Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1058 DellmuthIn Re: Carl Dellmuth STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff Julius Uehlein 95- 074 -C2 Order No. 1058 8/14/97 8/26/97 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 egg., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). 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. 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. Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 2 1. ALLEGATION: That Carl Dellmuth, a former public employee in his capacity as a Chief of Staff, Department of Education, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he represented a person, with promised or actual compensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he was associated within one year of leaving state employment by representing his new employer, the Philadelphia School District, before the Pennsylvania Department of Education. Section 3. Restricted activities (g) No former public official or public employee shall represent a person, with promised or actual compensation, on any matter before the governmental body with which he has been associated for one year after he leaves that body. 65 P.S. §403(g). II. FINDINGS: 1. Carl Dellmuth has been employed with the Philadelphia School District since October 17, 1994. a. Dellmuth served as a Senior Advisor to the Superintendent from October 1994 to July 1995. b. Dellmuth served as the Chief of Staff from July 1995 until January 1997. 2. Dellmuth's duties as Chief of Staff included: a. Administrative work serving as a chief advisor to the Superintendent of Schools. The employee in this class is responsible for the organization of the Superintendent's office and its relations with members of the Cabinet, Board of Education, the public and government agencies. Work is performed under the direct supervision of the Superintendent of Schools. b. Serves as a chief advisor to the Superintendent; oversees the day to day operations of the Superintendent's Office; ensures that effective relationships are maintained between members of the Superintendent's Office and Cabinet level officials, Board of Education members, representatives of government agencies and the public. 3. Dellmuth was previously employed as the Chief of Staff for the Pennsylvania Department of Education from 1987 until October 14, 1994. a. Dellmuth resigned from this position to begin employment with the Philadelphia School District. 4. Dellmuth's duties as Chief of Staff for the Department of Education were as follows: Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 3 a. Serve as a deputy to the Secretary of Education in planning, coordinating and directing the development, management and administration of educational programs and services in the Department. b. Plan, organize, direct, and coordinate all statewide educational and administrative programs through direction of program and administrative management offices. c. Participate with the Secretary in establishing departmental goals and objectives and in formulating administrative policies and procedures for the Department. d. Act in lieu of the Secretary as needed. e. Provide administrative direction and guidance to departmental administrative, management, and office heads. f. Formulate administrative policies and procedures to ensure equitable distribution of departmental resources required for meeting agency objectives. Coordinate and direct the review and evaluation of programs and services to ensure that established plans and policies meet the programmatic needs in the field. g. h. Make recommendations to the Secretary concerning state and federal legislation which relates to the Department, recommend new legislation to address identified or projected program and administrative management needs. i. Develop administrative, fiscal and informational policies, procedures, and regulations for the administration and management of the Department and directs and coordinate fiscal and budgetary, personnel, management and information services to meet agency requirements. Serve as liaison and represents the Department with the Governor's Office, the Office of Policy and Planning, and other state agencies in the design, development, and implementation of interdepartmental programs and services affecting education in the Commonwealth. k. Perform related work as required. 5. The Secretary of Education Donald Carroll assigned Carl Dellmuth as a liaison to the Philadelphia School District during the summer of 1994. J• 6. David Hornbeck was appointed Superintendent of the Philadelphia School District in the summer of 1994. 7. Dellmuth had a standing offer of employment with the Philadelphia School District after Hornbeck became Superintendent. a. Dellmuth and Hornbeck had known each other for years. Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 4 8. When Dellmuth first began working for the Philadelphia School District, one of his responsibilities was making school district personnel aware of what state government could provide to the district. a. Dellmuth advised school district employees on who to contact at the Department of Education. 9. Sometime after Dellmuth began his employment with the Philadelphia School District, he and Joseph Bard, Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education for the Department of Education, discussed the possibility of the Department of Education reviewing the Philadelphia School District's Community and Student Services Program. 10. Garry Ledebur was the Director for the Bureau of Community and Student Services for the Pennsylvania Department of Education and was in charge of this review. a. Ledebur's assignment was to review the Office of Student Services, identify problems and offer proposed changes and recommendations to the current system for the Philadelphia School District. 11. Ledebur subsequently reviewed the school district's Community and Student Services Program. a. Ledebur met with staff from the Office of Student Services, and selected school district personnel, including Dellmuth, and other professionals. b. Ledebur reviewed reports and papers and attended several meetings as part of his assignment. c. Ledebur's salary for this time period would have been approximately $2,000. d. This would have been the cost to the Department of Education for conducting the review for the Philadelphia School District. 12. Ledebur provided Dellmuth with a preliminary report dated February 23, 1995, for the Philadelphia School District regarding his research on improving community and student services for the District. a. The subject of the report was "Thoughts Regarding Family Resource Networks." b. The memo indicated that more research was necessary regarding Philadelphia's current community services. c. Ledebur's report suggested some preliminary ideas regarding Family Resource Networks including: (1) Overview of the Family Resource Networks (FRN) (2) Specific elements Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 5 (3) Elements of FRN Planning (4) Best Resource Center (5) Service Brokering (6) (7) (8) 13. Ledebur subsequently forwarded an undated memorandum to Dellmuth on his special assignment for student services. a. This report identified problems, summarized issues and provided his proposals on improving Community and Student Services for the Philadelphia School District. b. Ledebur's proposal included creation of a Community Services Support Center. c. Ledebur's report was based in part on interviews and meetings he had with school district officials which included Dellmuth. 14. Ledebur's travel expense vouchers indicated he met with Dellmuth on the following dates to discuss the Community and Student Services Project for the school district. Dates a. 11/23/94 b. 12/13/94 Cross - Cluster Collaboration and Communication Cross - Cluster Action Groups Student Services c. 03/08 - 03/09/94 [sic] d. 03/22 - 03/23/94 [sic] a. This grant was unrelated to Ledebur's review. Purpose Meeting with Dellmuth and other officials of the Philadelphia School District. Meeting with Dellmuth on special project. Meeting with officials from the Philadelphia School District, including Dellmuth. Meeting with officials from the Philadelphia School District, including Dellmuth. 15. Ledebur met with Dellmuth as he considered Dellmuth to be the contact person who could funnel the paperwork to the appropriate school district representatives. 16. The report Ledebur compiled for the Philadelphia School District was similar to reports done for other school districts throughout the state. 17. The Philadelphia School District was awarded a $200,000.00 grant for the Model Child Care Program for the 1994/95 fiscal year on September 12, 1994. Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 6 b. The grant was awarded through the Department of Public Welfare and the Department of Education. c. The grants performed that funding was to be used for pre - school programs. d. The school district wanted the grant funds prior to the change in administrations in 1995. 18. On September 26, 1994, Superintendent Hornbeck signed a Service Purchase Contract accepting the grant. 19. The Department of Public Welfare put a hold on the grant because the school district intended to use the money for a kindergarten program in addition to the preschool programs. 20. Ledebur met with Dellmuth and other representatives of the Philadelphia School District January 1995 to discuss the grant. a. The discussions concerned who was to be contacted at the school district to ensure the grant would be used for preschool programs. 21. The Philadelphia School District subsequently received $100,000.00 of the $200,000.00 grant in 1995. a. The grant was later reduced. b. The school district returned $12,769.10 of the $100,000.00 they received to the Department of Education. 22. On October 7, 1994, Carl Dellmuth requested an Advice of Counsel from the State Ethics Commission on the restrictions placed upon him regarding his employment with the Philadelphia School District. 23. The Advice of Counsel was issued to Dellmuth on November 3, 1994. 24. The Advice of Counsel in part, placed the following restrictions on Dellmuth: a. As Chief of Staff for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, he would not be prohibited from accepting a position of employment with the Philadelphia School District. b. The Advice of Counsel also placed these restrictions on Dellmuth's activities: Personal appearances before the former governmental body or bodies, including, but not limited to, negotiations or renegotiations in general or as to contracts; Attempts to influence; Submission of bid or contract proposals which are signed by or contain the name of the former public official /employee; Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 7 Participating in any matters before the former governmental body as to acting on behalf of a person; Lobbying that is representing the interests of any person or employer before the former governmental body in relation to legislation, regulations, etc. c. The former governmental body with which Dellmuth had been associated was determined to be the Pennsylvania Department of Education. 25. Dellmuth believes he followed the advice of counsel even though he thought it was directed primarily to state officials going into private employment. 26. Dellmuth did not specifically intend to violate the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law when, as an employee of the Philadelphia School District, he met with representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Education. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Carl Dellmuth, hereinafter Dellmuth, 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, g agq. The issue before us is whether Dellmuth, as a former public employee in the Department of Education, violated Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) when he represented for compensation his new employer, the Philadelphia School District, before his former governmental body within one year of leaving state employment. Under Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a former public official /public employee is prohibited from representing a person for compensation on any matter before the governmental body with which he was associated for a period of one year after he leaves that body. The terms "governmental body ", "person ", and "represent" are defined in the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Governmental body." Any department, authority, commission, committee, council, board, bureau, division, service, office, officer, administration, legislative body, or other establishment in the Executive, Legislative or Judicial Branch of a state, a nation or a political subdivision thereof or any agency performing a governmental function. "Person." A business, governmental body, individual, corporation, union, association, firm, partnership, committee, club or other organization or group of persons. "Represent." To act on behalf of any other person in any activity which includes, but is not limited to, the following: personal appearances, negotiations, lobbying and submitting bid or contract proposals which are signed by or Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 8 contain the name of a former public official or public employee. 65 P.S. §402. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the salient facts. In 1994, Dellmuth became employed by the Philadelphia School District (PSD) first as a Senior Advisor to the Superintendent and then as the Chief of Staff. Dellmuth was previously employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDED) as Chief of Staff from 1987 until 1994 when he resigned to accept employment with PSD. The duties and responsibilities of Dellmuth serving as Chief of Staff both for PSD and PDED are set forth in Fact Findings 2 and 4. When Dellmuth began working for PSD, one of his responsibilities was to make school district personnel aware of state government benefits. Dellmuth contacted Joseph Bard in PDED who was the Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education to discuss the possibility of PDED reviewing PSD's Community and Student Service Program. Gary Ledebur, PDED's Director of the Bureau of Community and Student Services was placed in charge of the review. Ledebur's function was to identify problems and offer proposed changes and recommendations for PSD. After Ledebur reviewed PSD's Community and Services Program, he attended several meetings and met with staff at PSD, including Dellmuth, to review reports and papers. Ledebur provided Dellmuth with a preliminary report regarding research on improving community and student services for PSD. Ledebur's report provided some preliminary ideas regarding the family resource networks but suggested that more research was necessary regarding Philadelphia's current community services. Subsequently, Ledebur submitted a memorandum to Dellmuth on student services which identified problems, summarized issues, and provided proposals on improving community and student services for PSD, and the creation of a Community Services Support Center. The report was based in part upon interviews and meetings with School District officials including Dellmuth. Ledebur had several meetings with Dellmuth whom Ledebur considered to be the contact person to funnel paperwork to appropriate PSD representatives. When PSD was awarded a $200,000 grant through the Department of Public Welfare and PDED for the Model Child Care Program for the 1994/1995 fiscal year, Ledebur met with Dellmuth and other PSD representatives to discuss the grant in the context of insuring its use for preschool programs. Dellmuth requested and received an Advice of Counsel from the Legal Division of this Commission on November 3, 1994. The Advice of Counsel opined that Dellmuth's former governmental body was the Pennsylvania Department of Education and further, that he was restricted for a period of one year from representing his new employer, PSD, before his former governmental body. The Advice of Counsel also delineated those activities which would constitute representation. However, Dellmuth concluded he followed the Advice of Counsel which he believed was primarily directed to state officials who would be going into private employment. Dellmuth did not intend to violate the Ethics Law when he as a PSD employee met with representatives of PDED. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Dellmuth violated Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989. Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 9 Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 prohibits a former public official /public employee from representing a person for compensation before his former governmental body for a period of one year after termination of service. In applying the provisions of the Ethics Law to the instant matter, we find violations of Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 when Dellmuth met with representatives of PDED, his former governmental body, within one year after leaving his position with PDED, regarding a PDED study on Family Resource Networks and the creation of a Community and Student Services Support Center by PSD, his new employer. First, Dellmuth was representing a person for promised consideration before his former governmental body. The term "person" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Person." A business, governmental body, individual, corporation, union, association, firm, partnership, committee, club or other organization or group of persons. 65 P.S. §402. "Person" includes PSD, his new employer, even though it is a governmental body. See, Ledebur, Opinion 95 -007. Dellmuth engaged in the activities for compensation since he, as an employee of PSD, received a salary and performed the above activities as part of his duties. Such activities occurred as to his former governmental body, PDED. Lastly, the activities constituted representation. The term "represent" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Represent." To act on behalf of any other person in any activity which includes, but is not limited to, the following: personal appearances, negotiations, lobbying and submitting bid or contract proposals which are signed by or contain the name of a former public official or public employee. 65 P.S. §402. Engaging in the activities for PSD before PDED on behalf of PSD constituted representation. See, Roller, Order No. 831. As to the above violations of Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989, the record reflects that the actions of Dellmuth occurred without an intent to violate the Ethics Law. Accordingly, we shall close this matter with no further action taken. 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. Carl Dellmuth, as a Chief of Staff with the Department of Education, was a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Dellmuth violated Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 when he met with representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Education, his former governmental body, within one year after leaving his position with the Dellmuth, 95- 074 -C2 Page 10 Department, regarding a Pennsylvania Department of Education study on Family Resource Networks and the creation of a Community and Student Services Support Center by the Philadelphia School District, his new employer. In Re: Carl Dellmuth ORDER NO. 1058 File Docket: 95- 074 -C2 Date Decided: 8/14/97 Date Mailed: 8/26/97 1. Carl Dellmuth, as a former Chief of Staff with the Department of Education, violated Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 when he met with representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Education, his former governmental body, within one year after leaving his position with the Department, regarding a Pennsylvania Department of Education study on Family Resource Networks and the creation of a Community and Student Services Support Center by the Philadelphia School District, his new employer. 2. Based upon the totality of facts and circumstances, we will take no further action in this case. BY THE COMMISSION, etaktisAu auLd DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR