Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1044 O'DonnellSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Norbert O'Donnell File Docket: 96- 029 -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, 85 P.S. §401 �t Wig., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A consent agreement was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Norbert O'Donnell (O'Donnell), as Chairman of the Hazleton City Authority, Luzerne County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of a member of his immediate family and /or a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions of the authority to appoint the law firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick, a firm which employs O'Donnell's brother; and when he participated in payment of that firm's invoices; and when said appointment was done without an open and public process. Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). Section 3. Restricted activities (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(f). 11. FINDINGS: 1. Norbert O'Donnell has served as a member of the Hazleton City Authority (HCA), Luzerne County, since January 1993. a. He has served as Chairman of the Authority Board since January 1994. 2. The Hazleton City Authority was chartered in 1938. a. The Water Division of the Authority provides services to 13 municipalities including the City of Hazleton. b. The Industrial Division of the Authority handles a project at the Northeastern Building in downtown Hazleton. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 3 b. Article III c. Article V c. American Commonwealth Management Services, Inc., manages the day to day operations of the authority. d. The HCA consists of five members appointed by Hazleton City Council. 3. By -laws of the Hazleton City Authority provided in relevant part: a. Article II Section 7. Voting. At each meeting of the members of the Board of Authority every member thereof shall be entitled to vote in person, and a majority of the membership shall determine the action of the Authority in any particular. Section 1. Powers. The Board of Authority shall have full power to conduct, manager, and direct the business of the Authority; and all powers of the Hazleton City Authority, except those specifically reserved or granted unto the City of Hazleton shall be vested in the said Board of Authority. Section 1. Number. The officers of the Board of Authority shall be a President, a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer and an Assistant Secretary and an Assistant Treasurer. The office of Secretary and Treasurer may be combined in one person and the office of Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer may be combined in one person. Section 7. The President. The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Board of Authority and shall preside at the meetings of the Board.* The President shall have general supervision over the business and operations of the Board, subject, however, to the control of the Board of Authority. He shall sign, execute and acknowledge, in the name of the Authority, deeds, mortgages, bonds, contracts or other instruments, authorized by the Board of Authority, except in cases where the signing and executions thereof shall be expressly delegated by the Board of Authority or by these By -Laws, to some other officer or agent of the Authority; and, in general, shall perform all duties incident to the office of President, and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him by the Board of Authority. *The terms President and Vice- President of the HCA were changed to Chairman and Vice - Chairman by resolution dated February 15, 1978. 4. In the late 1980's, HCA began a project to expand their facilities. a. A new administration building and plant were constructed. b. The cost of the expansion was about $50,000,000.00. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 4 5. Legal expenses of the Authority increased as a result of the expansion. 6. On May 10, 1993, the HCA Board appointed Thomas Makowski as Authority Solicitor. 7. In a letter dated May 10, 1993, from Makowski to the members of the Authority Board, Makowski memorialized the understanding with regard to his representation of the Authority and for services to be performed. a. Makowski's hourly rate and billing procedures for legal services were discussed. b. Outside legal services was addressed as follows: "In addition, the board agrees that 1 may secure additional legal services from my associate, Attorney Michael R. Kostelansky, the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia, or any other attorneys for which additional charges may be incurred. Attorney Kostelansky will bill from my office at a rate of $65 per hour, and the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius or any other attorneys will bill directly to the Authority at their prevailing rate, pursuant to any additional agreements with the board from time to time." c. HCA members intended the above provision to give Makowski wide latitude in securing outside counsel. 8. Makowski negotiated on behalf of the Authority Board to obtain the services of other law firms. a. He obtained quotes on obtaining special counsel to represent the Authority. b. Fees for services was a major factor considered by Makowski. c. Makowski would provide a recommendation on which law firm to hire to the Authority members. d. The hiring of outside law firms would not be formally approved at meetings of the HCA. e. Firms would begin representation based on discussions and correspondence from Makowski. 9. Norbert O'Donnell is related to Peter O'Donnell as a brother. a. Peter O'Donnell is an attorney who has been associated with Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick ( "Mylotte ") for eight years. b. Peter O'Donnell was an associate with Mylotte until May 1996 when he was accepted as a partner. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 5 c. Peter O'Donnell received a salary as opposed to profits until May 1996. d. Peter O'Donnell works out of Mylotte's Wilkes -Barre office. 10. In the fall of 1993 Edward David, of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick's Philadelphia office, was selected to perform outside legal services for the HCA. 11. a. b. c. He was retained to handle labor negotiations. Solicitor Thomas Makowski recommended this employment. Makowski discussed the retention of Edward David with the board. At the November 8, 1993, meeting of the HCA Makowski reported to the board that correspondence had been sent to Attorneys David and O'Donnell (Mylotte firm) regarding the proposed labor negotiations. a. Makowski advised the HCA Board of the retention of Mylotte. b. Norbert O'Donnell was present at that meeting. 12. The hiring of the Mylotte firm was not approved by the HCA Board at a formal meeting. 13. At about the time that Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick was selected to handle legal matters, the issue of a conflict of interest arose concerning Norbert O'Donnell. a. The potential conflict discussed related to hiring of a law firm which employed Mr. O'Donnell's brother in its Wilkes - Barre office. b. The Mylotte firm had five offices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. c. Solicitor Makowski informally advised the board that Norbert O'Donnell could participate in the selection process because he did not derive any personal gain as a result and Peter O'Donnell was not a partner or equity owner in the firm. 14. Solicitor Makowski discussed the potential conflict at an Authority meeting in about November 1993. a. This discussion was not recorded in minutes of meetings during that time period. b. Discussion centered around the fact that the two O'Donnells lived in separate households and that Norbert O'Donnell would not financially benefit as a result of the employment.. c. There was no dependency of one O'Donnell upon the other for support. d. Makowski did not provide a written opinion with regard to this potential conflict of interest but opined that there was no conflict. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 6 e. It was also known that Peter O'Donnell was not a partner in the firm and worked in the Wilkes -Barre office rather than Philadelphia. 15. In 1996 the HCA took action to retain Joseph Ferdinand, of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick, as the Authority solicitor. 16. At the HCA meeting of January 15, 1996, Norbert O'Donnell made a motion to appoint Joseph Ferdinand as HCA solicitor. a. Joseph Ferdinand is a partner in the law firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick. b. The motion was approved by a 4 to 1 vote with Norbert O'Donnell voting with the majority. c. Norbert O'Donnell, based on the solicitor's advice, believed that there was no conflict of interest. 17. On February 5, 1996, the retention of the solicitor was discussed by the HCA board as follows: Chairman Norbert O'Donnell stated he would like to better characterize the appointment of the solicitor amending the appointment to reflect that it is the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick, which was hired with an hourly fee of $95 and a $1,000 monthly retainer which will be deducted from the hourly billing. Attorney Ferdinand and various members of the firm will work on the Authority' business. On motion made by Mr. Rafalli, seconded by Mr. Mundie and carried by majority affirmative roll call vote with Mr. Mundie, Rafalli, Ammon, Ms. Marshall voting yea and Mr. O'Donnell abstaining, the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick was appointed solicitor and the agreement of hiring was authorized. Ms. Marshall stated she was voting for the amended appointment but her original nay vote for the firm stood. 18. From January 27, 1994, through April 17, 1996, twenty payments were made by the HCA to Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick (Wilkes - Barre office) under vendor number 453. These payments included services for legal fees, administrative work such as reproduction of records and sending facsimile copies and totaled $ 63,896.04. 19. Attorney Summaries submitted to the HCA by Mylotte confirm that HCA was billed, (Beginning for the date January 6, 1994, through and including March 12, 1996.) for the services of the below listed attorneys, hours of work and amount billed under vendor no. 453. Attorney Total Hours Billed Edward David 73.40 Peter O'Donnell 506.20 Robert Gillespie 6.70 Joseph Zola 4.20 Total Amount Billed $13,180.00 $48,583.00 $ 837.50 $ 366.00 O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 7 Harry Mondoil Joseph Ferdinand Total Payments Attorney Edward David Peter O'Donnell Robert Gillespie Joseph Zola Harry Mondoil Edward Devine Total Attorney Joseph Ferdinand Patricia Curran Total .60 2.30 a. No part of the funds paid by the HCA to the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick on account of hourly work done, and billings by, Peter O'Donnell resulted in any financial gain, direct or indirect, to Peter O'Donnell personally. 20. The HCA made five payments to Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick (Wilkes -Barre office) under vendor number 451, from January 25, 1994, through November 2, 1994, totaling $7,529.91. 21. Attorney Summaries submitted to the HCA by Mylotte confirm the following billable hours (for work performed from December 31, 1993 to September 29, 1994) for attorneys' services: Total Hours Billed 20.50 19.60 15.30 .80 .40 .70 a. No part of the funds paid by the HCA to the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick on account of hourly work done, and billings by, Peter O'Donnell resulted in any financial gain, direct or indirect, to Peter O'Donnell personally. 22. The HCA made payments to the Mylotte firm (Hazleton office) under vendor number 660 on two occasions (March 13, 1996 through April 17, 1996) totaling $2,838.50. 23. Attorney Summaries submitted to the HCA by Mylotte confirm the following billable hours for attorneys from the Hazleton office. Total Hours Billed 29.45 2.60 $ 75.00 $ 218.50 $63,260.00 Total Amount Billed $ 3,935.00 $ 1,568.00 $ 1,722.00 $ 64.00 $ 44.00 $ 56.00 $ 7,389.00 Total Amount Billed $ 2,797.75 $ 169.00 $ 2,966.75 24. The HCA made payments to Mylotte for legal services involving the Northeastern Building, Hazleton, Pennsylvania on two occasions (November 9, 1995 and November 30, 1995) totaling $18,853.00. 25. Attorney summaries submitted to the HCA by Mylotte confirm that Peter O'Donnell and Joseph Ferdinand billed hours to the HCA for the Northeastern Building. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 8 Attorney Peter O'Donnell Joseph Ferdinand Total a. No part of the funds paid by the HCA to the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick on account of hourly work done, and billings by, Peter O'Donnell resulted in any financial gain, direct or indirect, to Peter O'Donnell personally. 26. Payments to the Mylotte firm were approved at twenty -three meetings of the HCA Water Division by members of the HCA. Norbert O'Donnell was present and voted on fifteen occasions, abstained on two occasions and was not present on six occasions. a. Norbert O'Donnell was not present during all actions of HCA Industrial Division. b. Bills were paid as part of a listing of bills approved for payment. c. Bills were approved by unanimous votes. 27. Total payments to Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick by HCA from 1993 to the present for all attorney fees: Vendor No. 453: Vendor No. 451: Vendor No. 660: Northeastern Building: Total Hours Billed 159.50 19.40 a. These amounts do not include administrative fees. b. No part of the funds paid by the HCA to the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick on account of hourly work done, and billings by, Peter O'Donnell resulted in any financial gain, direct or indirect, to Peter O'Donnell personally. 28. Of the payments made to the Mylotte firm, Peter O'Donnell billed hours as follows: a. Vendor No. 453 (Finding No. 28): b. Vendor No. 451 (Finding. No. 29): c. Northwestern Building (Finding No. 34): $63,896.04 $ 7,529.91 $ 2,838.50 $18.853.00 $93,117.45 Total Amount Billed $15,152.50 $ 1,843.00 $ 16,995.50 $48,583.00 $ 1,568.00 $15,152.50 $65,303.50 d. No part of the funds paid by the HCA to the firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick on account of hourly work done, and billings by, Peter O'Donnell resulted in any financial gain, direct or indirect, to Peter O'Donnell personally. O'Donnell 96- 029 -C2 Page 9 29. Norbert O'Donnell signed six checks which were paid to Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick for legal services. a. Two signatures are required on all checks. b. The Local Manager or Operations Manager signs for management. c. The Secretary/Treasurer signs for the Authority members. d. The Assistant Treasurer or other Authority members sign the checks in the absence of the Secretary/Treasurer. (1) O'Donnell signed checks in the absence of the Secretary/Treasurer. 30. The checks signed by Norbert O'Donnell paid to Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick are as follows: Date Check Number Amount 04/14/94 12879 $ 3,381.41 05/17/94 13041 $ 2,883.25 03/28/95 14877 $ 2,346.50 10/25/95 15353 $ 2,916.50 04/17/96 15715 $ 1,795.50 04/17/96 15716 $ 2,912.75 III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Norbert O'Donnell, hereinafter O'Donnell, 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, gt seq. The issues before us are whether O'Donnell, as Chairman of the Hazleton City Authority, Luzerne County, violated Sections 3(a) and 3(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions of the authority to appoint the law firm of Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick, a firm which employs O'Donnell's brother; and when he participated in payment of that firm's invoices; and when said appointment was done without an open and public process. Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law quoted above, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 10 65 P.S. §402. facts. 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, specifically provides in part that no public official /public employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. +- Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the salient O'Donnell serves as a Member of the Hazleton City Authority (HCA) which provides services to thirteen Municipalities through its Water Division and handles a project through its Industrial Division. The HCA Board consists of five Members appointed by Hazleton City Council. When HCA began a project to expand its facilities in the late 1980's, the Board appointed Thomas Makowski as Solicitor who entered into a representation agreement with HCA. The Agreement gave Makowski wide latitude in securing outside legal counsel. Makowski could provide recommendations to HCA Members who would not have to formally approve the hirings of legal counsel. In 1993, Attorney Edward David of the firm Mylotte, David & Fitzpatrick (Mylotte) was considered to handle labor negotiations for HCA. Makowki recommended David's appointment to the Board. Peter O'Donnell, who is O'Donnell's brother, is an associate in the Mylotte firm. In a November 8, 1993 HCA meeting with O'Donnell present, Makowski reported to the Board that he retained both Attorneys David and O'Donnell from the Mylotte firm for the labor negotiations. The hiring of the Mylotte firm was not approved by the HCA Board at a formal meeting. An issue of a conflict by O'Donnell was raised at the time that the Mylotte firm was retained to provide legal services for HCA. Makowski informally advised the Board that O'Donnell could participate in such matters. Makowski opined that O'Donnell did not derive any personal financial gain as to his brother who was not a partner or equity owner in the Mylotte firm. No written opinion was provided by Makowski regarding the potential conflict nor was there any discussion recorded in the meeting minutes on that subject. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 11 In 1996, HCA appointed Joseph Ferdinand of the Mylotte firm as Authority Solicitor on motion by O'Donnell which carried in a 4 -1 vote with O'Donnell voting with the majority. O'Donnell believed that there was no conflict of interest in participating based upon the Solicitor's advice. At a February 5, 1996 meeting, a motion was made to amend the appointment of the Mylotte firm which motion passed with O'Donnell abstaining. The particulars as to the hours billed as well as the payments to the Mylotte firm and Solicitor for the years in question are set forth in Findings 18 -30. None of the funds paid by HCA to the Mylotte firm for legal services performed by Peter O'Donnell resulted in any direct or indirect financial gain to him. Further, as to payments made by HCA to Mylotte, the bills were paid as part of a list of bills that were unanimously approved. O'Donnell was not present at all meetings where Mylotte bills were approved. O'Donnell voted on 15 occasions, abstained on 2 occasions, and failed to vote due to his absence on 6 occasions. Lastly, O'Donnell signed six checks that were payable to the Mylotte firm. HCA checks, which require two signatures, are usually signed by the local manager and the Secretary/Treasurer. Authority Members sign checks in the absence of the Secretary/Treasurer. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of O'Donnell violated Sections 3(a) anti 3(f) 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 applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, we find a technical violation when O'Donnell voted in 1996 to hire the Solicitor who is a member of the law firm in which his brother is employed. There was a use of authority of office on the part of O'Donnell in his voting. Juliante, Order 809. The use of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the fees which the law firm received. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit enured to the law firm which is a business with which O'Donnell's brother is associated. The term "business with which he is associated" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: 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 this case, since O'Donnell's brother is an associate in the firm, it is a business with which he is associated. O'Donnell's brother is also a member of his immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Law. 65 P.S. §402. We also find a technical violation when O'Donnell voted to approve payments to the Mylotte firm for legal services rendered based upon the same analysis as detailed above. O'Donnell, 96- 029 -C2 Page 12 The above findings of technical violations are appropriate in this case given that O'Donnell acted on the advice of counsel, abstained in matters after the conflict issue was addressed and did not take any action to recommend or advance the hiring of the law firm in which his brother is an associate. We find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the employment of the law firm in which O'Donnell's brother is an associate in 1993 for the reason that the Authority Members took no action as to that hiring. Thus, because there was no use of authority of office by O'Donnell, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. As to Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989, we find no violation of that provision of law. Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 is limited to contracting by the public official, his spouse or child, or business with which associated. Since the contracting in this case was by a business with which a brother is associated, Section 3(f) is not operative. Lastly, we note that the parties have filed a Stipulation of Findings and Consent Agreement which sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. We believe that the Consent Agreement is the proper disposition for this case based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Norbert O'Donnell, as a Member of the Hazleton City Authority in Luzerne County, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law occurred when O'Donnell participated in the 1996 vote to hire a Solicitor from the law firm with which his brother is associated. 3. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law occurred when O'Donnell participated in the approval of the payment of Authority funds to a law firm with which his brother is associated. 4. O'Donnell did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law regarding the 1993 employment of a law firm in which O'Donnell's brother is associated in that no action was taken by O'Donnell as to that hiring. 5. O'Donnell did not violate Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to legal services provided to the Authority by a business with which his brother is associated in that the contracting restriction only applies to the public official, his spouse, child or business with which the public official, spouse or child is associated. In Re: Norbert O'Donnell ORDER NO. 1044 File Docket: 96- 029 -C2 Date Decided: 2/20/97 Date Mailed: 3/7/97 1. Norbert O'Donnell, as a Member of the Hazleton City Authority in Luzerne County, technically violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law when he participated in the 1996 vote to hire a Solicitor from the law firm with which his brother is associated. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law occurred when O'Donnell participated in the approval of the payment of Authority funds to a law firm with which his brother is associated. 3. O'Donnell did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law regarding the 1993 employment of a law firm in which O'Donnell's brother is associated in that no action was taken by O'Donnell as to that hiring. 4. O'Donnell did not violate Section 3(f) of .Jhe Ethics Law as to legal services provided to the Authority by a business with which his brother is associated in that the contracting restriction only applies to the public official, his spouse, child or business with which the public official, spouse or child is associated. BY THE COMMISSION, egitis,u6 d DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR