policy.
ID -17 is photocopies of a portion of DPW's handbook dealing with
confidentiality and the safeguarding of information.
(1) Confidentiality includes information received through the
application process by DPW clients.
(2) Metrick received a copy of the handbook.
k. There has been commercial activity that occurred in the office by
Cornell's son and daughter.
(1) After May or June, 1994, all such activity stopped based upon
Cornell's knowledge.
(a) Candy or tickets for schools or churches continue to be
sold.
If a client applies for food stamps, the life and automobile insurance
category on the application need not be filled out.
(1) Insurance information would be supplied but not considered when
there is a dependent child in the household as to applications for
medical assistance.
m. TRIS is a log as to training given to BCOA employees.
(1) Metrick received instruction in some classes and taught some
classes.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 21
n. Training sessions as to confidentiality were done on a yearly basis with
supervisors who then reviewed the information with the BCOA
employees.
o. When Metrick was confronted about selling insurance in the BCOA office,
Metrick responded by stating that it was on his lunch or break times.
At a pre- disciplinary conference, after Metrick was given the names of
DPW applicants to whom Metrick sold insurance, Metrick responded that
he sold them insurance to "prevent them from being ripped off."
(1) Metrick stated that he thought he was helping the people.
Management Directives as to the Ethics Law, Governor's Code of
Conduct and filing disclosure statements are circulated through the BCOA
office.
p.
q.
96. [T.K.] was an applicant for assistance at BCOA, DPW.
a. [T.K.] was unemployed with dependent children.
b. After the application was filed, [T.K.] was notified of the time to return
for an appointment.
(1) [T.K.] met with Metrick.
(a) In the middle of the interview, Metrick suggested to [T.K.]
that she could make approximately $10,000 a year in a
part-time position.
[ 1 ] Metrick gave [T.K.] a business card and asked her to
call him the next day.
(A) It was a DPW business card with the BCOA
telephone number.
(b) Metrick told [T.K.] that he was affiliated with Primerica.
(c) [T.K.] inquired if she were eligible for medical assistance
and Metrick responded that she was not.
[1 ] At a subsequent interview at the BCOA office with
Tammy, [T.K.] was advised that she was eligible for
medical assistance.
(A) [T.K.] subsequently received medical
assistance.
[2] Tammy advised that [T.K.] was not eligible for food
stamps which would have to be repaid.
(A) [T.K.] responded:
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 22
Well, I guess that he [Metrick] was more
interested in getting me a job than he was in
getting me medical assistance.
c. When [T.K.] contacted Metrick, he advised he made an appointment for
her and gave her directions.
(1) When [T.K.] went to the appointment, she met with a Primerica
representative.
(a) [T.K.] learned that the position was selling financial services
to people on a commission basis.
[ 1 ] [T.K.] did not pursue employment with Primerica.
d. [T.K.] had no further contact with Metrick.
e. [T.K.'s] application for DPW benefits was authorized.
f. [T.K.] authored a letter to Mr. Yashinsky in BCOA as to Metrick, stating
in part:
When I learned later that Mike [Metrick] had denied my son and I
medical assistance that we were eligible for, I felt that he was
more concerned about increasing his second income than he was
about helping me.
During [T.K.'s] interview with Metrick, she requested food stamps but
orally asked if she would be eligible for medical assistance.
97. [D.L.] applied for benefits (food stamps) at the BCOA, DPW.
a. [D.L.] completed an application dated 12/1/93.
(1) [D.L.] had an interview with Metrick, possibly on the same day.
(a) Toward the end of the interview, Metrick asked [D.L.] if she
would like the opportunity to earn extra money.
[ 1 ] Metrick wrote down a phone number and gave it to
[D.L.] which was the number for Primerica.
[A] [D.L.] went to Primerica twice but did not
pursue employment because it would be an
expense to become certified.
b. [D.L.] bought insurance through Metrick.
(1) [D.L.] met Metrick at Primerica and then at her house where she
bought insurance from Primerica.
(a) Subsequently, [D.L.] cancelled the Primerica policy about
two months later because it was term insurance.
g.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 23
98. [L.H.] applied for assistance at BCOA, DPW in February, 1993.
a. Medical benefits were sought due to large medical bills.
b. [L.H.] filled out applications for medical assistance and a second
application.
(1) Metrick met with [L.H.] to review the applications and asked if
they ([L.H.1 and her spouse) had life insurance.
(a) Metrick discussed their life insurance policies and stated
that the premiums were high.
[1 ] Metrick said the policies were expensive and he
knew someone who could help.
[2] These discussions occurred in the middle of the
interview process.
c. [L.H.] met with Metrick sometime after the interview at her house to
discuss life insurance with Primerica.
g.
(1) When [L.H.] went into BCOA, she had no intention of looking into
life insurance.
(2) [L.H.] cashed in the whole life policies and Metrick suggested
investing the cash surrender amounts with Primerica.
(a) [L.H.] declined to invest with Primerica.
d. When [L.H.] applied for assistance, she had a concern that the receipt of
medical benefits could be affected by whether she bought insurance from
Metrick.
(1) If [L.H.] bought insurance from Metrick, she believed she would
have a better chance of getting benefits.
e. [L.H.] still has insurance with Primerica which term insurance policies
have no cash surrender value.
f. During a meeting with [L.H.], Metrick inquired as to whether she was
interested in earning extra money.
(1) When [L.H.] learned it would be selling insurance for Primerica at
night, she did not pursue the matter.
[L.H.] bought insurance from Primerica on February 24, 1994, two days
after her interview with Metrick at BCOA.
h. [L.H.] was approved for assistance before she filled out the insurance
application with Primerica.
99. [T.B.] in 1992 made an application for food stamps at BCOA, DPW.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 24
a. [T.B.] filled out an assistance application and met with Metrick on the
same day.
(1) Toward the end of the interview, Metrick offered [T.B.] the
opportunity to make extra income.
(a) Metrick suggested [T.B.] attend a meeting to get
information on earning additional income.
[1 ] [T.B.] attended a meeting where she learned the
company giving the information was Primerica.
[a] [T.B.] chose not to participate and left.
b. Metrick came to [T.B.'s] house to secure a life insurance policy.
(1) [T.B.] was not interested in changing insurance companies when
she applied for assistance.
(2) Metrick told [T.B.] that the insurance she had for her infant was
not appropriate.
(3) [T.B.] purchased Primerica insurance through Metrick but did not
retain the insurance because she could not afford it.
c. [T.B.] applied for assistance on two different occasions.
d. [T.B.] received from DPW medical assistance, food stamps, but not cash
assistance.
100. [M.P.] applied for medical assistance at BCOA, DPW on February 24, 1994.
a. [M.P.'s] application was reviewed by Metrick who told her that she was
over insured.
(1) Metrick suggested discussing life insurance at another time.
(2) Metrick asked [M.P.] if he could come to her house to talk about
insurance.
(3) [M.P.] construed Metrick's comments to be in the area of whether
she qualified for assistance.
b. Metrick came to [M.P.'s] house and told her he was a representative for
an insurance company.
(1) Since [M.P.'s] daughter is disabled and receives SSI, Metrick
suggested that the insurance policy on the child be cancelled and
placed in a fund with his company, Primerica.
(a) Social Security advised that a surrender of the life insurance
policy for her daughter with its cash surrender value would
interfere with SSI benefits.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 25
[1] Metrick said that SSI payments would be only
suspended until [M.P.] spent the money.
[a] [M.P.] was advised by Social Security that the
cancellation of the policy would negatively
impact upon SSI benefits which would be lost.
(2) If [M.P.] knew at the BCOA interview that insurance was not part
of the application process, she would not have made an
appointment with Metrick to come to her house.
(3) [M.P.] advised Metrick that she was not going to buy insurance
since Social Security advised her that it would negate her
daughter's benefits.
c. The only thing that Metrick seemed to be interested in during the
interview process with [M.P.] at BCOA was insurance.
d. [M.P.] did not know that Metrick approved her application for benefits on
the day of the interview.
101. [N.E.] applied for assistance at the BCOA, DPW on February 28, 1994.
a. [N.E.] was interviewed by Metrick on the same day she filed her
application.
(1) [N.E.] neglected to fill out the part of the application as to
insurance and Metrick asked about her coverage and premiums.
(2) Metrick reviewed the application and then came back to insurance
stating: "That's an awful lot of money for you to be paying
monthly for the type of coverage you have."
(a) After inquiring of [N.E.'s] spouse's coverage, Metrick
advised that he could get a better price for insurance.
[1] [N.E.] construed Metrick's remarks as being a
financial advisor for DPW.
(3) When [N.E.] asked as to eligibility for benefits, Metrick responded
in the negative except for medical assistance as to her children.
(a) [N.E.'s] impression was that Metrick's main interest was
insurance.
(4) Metrick gave [N.E.] a number where he could be reached during
the day.
(a) [N.E.] contacted Metrick who came to her house.
[1] When Metrick provided Primerica information, [N.E.]
realized this was not through DPW.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 26
[2] Metrick reviewed [N.E.'s] existing insurance policies
and stated he would work up a proposed life
insurance policy.
[3] Although [N.E.] purchased a Primerica policy based
upon Metrick's proposal and made an initial payment,
[N.E.] did not keep the policy based upon discussions
with her original insurance company.
[4] Metrick suggested to [N.E.'s] spouse that it would be
a good extra job to sell life insurance.
b. [N.E.] authored a letter to Mr. Yashinsky in DPW about Metrick.
c. Metrick never interviewed [N.E.] about selling anything during the
interview.
102. [K.C.] applied for benefits at BCOA, DPW on March 16, 1993.
a. [K.C.] completed the application which was reviewed by Metrick.
b. Metrick asked [K.C.] if she realized how she was "being taken advantage
of by that insurance ... ".
(1) The comment related to [K.C.'s] policy with Prudential Life
Insurance.
(2) [K.C.] responded that she would check into it.
(a) Metrick stated that he could help and suggested they talk
and make an appointment.
(3) [K.C.] did not think that Metrick's comment was part of his job at
DPW.
c. Metrick came to [K.C.'s] house and offered coverage with Primerica.
(1) [K.C.] wrote out a check for a Primerica policy but cancelled a few
days later.
d. While at the BCOA, [K.C.] felt pressured by Metrick's approach.
(1) When [K.C.] went into the BCOA office, she had no intent to
change life insurance coverage.
(2) Metrick mentioned an employment opportunity and asked [K.C.] to
attend a meeting.
(a) [K.C.] was not interested and declined Metrick's suggestion.
(3) [K.C.] believed that the more she cooperated with Metrick, the
more favorable things would go for her as to her benefits
application.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 27
e. [K.C.] was approved for assistance on the day she applied.
(1) [K.C.] was still worried believing that if she did not meet with
Metrick (as to insurance), she might not receive DPW benefits.
f. During the interview of [K.C.] by Metrick at the BCOA office, he never
discussed details but asked her to contact him about insurance.
103. Jason Manne was the prosecuting attorney for DPW against Metrick at a
proceeding before the Civil Service Commission
a. ID -20 is a portion of the transcript from pages 25 to 35.
(1) When Manne asked Metrick whether he was familiar with the
supplemental handbook, Metrick admitted that he was.
104. Metrick is a former employee of DPW.
a. Metrick worked in DPW from January, 1972 to July, 1994.
b. As an Income Maintenance Caseworker, Metrick evaluated people's
needs when they applied for public assistance.
c. [N.E.] was turned down for benefits because she and her spouse had too
much money.
d. Metrick states that applicants were generally told the same day if they
were approved for benefits.
e. Official policy is for the interviewers to make sure that applications for
assistance are fully completed.
f. Metrick received an insurance sales license and became involved with
Primerica in 1991 or 1992.
(1) Metrick asserts he is an agent but not an employee of Primerica.
(2) Metrick has no contact with a person after he sells an insurance
policy.
(3) Metrick's commission from the sale of Primerica policies is a 30%
commission on the first year's premium.
g. Metrick admits talking to assistance applicants about insurance.
(1) Metrick asserts that the only action taken at the BCOA was to tell
the applicants that he might have something for them to look at
and to give them his home, the BCOA office, and Primerica office
telephone numbers.
(a) For the BCOA, Metrick claims that he told the applicants to
call during breaks or lunch.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 28
h. Metrick admits that he probably received the DPW directives.
i. Metrick claims that conflict of interest was not discussed by anybody in
the BCOA office.
[1 ] Metrick states that if he got a call during office
hours, he would not take the call or make
arrangements to talk to them at another time.
Metrick states that there are still profit and non- profit sales occurring in
the BCOA office.
k. Metrick admits that he mentioned to applicants in the BCOA office that
he had something they might want to look at.
I. Metrick acknowledges that he may have used the phrase "ripped off" in
the BCOA to a client.
m. Metrick stopped talking about insurance during DPW client interviews
after May 7, 1994 when Mr. Yashinsky advised Metrick that he was
being investigated.
(1) Metrick claims he did not know the exact nature of the charges
until he talked with the union steward.
n. Metrick was terminated on July 7, 1994.
o. Metrick interviewed at least 1,000 applicants per year at DPW.
(1) During his employment at DPW, Metrick conducted at least
49,000 interviews.
P. Metrick is familiar with the "Client's Rights" statement on the DPW
application form.
q. As to [N.E.1, Metrick became aware of her insurance carrier because of
information on the DPW application form completed by her.
(1) Such information was obtained from other DPW applicants for
assistance.
r. Metrick did not know [D.L.], [K.C.], [N.E.], and [M.P.] until he had seen
them in the DPW office.
s. As to [G.M.), [T.S.], and [P.M.], Metrick learned of their insurance
carriers from their applications for assistance.
t. During the interviews with [K.C.], [L.H.], [N.E.], and [T.B.], Metrick
criticized their insurance coverage by suggesting he could do better.
(1) Metrick's intent was for the DPW applicants to look at Primerica's
program.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 29
(2) Metrick did not refer the DPW applicants to any other insurance
company.
u. Metrick does not have an office at Primerica but can meet with clients
there.
v. As to insurance, Metrick gave the DPW applicants his BCOA office
number because it was the easiest place to reach him.
w. Metrick states that the testimony of the DPW applicants whom he asked
to call his BCOA office about insurance without him specifying a time is
in error.
x. Metrick admits that there is no comparison between Primerica policies
which are term life and whole life policies held by the DPW applicants.
y•
From 1992, Metrick did not refer any DPW applicants to companies other
than Primerica.
z. Prior to 1991 and before Metrick was a licensed insurance agent, he did
not refer DPW clients to Primerica.
aa. Metrick admits that DPW client information is confidential and limited to
administering the program.
(1) Metrick denies that insurance information in DPW client
applications is confidential.
bb. Metrick denies telling [K.C.] that her insurance company was taking
advantage of her but admitted that averment in his Answer.
cc. As to the application by [L.H.I, Metrick's notes reflect she came in the
BCOA office on February 16, 1994, with benefits approved on February
17, 1994.
105. Metrick used BCOA, DPW offices and equipment to conduct private business
activities, insurance sales, during normal working time.
a. Metrick used confidential information consisting of identities of the DPW
applicants and their financial information for soliciting /selling Primerica
insurance policies to them or recruiting them as Primerica agents.
C. Stipulations
106. The number that Metrick gave (N.E.] and [K.C.] to contact him was the number
for the BCOA, DPW.
D. Documents
107. ID Exhibit 5 is photocopies of documents of the Department of Public Welfare
(DPW) as it relates to the application and file of [D.L.].
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 30
a. [D.L.] in filling out the DPW application, was required to list insurance
policies held (ID -5, p.8).
(1) The application reflects that it was a "walk in" which was received
on 12/1/93 (ID -5, p.2).
(2) [D.L.] listed one policy which reflected the name of the insurance
company, the face value and coverage.
(3) The affidavit to the application was dated 12/6/93 (ID -5, p.12).
(4) Benefits were approved for [D.L.] by Metrick on 12/6/93 (ID -5, pp.
2, 28).
108. ID Exhibit 6 is a photocopy of the DPW file as to applications for assistance by
[P.M.].
a. A notation in the case comments by Metrick dated 11/22/93 reflect that
the application was rejected because of a failure to verify income (ID -6,
p.6).
b. An application by [P.M.] is signed, dated and date stamped on 10/21/93
(ID -6, p. 7).
(1) [P.M.] completed the life insurance policy category by listing his
insurance company, the face value and coverage. (ID -6, p. 14).
(2) Benefits were denied on 10 /[illegible] /93. (ID -6, p. 16).
(3) The affidavit is signed by [P.M.] on October 28, 1993 and
witnessed by Metrick. (ID -6, p. 18).
c. An application by [P.M.] is signed, dated and date stamped on 5/3/94
(ID -6, p. 19).
(1) In the insurance category, [P.M.] lists his insurance company, the
face value and coverage (ID -6, p. 26).
(2) The affidavit is signed and dated by [P.M.] on 5.3.94 with DPW
employee Johnson signing and listing the date of 5/3/94 (ID -6, p.
30).
(3) Benefits were authorized on [illegible) /94 (ID -6, p. 19).
d. In an application dated 9/14/93, [P.M.] listed none under insurance
coverage (10-6, pp. 31, 38, 42).
109. ID -7 is photocopies of documents consisting of the DPW files of [K.C.] and
[P.C.].
a. The application is signed by [K.C.], dated and time stamped on 3/16/93
(ID -7, p. 3).
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 31
(1) Benefits were approved on 3/16/93 (ID -7, p. 3).
b. Under the portion of the application dealing with life insurance policy
information, two policies are listed reflecting the insurance company, face
values, and coverage (ID -7, p. 10).
c. The affidavit is signed by [K.C.] and [R.C.1 and dated 3/16/93 with
Metrick as a witness with a date of 3/16/93 (ID -7, p. 14).
1 10. ID -8 is photocopies of documents consisting of an application and files of the
DPW as to [M.H.].
a. The application was a "walk in" with a screening and authorization date
of 2/17/94 (ID -8, p. 1).
(1) As to the life insurance policy portion of the application, [M.H.]
listed three insurance companies, the face values of each of the
three policies, and the coverage (ID -8, p. 8).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [L.H.] on 2/22/94 with Metrick as an
employee under date of 2/22 /[illegible] (ID -8, p. 11).
b. Another application contains a screening date of 2/7/94, a stamp in date
of 3/7/94 with a signature of [M.H.] dated [illegible]/1/94 and an
authorization of benefits on 2/17/94 (ID -8, p. 12).
(1) The life insurance policy portion of the application lists three
policies with the insurance companies, face values and coverage
(ID -8, p. 19).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [M.H.] dated 2/1/94, by [L.H.] dated
2/16/94 with the employee signing Lochesky dated 2/1/94 and
Metrick dated 2/16/94. (ID -8, p. 23).
1 1 1. ID -9 is photocopies of documents of DPW relating to applications and files for
[T.L.B.].
a. A notation by Metrick on 2/94 reflects that [T.L.B.] is not willing to
disclose certain information (not insurance) and requests that her
application be placed in a holding status (ID -9, p. 46).
b. An application by [T.L.B.1 signed on 1/12/94 reflects a stamp date of
1/12/94 and a non authorization of benefits on 1/27/94 (ID -9, p. 48).
(1) As to the life insurance policy portion of the application, a policy
with Primerica Financial Services is listed including the face value
and coverage (ID -9, p. 55).
(2) An expedited review dated 1/12/94 reflects "eligible" box checked
(ID -9, p. 57).
(3) The affidavit is signed by [T.L.B.1 dated 1/12/94 with Metrick
signing on 1/12/94 as employee. (ID -9, p. 59).
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 32
c. An application by [T.L.B.] dated 1/19/92 [sic] with a stamp date of
1/19/93 has an authorization of benefits for 1/[illegible]/93 (ID -9, p. 60).
(1) Under the category of life insurance policy, [T.L.B.] listed two
insurance companies with the face values and coverage (ID -9, p.
67).
(2) An expedited review reflects a check in the "eligible" box with a
date of 1/20/93 and initials (illegible) (ID -9, p. 69).
(3) The affidavit is signed by [T.L.B.] and Metrick with dates of
1/20/93 (ID -9, p. 71).
112. ID -10 is photocopies of an application and files of DPW as to [T.L.S.].
a. In the application /case comments by Metrick dated (illegible), there is a
reference to the cash value of insurance held by [T.L.S.] (ID -10, p. 49).
b. An application of [T.L.S.] dated 8/23/93 with a time stamp of 8/23/93
reflects an authorization dated 8/25 /[illegible] for "CAT," "TD," and
"FSS" and a non authorization on 8/25 /[illegible] for "CAT" "D" (ID -10,
p. 50).
(1) The life insurance category lists one policy with coverage listed as
"self" and no face value (ID -10, p. 57).
(2) The application reflects an expedited review with Metrick's initials
and a date of 8/23 /[illegible] with the "eligible" box checked (ID-
10, p. 59).
(3) The affidavit is signed by [T.L.S.] on 8/23/93 and Metrick dated
8/23 /[illegible] (ID -10, p. 61).
113. ID -11 is photocopies of the DPW files on [M.P.] including an application for
benefits.
a. An application signed by [M.P.] on 2/24/94 reflects a date stamp of
3/15/94 with an authorization dated 3 /[illegible] /94 (ID -1 1, p. 2).
(1) The life insurance portion of the application reflects two policies
with face values and coverage (10-11, p. 9).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [M.P.] on 3/23/94 with Metrick signing
on 3/23/94 as an employee (ID -1 1, p. 13).
b. ID -1 1, p. 14 is a document by DPW requesting insurance information as
to [M.P.] dated 3/29/94.
c. A file note by Metrick dated 3/23/94 reflects a statement (partially
illegible) as to benefits for [M.P.] (ID -11, p. 32).
114. ID -12 is photocopies of the application and DPW files as to [N.E.].
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 33
a. The application is signed by [N.E.] on 2/28/94 with a date stamp of
2/28/94 and a non authorization of benefits on 2/28/94 (ID -12, p. 1).
(1) The portion of the application dealing with insurance was
completed by [N.E.] listing an insurance company, face value and
coverage (ID -12, p. 8).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [N.E.] on 2/28/94 with Metrick signing
on 2/28/94 as an employee (ID -12, p. 12).
115. ID -13 is photocopies of an application for assistance and file of DPW as to
[G.M.I.
a. The application is signed and dated by [G.M.] on 3/17/94 with a date
stamp of 3/17/94 and a non authorization as to benefits dated 3/17/94
(ID -13, p. 1).
(1) The portion of the application dealing with life insurance was
completed by [G.M.] reflecting a policy with a face value and
coverage (ID -13, p. 8).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [G.M.] and dated 3/17/94 with Metrick
signing as an employee on 3/17/94 (ID -13, p. 12).
(3) The case comments of Metrick (partially illegible) reflect a rejection
of the application with a date of 3/17/94 (ID -13, p. 13).
1 16. ID -14 is photocopies of the DPW files as to an application for assistance by
[T.K.].
a. The application is signed by [T.K.] and dated 11/30/93 with a date stamp
of 11/30/93 and an authorization on a certain date (illegible) (ID -14, p.
1).
(1) The insurance category is blank (ID -14, p. 8).
(2) The affidavit is signed by [T.K.] on 12/6/93 with Metrick as an
employee signing on 12/6/93 (ID -14, p. 12).
(3) The notes in the file reflect an entry by Metrick on 12/6/93
regarding the authorization of benefits for [T.K.] (ID -14, p. 15).
117. ID -15 is a photocopy of a Commonwealth Management Directive No. 205.14
dated 2/2/88.
a. The Directive exclusively limits Commonwealth facilities and offices to
official business.
(1) Commercial, retail or business activities are prohibited.
(2) Solicitation of recipients of governmental services is prohibited.
b. The Directive applies to all state employees.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 34
118. ID -16 is a photocopy of the 7170 Standards of Conduct in the DPW Personnel
Manual issued 12/2/91.
a. The policy concerns the limitations and restrictions upon supplementary
employment.
b. Section B5 prohibits the use of confidential or restricted information from
Commonwealth employment relative to supplementary employment
interests.
119. ID -17 is a photocopy of the Supplemental Handbook which relates to the
safeguarding of information.
a. 55 Pa.Code 105.1(c)(3) limits DPW client information to obtaining
requested services or the type of assistance.
b. Disclosure is allowed in certain circumstances as to client information:
(1) The information is requested as to a specific client by an adult
Pennsylvania resident; and
(2) The requester does not want the information for political or
commercial purposes.
c. Other policies are listed including but not limited to disclosure to other
agencies or to entities via subpoena.
120. ID -18 is photocopies of print -outs from Primerica Financial Services.
a. A print -out as of 7/31/95 reflects active policies or applications, as to
Agent MP609 (Metrick), together with various information including: the
date of policy issued, monthly premium, and the name and address of the
insured.
(1) The following is a sublist which consists of an insured's spouse
who was a DPW client with Metrick as the Income Maintenance
Caseworker:
Insured Date of Issue Monthly Premium
M.H. 3/8/94 $50.83
b. A print -out as of 7/29/95 reflects terminated policies written by Metrick
together with various information.
(1) The following is a sublist of people (or spouse) who had insurance
policies and who were DPW clients with Metrick as the Income
Maintenance Caseworker:
Insured Date of Issue Paid to Date Monthly Prem.
T.B. 4/5/93 2/5/94 $ 48.51
D.L. 3/9/94 3/9/94 $ 53.14
T.S. 2/2/94 5/2/94 $ 49.56
J.E. 5/11/94 5/11/94 $112.98
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 35
c. A policy for K.C. was withdrawn and an application for insurance for
L.M. was declined.
121. ID -19 is photocopies of applications for life insurance with the Primerica Life
Insurance Company with Metrick as the licensed agent:
a. T.B., a DPW applicant for whom Metrick was the caseworker.
b. R.C., spouse of K.C., who applied for assistance at DPW with Metrick as
the caseworker.
c. D.L., a DPW applicant for whom Metrick was the caseworker.
d. T.S., a DPW applicant for whom Metrick was the caseworker.
e. P.M., a DPW applicant for whom Metrick was the caseworker.
f. J.E., spouse of N.E., who applied for assistance at DPW with Metrick as
the caseworker.
g. M.H., a DPW applicant for whom Metrick was the caseworker.
122. ID -20 is photocopies of excerpts of the transcript of the hearing before the
Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission in the case of Metrick, Appellant,
v. DPW, Butler County Assistance Office.
a. Metrick admitted during the hearing that he was familiar with the DPW
Supplemental Handbooks.
123. R -1 is a photocopy of a partial listing dated 1/2/95 of training courses in which
Metrick participated while employed by DPW.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Michael Metrick, hereinafter
Metrick, has been a public 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,
The allegation before us is whether Metrick, as a public employee in his capacity
as an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the Department of Public Welfare, Butler
Office, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the
authority of his office, confidential information, or the offices of the Department of
Public Welfare in an effort to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself or the
Primerica Insurance Company, a business with which he is associated.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, provides:
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public employee shall
engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 36
65 P.S. §403(a).
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows:
Section 2. Definitions
65 P.S. §402.
"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.
Before we summarize the Fact Findings, there are two procedural matters which
we must address: a "Motion to Protect the Identity of Recipients of Public Assistance
Benefits" filed by the Investigative Division and an evidentiary objection by Metrick as
to the admissibility of a portion of the notes of testimony of Metrick's hearing before
the State Civil Service Commission.
Regarding the Motion filed by the Investigative Division, the law requires that
the identity of public assistance applicants remain confidential subject to certain
conditions not herein applicable. Metrick has not opposed the Motion. Accordingly,
the Motion is granted and the names of the DPW applicants will be redacted.
As to the admissibility of a portion of the Civil Service Commission transcript,
the question is whether an admission by the Respondent in answering a question in
a different administrative proceeding is admissible when the prosecuting attorney in
that proceeding is called as a witness to establish the accuracy of the question posed
and the response. The specific question asked was whether Respondent had
familiarity with the DPW Handbooks. Since the Respondent testified and answered
that precise question (Fact Finding 104(h)) in this proceeding, we consider the
evidentiary objection moot since the statement made by Metrick at the Civil Service
Commission is merely cumulative as to his testimony in this proceeding.
Having disposed of the above two procedural matters, we shall now summarize
the relevant facts.
Metrick was an Income Maintenance Caseworker in the Department of Public
Welfare, Butler Office (BCOA) for over 20 years until his termination on July 7, 1994.
As an Income Maintenance Caseworker, Metrick reviewed applications for public
assistance and made determinations as to the eligibility based upon reviews of
applications and interviews with the applicants. As part of the DPW applicant review
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 37
process, Metrick had to review the DPW applicants' backgrounds and their financial
information and then apply DPW guidelines to determine eligibility for benefits.
In a private capacity, Metrick received a license to sell insurance in July, 1992.
At that time, Metrick became an "independent agent" for Primerica Life Insurance
Company (Primerica) and reported to the Primerica's Pittsburgh office. Metrick did not
have his own office at Primerica but could meet prospective clients there. Metrick was
compensated on a commission basis from Primerica, receiving 30% of the first year's
premiums for any life insurance that he sold, provided the policy remained in effect for
at least one year. In addition, Metrick also received a percentage of commissions
obtained by other insurance agents whom he recruited to Primerica.
Before Metrick became affiliated with Primerica, he never made any commentary
regarding insurance coverage, policies, or insurance companies to the DPW applicants
nor made any referrals to Primerica or any other insurance companies. In this regard,
when an applicant seeks DPW benefits, one of the areas on the form requests
insurance information because if an applicant has insurance with certain cash surrender
values, that could impact upon eligibility for DPW benefits.
After Metrick began selling Primerica insurance policies, a change occurred in
his interview dialogue with DPW applicants. As to several DPW applicants, Metrick
questioned them about their insurance policies or coverage. Metrick would typically
comment that the applicants were "being taken advantage of . . ." by their insurance
company or that he had something else that they might want to look at in terms of
insurance coverage. Metrick also raised the possibility of earning extra money to
certain DPW applicants. The latter suggestion related to recruitment of these people
by Metrick to become insurance agents for Primerica from whom he would receive
override commissions on any insurance sold by them.
Many of the DPW applicants during the interview process with Metrick were
uneasy and unsure about his solicitations to buy insurance or to obtain employment.
Some DPW applicants initially thought that Metrick was delving into insurance as part
of his duties as an Income Maintenance Caseworker or possibly as a DPW financial
advisor. At some point in time, either during the interview or subsequently, the DPW
applicants realized that such solicitations by Metrick were not in his capacity as an
Income Maintenance Caseworker but in a private capacity as an insurance salesman.
This situation caused consternation to the DPW applicants who believed that the
person who would determine their eligibility for benefits was trying to sell them
insurance or "employment" at Primerica. In fact, one DPW applicant still had concerns
even after Metrick approved benefits because of the belief that something might
happen to stop the receipt of benefits if the applicant did not meet with Metrick
regarding life insurance.
Several of the DPW applicants complained about Metrick's solicitations of life
insurance or "employment" with Primerica during their interviews. Some DPW
applicants drafted complaint letters to DPW or made commentary to the effect that
Metrick seemed more interested in selling Primerica life insurance policies to them
rather than reviewing their applications for DPW benefits.
Timothy Cornell, the Executive Director of BCOA, confronted Metrick regarding
his insurance solicitations at the BCOA office of DPW applicants. Metrick initially was
evasive and responded to Cornell that he was self - employed. Metrick later admitted
he made such solicitations but only if it benefitted the DPW applicants. Metrick further
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 38
stated that he would only advise applicants about insurance if he believed they were
being "ripped off" by their insurance companies.
At a pre - disciplinary conference, Metrick was supplied with the names of the
DPW applicants whom he solicited. Metrick replied that he made such solicitations
because he did not want the DPW applicants to be "ripped off." Subsequently, there
was a Civil Service hearing and Metrick was terminated from Commonwealth
employment.
Metrick asserts that he did nothing wrong, that he had discussions about
insurance with DPW applicants on his own time during breaks or on his lunch hour,
that others engaged in commercial solicitation at the BCOA office and that he would
not take calls from prospective insurance customers during office hours. However, the
DPW applicants in general testified that the solicitations were made by Metrick during
the DPW application review process. Further, the DPW applicants testified that when
Metrick gave them a business card or wrote his telephone number, he did not specify
any particular time, such as a break or lunch time, to call him at the BCOA office.
As a result of Metrick's solicitations during the interview process, some DPW
applicants subsequently met with Metrick, usually at their homes, and purchased
insurance from Primerica. Although most of the policies were canceled shortly
thereafter, one policy obtained by [L.H.]'s spouse which provides coverage for himself
with a rider for [L.H.] continues in effect.
The identity of DPW applicants, as well as the information they provide in their
applications, is confidential. DPW employees are supplied with various handbooks
which direct employees to maintain confidentiality. In addition, DPW employees are
advised in the handbooks as well as the directives from the Governor's Office, that
they are prohibited from using such information for private, business or commercial
purposes. In this case, Metrick used the applications for the DPW assistance
applicants, and in particular the sections dealing with financial information, as the basis
for his insurance solicitation.
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether
the actions of Metrick 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 order for Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to be implicated, the component
elements of that Section must be established: public employee; use of authority of
office or confidential information; private pecuniary benefit; and benefit to the public
employee or a business with which he is associated.
In this case, it is clear that Metrick was a public employee given his position as
an Income Maintenance Caseworker and his duties and responsibilities (Fact Findings
11, 12). See, Act 9 of 1989, §402; 51 Pa.Code 1 1 .1; Phillips v. SEC, 79 Pa.
Commw. 491, 470 A.2d 659 (1984).
There was both a use of authority of office on the part of Metrick as well as
confidential information in this case. Metrick, as an Income Maintenance Caseworker,
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 39
had the power to determine whether any given applicant for DPW assistance was
eligible for benefits. Metrick used his position by converting the interview process for
DPW applicants into an opportunity for him to solicit or sell Primerica insurance policies
to applicants or their families. There was also a use of authority of office on the part
of Metrick in that such private .business insurance solicitation was done during
Commonwealth working hours using Commonwealth offices, facilities, and equipment.
Although Metrick asserts that such was done on lunch hours or breaks, the testimony
of the numerous applicants belies such an assertion. Thus, the DPW applicants were
consistent in their testimony that during the interview process, Metrick brought up the
subject of insurance or the possibility of them earning other income followed by his
giving them his telephone number or business card which was his DPW office
number. Such use of authority of office created a vulnerability on the part of the
applicants who knew that the man who was to determine their eligibility for DPW
benefits was trying to sell them life insurance or "employment" at Primerica.
There was also a use of confidential information on the part of Metrick. In
particular, the identity of DPW applicants as well as the financial information they
supplied is confidential by law. This confidentiality is reflected not only on the
application form but in the DPW Handbooks as well as Directives from the Governor's
Office. The use of such confidential information is limited to the purpose of providing
service to the applicants; conversely, such information may not be used for private,
commercial or business purposes. Despite Metrick's familiarity with the confidentiality
requirements, he nevertheless solicited DPW applicants during the interview process
for his private business as to selling insurance.
As to the requirement in Section 3(a) for a private pecuniary benefit, the
element of private pecuniary benefit can be either a pecuniary benefit received or the
attempt to obtain a pecuniary benefit. See, Taylor, Order 983; O'Malley v. SEC,
Memorandum Opinion field in Commonwealth Court on March 17, 1989 at No. 2658
C.D. 1987. In the instant matter, we see two areas in which a private pecuniary
benefit was received by Metrick. First, Metrick used the Commonwealth offices,
facilities, and equipment for the purposes of conducting his private insurance sales.
To the extent that Metrick did not have any out -of- pocket expenses for conducting
those business activities at the DPW office, he received a private pecuniary benefit.
Catone, Order 994; Freind, Order 800. The second private pecuniary benefit received
by Metrick consisted of the premiums that he received on the insurance policies sold
to the DPW applicants. In this regard, Metrick would not get a commission unless the
policy that he sold continued for a period of one year. Although most of the DPW
applicants canceled their Primerica policies, there is at least one instance where the
policy remained in effect for over a year so that Metrick would have received a
commission as to the sale of that policy. See, Fact Findings 98e, 120a(1).
We also find that there was an attempt to obtain a private pecuniary benefit by
Metrick in that he used the DPW applicant interview process in an attempt to sell life
insurance or "employment" with Primerica so that he would receive a commission on
the policy or an override as to any sales by DPW applicants or their spouses whom he
recruited to Primerica. Since Metrick sold a number of policies to DPW applicants
which were canceled shortly after issuance, the record clearly establishes an attempt
on the part of Metrick to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself.
As to the matter of the private pecuniary benefit enuring to either Metrick or a
business with which he is associated, it is clear that a private pecuniary benefit was
received by Metrick. As noted above, Metrick's usage of Commonwealth offices,
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 40
facilities, and equipment eliminated any out -of- pocket expenses on his part to pay for
such business overhead. Metrick also received a commission on a policy sold to a
DPW applicant's spouse which remained in force for over one year.
As to the matter of a business with which associated, that term is defined as
follows under the Ethics Law:
Section 2. Definitions
"Business with which he is associated." Any
business in which the person or a member of the person's
immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or
has a financial interest.
65 P.S. §402. In order for this provision to apply in this case, the record must
establish that Metrick is an employee of Primerica. We have a difficulty in this regard
in that Metrick is characterized in several different ways as to his relationship with
Primerica: an independent agent (Fact Finding 14); an independent contractor (Fact
Finding 15); an employee (Fact Finding 95f(2)); and an agent (Fact Finding 104f(1)).
From our review of the record, we do not believe that there is clear and convincing
proof to establish factually that Metrick's relationship with Primerica was that of an
employee. Accordingly, since we cannot factually conclude that Metrick is an
employee of Primerica, we find that Primerica is not a business with which Metrick is
associated.
Since the component elements to establish a Section 3(a) violation of Act 9 of
1989 have been established, we accordingly find that Metrick violated that provision
of law when he as a public employee: used the authority of office in interviewing
DPW applicants to sell life insurance which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for
himself as to the commission on the sale of life insurance; used the authority of office
in interviewing DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance to obtain a private
pecuniary benefit for himself; used confidential information in interviewing DPW
applicants to sell life insurance to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to
the commission on the sale of the insurance; used confidential information in
interviewing DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance to obtain a private
pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission on the sale of the insurance; used
the offices, facilities, and equipment in DPW to sell life insurance to DPW applicants
to obtain a private pecuniary benefit as to the commission on the sale of the insurance;
and used the offices, facilities, and equipment in DPW in an attempt to sell life
insurance to DPW applicants which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit as to the
commission on the sale of the insurance. Verszyla, Order 799.
Having found the above violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, we must
state how appalled we are at Metrick's actions in this case. Metrick's conduct was
nothing more than a use of his position to take advantage of other people's misfortune
for his personal financial gain. People who apply for DPW benefits go into the County
office with major financial, medical or social problems. Many applicants are in a
distressed state of mind and embarrassed by the need to apply and go through an
interview process. Metrick seized upon that vulnerability of the DPW applicants as a
means to sell them insurance policies or recruit them as agents for Primerica for his
personal financial gain at their expense and in total disregard of his duty as a DPW
employee which was to help those applicants in their time of need. It is horrific that
these applicants went into these interviews with no thought of buying insurance or
Metrick, 95- 035 -C2
Page 41
changing insurance policies, and then became anxious as to their eligibility for benefits
which appeared to them to be linked with the sale of Primerica insurance policies by
Metrick. We find such conduct to be absolutely antithetical to the stated purpose of
the Ethics Law, namely that public office is a public trust. Metrick violated the Ethics
Law, the public trust, and his duty as an Income Maintenance Caseworker. He ignored
all of the above for his personal financial benefit.
Section 8(a) of the Ethics Law provides in part: "The commission shall,
however, have the authority to refer the case to law enforcement officials during a
preliminary inquiry or anytime thereafter without providing notice to the subject of the
inquiry" (65 P.S. §408(a)). Given the egregious nature of Metrick's conduct, a referral
in this case is compelled by the Ethics Law. Accordingly, we will refer this matter to
the appropriate law enforcement authority for review as to the institution of a criminal
prosecution against Metrick.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Michael Metrick, as an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the Department of
Public Welfare, Butler Office, was a public employee subject to the provisions
of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of
office during interviews of DPW applicants to sell life insurance which resulted
in a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission.
3. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of
office during interviews of DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance
to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself.
4. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used confidential
information from interviewing DPW applicants to sell life insurance to obtain a
private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission on the sale of the
insurance.
5. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used confidential
information from interviewing DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance
to those applicants to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the
commission on the sale of the insurance.
6. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the offices,
facilities, and equipment in DPW to sell life insurance to DPW applicants which .
resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission on the
sale of the insurance.
7 Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the offices,
facilities, and equipment in DPW in an attempt to sell life insurance to DPW
applicants to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission
on the sale of the insurance.
In Re: Michael Metrick
ORDER NO. 1037
File Docket: 95- 035 -C2
Date Decided: 2/20/97
Date Mailed: 3/7/97
1. Michael Metrick, as an Income Maintenance Caseworker for the Department of
Public Welfare, Butler Office, violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he
used the authority of office during interviews of DPW applicants to sell life
insurance which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the
commission.
2. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the authority of
office during interviews of DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance
to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself.
3. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used confidential
information from interviewing DPW applicants to sell life insurance to obtain a
private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission on the sale of the
insurance.
4. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used confidential
information from interviewing DPW applicants in an attempt to sell life insurance
to those applicants to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the
commission on the sale of the insurance.
5. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the offices,
facilities, and equipment in DPW to sell life insurance to DPW applicants which
resulted in a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission on the
sale of the insurance.
6. Metrick violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he used the offices,
facilities, and equipment in DPW in an attempt to sell life insurance to DPW
applicants to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself as to the commission
on the sale of the insurance.
7. This matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority for
review as to instituting a criminal prosecution.
BY THE COMMISSION,
aJusAuG R40
DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR