Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1072 MeinertIn Re: Robert Meinert 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 Allan M. Kluger Boyd E. Wolff Julius Uehlein 97- 031 -C2 1072 1/14/98 1/26/98 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 ei seq., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. 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. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Robert Meinert (Meinert), a former public official /public employee in his capacity as a former Commissioner for Ross Township, Allegheny County, violated Section 3(g) of the Public Official and Employe Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989), 65 P.S. §403(g), when as a former public official he represented himself and /or his business before his former employer, Ross Township, within one year of leaving his position of Commissioner by entering into a contract to conduct police applicant background investigations for the Township Civil Service Commission. II. FINDINGS: 1. Robert E. Meinert served as a Commissioner for Ross Township, Allegheny County, between May, 1994, and December 31, 1995. a. Meinert served on the Ross Township Civil Service Commission (RTCSC) from November 12, 1991, until May 12, 1994. 2. Meinert is the owner of Robert E. Meinert & Associates. a. Robert E. Meinert & Associates, located in Ross Township, Allegheny County, at 3169 Babcock Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA, provides security and private investigator services. b. Meinert is the sole proprietor. 3. Ross Township is a First Class Township. a. The Ross Township Board of Commissioners is the appointing authority for the Township Civil Service Commission. b. The Civil Service Commission meets in the Ross Township Municipal Building. c. The Commission consists of three members. 4. The First Class Township Code, Article VI (d) Section 625 through 650, relates to the creation of the Civil Service Commission and its duties and responsibilities. a. Section 626 of Article VI(d) defines the appointing authority as the Township Board of Commissioners. 5. The RTCSC's annual budget is set by the Ross Township Board of Commissioners and is a line item in the overall township budget. a. The RTCSC budgeted funds for legal, medical and general expenses are three line items in the township budget. b. The RTCSC can spend allocated funds in any manner deemed necessary within the restrictions of the rules and regulations. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 3 c. Expenditures made by the Civil Service Commission are submitted and approved by the township manager and then submitted for approval to the township board of commissioners prior to payment. 6. In 1996 the Civil Service Commission had an approved budget as follows: Legal: $1,500.00 Medical: $ 0.00 General: $2,000.00 TOTAL $3,500.00 7. The Ross Township Civil Service Commission employs a solicitor distinct from the township solicitor. 8. Section 630 of Article VI(d) of the First Class Township Code provides that, while the Civil Service Commission has the power to prescribe and amend their own Rules and Regulations, the rules must first be approved by the Township Board of Commissioners. 9. The Rules and Regulations of the Ross Township Civil Service Commission (RTCSC) require background investigations to be conducted on police officer candidates. a. This rule was approved by the Ross Township Commissioners prior to 1995. 10. The RTCSC has utilized the services of outside contractors to perform background investigations on police applicants. 11. The authority to appoint an outside contractor to conduct background investigations is contained in the Ross Township Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, which state in part, the following: Section 4.8 Background Investigation. Background investigators shall be conducted on a minimum of two times the number of openings. The Commission shall select an independent agency to conduct the background investigations. After the background investigation is completed, the agency shall make a written recommendation to the commission on whether the applicant is appropriate for consideration for appointment as a police officer. This recommendation shall be in writing and if the recommendation is to disqualify, then a detailed written explanation of the reasons for disqualification must be included. The Commission shall make the final determination of whether the information collected during the background investigation warrants rejection of the candidate. 12. At the October 10, 1996, meeting of the Civil Service Commission, Robert E. Meinert & Associates was appointed to conduct the background investigations of the police officer candidates. a. The Board of Commissioners of Ross Township did not take action to confirm the appointment of Robert E. Meinert & Associates. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 4 b. Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations give the Commission the authority to appoint without Board approval. c. The appointment was made Tess than one year after Meinert's term of office as a township commissioner expired. 13. The Civil Service Commission did not obtain proposals from any companies in regard to the background investigations. 14. Robert E. Meinert & Associates was not contacted by the Civil Service Commission prior to the meeting on October 10, 1996. a. Meinert did not solicit the business from the Civil Service Commission. 15. Meinert received notification of his appointment by facsimile dated October 11, 1996, from Civil Service Commission Solicitor, Joseph Vogrin, III. The facsimile cover page included the following note: "The Civil Service Commission on 10 -10 -96 appointed Meinert & Associates to conduct independent background investigations for potential new police officers of Ross Township. Congratulations!" a. Vogrin included a copy of Section 4.8 of the Rules and Regulations relating to background investigations. b. Vogrin referred Meinert to Jeff Petrel, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission for the details on the background investigations. 16. Meinert contacted Jeff Petrel, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission on October 14, 1996. At that time Meinert accepted the appointment to background investigations. Meinert advised Petrel that the cost would be approximately $400 per background investigation. 17. Meinert was provided with the information on eight officer candidates on December 13, 1996, by Civil Service Commission member Ronald Gahagan. 18. During the one year period after his termination of service as a township commissioner, Meinert did not personally appear before, lobby or negotiate with the Ross Township Civil Service Commission. 19. The only actual communication that Meinert had with the Civil Service Commission during the one year period was that he advised a representative of the commission of his charges for conducting investigations and the Civil Service Commission forwarded information to him as delineated in 16 -17 above. 20. All other contact between Meinert and the Ross Township Civil Service Commission occurred more than one year after Meinert's termination of service as a Ross Township Commissioner. a. b. conduct the Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 5 21. Robert E. Meinert & Associates completed the background investigations on January 14, 1997. 22. Meinert submitted an invoice to Ronald Gahagan, the new Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, along with a cover letter dated January 28, 1997. a. The invoice total was $3,120.00. b. The actual total of the invoice was $3,330.83. c. The invoice was discounted by $210.83. 23. In the cover letter which accompanied the invoice to the Civil Service Commission, Meinert outlined the reason for discounting the total cost; by $210.83. a. He had originally provided that an estimated cost for each background investigation would be less than $400.00. b. To stay within those limits, Meinert reduced the cost of the invoice to $3,120., which averaged out to $390.00 for each background investigation. 24. By way of letter dated February 3, 1997, to Ross Township Manager Thomas Lavorini, Ronald Gahagan submitted the invoice from Robert E. Meinert & Associates, for payment. a. Gahagan noted that Meinert had reduced the cost of the invoice by approximately $200.00. b. Gahagan noted that the Civil Service Commission was "pleased with the quality of the background reports and the responsiveness of Robert E. Meinert & Associates." 25. Ross Township General Fund check #032738, dated February 10, 1997, was issued to Robert E. Meinert & Associates in the amount of $3,120.00. a. The back of the check contains the stamp of Robert E. Meinert & Associates and indicates that it was for deposit only. b. The front of the check was signed by Ross Township Manager Thomas Lavorini, and Board President Donna Carey. 26. At the February 10, 1997, Ross Township Board of Commissioners meeting, the check issued to Robert E. Meinert & Associates for conducting the background investigations at the request of the Civil Service Commission was approved for payment. a. The Meinert invoice was part of general bills numbered 32687 through 32783 totaling $228,952.61 which were unanimously approved for payment. b. Meinert was not serving as a township commissioner at this time. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 6 27. Meinert's firm, Meinert & Associates, incurred the following expenses in relation to the Ross Township Civil Service background investigations: a. Actual Costs: Employees $1,484.00 Cost of Operation 768.00 Meinert's Time 276.00 Discount 211.00 Total $2,739.00 b. Profit Amount paid by Ross: $3,120.00 Less actual costs 2.739.00 Profit $ 381.00 Profit Margin: Civil Service Commission job 1996 Average -all business 12% 23% 28. Civil Service Commission Members, Jeffrey Petrell, Ronald Gahagan, and Nancy McNamara, appointed Robert E. Meinert & Associates because Meinert had an excellent reputation, name recognition, and because his business is located within the township. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Robert Meinert, hereinafter Meinert, as a former Commissioner for Ross Township, Allegheny County, has been a former 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, e The allegation before us is that Meinert violated Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law when he represented his business before his former governmental body within one year of leaving his position as Commissioner by entering into a contract to conduct police applicant background investigations for the Township Civil Service Commission. Under Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989, 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. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 7 65 P.S. §402. "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 contain the name of a former public official or public employee. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Meinert served on the Ross Township Board of Commissioners between May, 1994 and December 31, 1995 and on the Ross Township Civil Service Commission (RTCSC) between November, 1991 and May, 1994. In a private capacity, Meinert is the owner of Robert E. Meinert and Associates, a sole proprietorship which provides security and private investigative services. The Ross Township Board of Commissioners appoints the members of RTCSC which has its own budget and employs its own solicitor. As part of the duties and responsibilities of RTCSC, its rules and regulations require that background investigations be conducted on police officer candidates. RTCSC utilizes the services of outside contractors to perform such background investigations. At an October 10, 1996 meeting of RTCSC, Robert E. Meinert and Associates was appointed to conduct the background investigations for police officer candidates. As to Meinert's appointment, RTCSC did not obtain any proposals from companies for background investigation services and Robert E. Meinert and Associates did not solicit such business from RTCSC. Meinert did not personally appear before, lobby, or negotiate with RTCSC. Meinert was not on RTCSC at that time and no action was taken by the Board of Commissioners of Ross Township to confirm the appointment of Robert E. Meinert and Associates. The appointment, however, was made within one year after the expiration of Meinert's term of office as a Ross Township Commissioner. Meinert received notification of the appointment by a fax transmission on October 11, 1996 from the RTCSC Solicitor. The Chairman of RTCSC was contacted by Meinert on October 14, 1996 at which time he accepted the appointment and indicated that the cost of background investigations would be approximately $400 per investigation. Meinert was given information regarding police officer candidates on December 13, 1996 by a RTCSC Member. After Robert E. Meinert and Associates completed the background investigations on the police officer candidates on January 14, 1997, a discounted invoice was submitted to the RTCSC Chairman in the amount of $3,120. Subsequently, on February 10, 1997, a check from Ross Township General Fund was issued to Robert E. Meinert and Associates in the amount of $3,120. The invoice for Meinert was unanimously approved as part of a list of bills at the February 10, 1997 meeting of the Ross Township Board of Commissioners. Meinert, 97- 031 -C2 Page 8 Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Meinert violated Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989. In order to establish a violation of Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989, it is necessary to show that a former public official /public employee represented a person before his former governmental body for actual or promised consideration within one year of termination of service. In this case, the facts as stipulated by the parties do not reflect representation by Meinert before his former governmental body. Meinert did not solicit such business from RTCSC which made the appointment without any proposals being submitted. The only communication in the one year period by Meinert to RTCSC was to the Chairman for the purpose of accepting the appointment and indicating the service charges for such investigations. Under these facts, this one particular contact within the one year period of Section 3(g) of the Ethics Law does not constitute representation as that term is defined in Section 2 of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §402. Accordingly, since Meinert did not represent Meinert and Associates within the one year period after termination of service, no violation of Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred. Our decision in this case is consistent with Roller, Order No. 831, wherein we found no violation of the one year representation requirements of Act 170 of 1978 as to a former Department of Environmental Resources employee who contacted DER as a private consultant about certain permits or citations which activities we found to be in the nature of informational inquiries. In the instant case, Meinert's one contact was to accept his appointment (which he did not solicit) and inform RTCSC of the cost of the investigative services. Compare Kline, Order No. 877 where we found a violation of the Ethics Law as to a former Public Welfare Department (DPW) employee when he made business calls on behalf of his new employer to a DPW state hospital. 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. Robert Meinert (Meinert), as a former Commissioner for Ross Township, Allegheny County, was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Meinert did not violate Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 when he accepted an appointment within one year of leaving his position as Commissioner to enter into a contract to conduct police background investigations for the Township Civil Service Commission. In Re: Robert Meinert File Docket: Date Decided: Date Mailed: ORDER NO. 1072 1. Robert Meinert (Meinert), as a former Commissioner for Ross Township, Allegheny County, did not violate Section 3(g) of Act 9 of 1989 when he accepted an appointment within one year of leaving his position as Commissioner to enter into a contract to conduct police background investigations for the Township Civil Service Commission. BY THE COMMISSION, 97- 031 -C2 1/14/98 1/26/98 ogius,06 eata, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR