Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1095 WilliamsIn Re: Larry Williams STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Julius Uehlein Louis W. Fryman John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown 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 et sgg,., 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. 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. File Docket: 97- 077 -C2 X -ref: Order No. 1095 Date Decided: 10/8/98 Date Mailed: 10/20/98 Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Larry Williams, a member of the North Star School Board, violated Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, when he publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission against Marshall Policicchio, a member of the North Star School Board, by publicly disclosing a Commission letter regarding the complaint to officials of the school district. II. FINDINGS: 1. Larry Williams serves as a member of the North. Star School District Board of Directors, Somerset County, Pennsylvania. 2. On June 5, 1996, a sworn complaint was filed with the State Ethics Commission on form SEC -3 Rev. 5/90, alleging that Marshall Policicchio, a member of the North Star School Board of Directors, violated provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989). a. Form SEC -3 Rev. 5/90 is the standard form utilized by the State Ethics Commission for sworn complaints. b. The complaint was notarized on May 31, 1996. 3. The complaint received by the State Ethics Commission (Form SEC -3) contained instructions that included the following relevant statements: Important - any person filing a complaint with the State Ethics Commission should be aware of the following provisions of the Ethics Law: Section 8(k) (k) As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. Section 9 (e) Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding pursuant to Section 8, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or be both fined and imprisoned. 4. The complaint against Marshall Policicchio alleged that Policicchio participated in discussions and made recommendations to award a vending contract to a business with which he was associated. a. Accompanying the complaint were the following documents: - Minutes of three North Star School Board meetings. - Opinion on this subject written by Board Solicitor, James Beener. - Copy of bid request and conditions. - Copy of listed bid results. Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 3 5. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission initiated a Preliminary Inquiry based on the complaint. a. During the inquiry, North Star School District records were accessed and interviews were conducted with school district officials and employees. 6. On February 21, 1997, Marshall Policicchio was notified by way of letter from the State Ethics Commission that the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission had received allegations that he had violated Section 3(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and a business with which he was associated by participating in discussions, actions and /or decisions of the Board of Directors regarding a vending contract which affected his employer, American Amusements, Inc. a. Policicchio was advised that no further action would be taken in relation to the matter at that time because of the fact that a federal agency was pursuing certain matters in relation to his activities regarding American Amusements, Incorporated. b. The Commission did not address the merits of the allegations. 7. Larry Williams had access to the February 21, 1997, letter to Marshall Policicchio on State Ethics Commission letterhead. 8. Marshall Policicchio was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on or about October 22, 1996 on charges filed by the Untied States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and thereafter pled guilty to said charges on or about July 24, 1997. a. The charges related to Policicchio's involvement with a vending machine company. b. Policicchio was sentenced on December 24, 1997. c. Policicchio resigned from the Board on or about October 22, 1996 [sic]. 9. The North Star School District held a Reorganization /Regular meeting on December 3, 1997. 10. During the December 3, 1997, Reorganization of the North Star School Board, Carol Shaulis was elected president of the Board. a. Sometime after the end of the Reorganization meeting and before the regular meeting started, Williams provided a copy of the 02/21/97 letter to Shaulis. b. The letter, on State Ethics Commission letterhead, was addressed to Marshall Policicchio. 11. Williams handed the letter, to Shaulis, while she was sitting in her place as Board President. Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 4 a. Superintendent John P. Terlingo was sitting next to Shaulis. 12. The copy of the letter given to Shaulis by Williams was on State Ethics Commission letterhead, dated February 1997, and was addressed to Marshall Policicchio. a. Shaulis did not initially read the letter. b. Shaulis was aware of a State Ethics Commission investigation of Policicchio, as she had been contacted by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission during the Preliminary Inquiry conducted into allegations against Marshall Policicchio. 13. Williams requested that Shaulis, as President of the Board of School Directors of the North Star School District read the letter and give the same to James F. Beener, Esq., the solicitor for said school district for inclusion in his personal file concerning the school district. 14. Superintendent Terlingo picked -up and read the letter to determine whether it had bearing on school district business or related to something on the agenda. 15. Shaulis contacted Solicitor James Beener on December 11, 1997, and described what transpired and the content of the letter. a. Prior to contacting the solicitor, Shaulis contacted Marshall Policicchio and advised him that she received the letter from Williams. 16. Shaulis wrote to Williams and asked for a written response as to why Williams gave her the letter and what he expected of her and /or the Board. The letter states the following: "Dear Larry: At the last School Bd Mtg on 12/3/97, you handed me a copy of a letter dated 2/21/97 from the State Ethics Commission, addressed to Marshall Policicchio. The letter was quite surprising to me. I was not familiar with its existence nor do I know how you obtained a copy of it. My question to you is, did you intend that some action needs to be taken by the Board or was this purely informational? I view the letter as extremely confidential and am, therefore, requesting that you let me know in writing what actions you are requesting, if any. I will await your reply." 17. Williams responded to Shaulis by way of letter dated 12/16/97, as follows: "Dear Carol, Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 5 I received that letter in the mail from an unknown source. After reading the letter I felt that since it may involve the entire board it should be given to the Board President and the Solicitor. As you know Bittner Vending is considering civil action on the School District over the Vending Contract that was awarded to American Amusements. If that occurs the contents of that letter could be damaging to the District and the members of the board. I would hope that the content of the Ethic Commission letter is kept confidential and should not be discussed without the advice of our solicitor." 18. Williams was aware of the confidentiality provision of the State Ethics Act as set forth in Finding No. 3 (supra) and from his discussion with State Ethics Commission Special Investigator Gregory Curran, who contacted him during the course of the preliminary inquiry. a. He was aware that the State Ethics Commission preliminary inquiry was completed and believed that the 2/21/97 letter, pursuant to a conversation with an Ethics Commission representative on 2/24/97, was a Final Order, as detailed in the exceptions to the confidentiality provision. b. He intended to give the 2/21/97 letter to Solicitor James Beener at the 12/03/97 Board meeting, however, Beener did not arrive until just before the meeting ended. c In Beener's absence, Williams gave the letter to Shaulis as the newly elected Board President because he was aware that Shaulis was privy to the investigation of Policicchio. (1) Shaulis called him after she was interviewed by State Ethics Commission Special Investigator Gregory Curran in regards to the Policicchio case. d. He handed the letter to Shaulis from behind as she was sitting in her place as Board President. (1) Shaulis did not immediately look at the letter, but laid it down next to her, face up. (2) He recalled saying "here's this letter. When you get a chance take a look at it and give it to the solicitor." e. He assumed Shaulis would forward the letter to the Solicitor. f. He had no intention of bringing up the 2/21/97 letter before the Board on 12/03/97, and believed that his actions were appropriate under the Ethics Law. g. Williams' intended for the Board President and Solicitor to be aware of the letter in reference to any future law suit which might be filed against the Board by Bittner Amusements in relation to the awarding of the vending contract to American Amusements, the company with which Policicchio was associated. Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 6 h. He advised Shaulis in his December 16, 1997 letter that the letter should remain confidential, and that the matter should be discussed with the solicitor. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Larry Williams, hereinafter Williams, has been a public official and private citizen 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, ,sgg. The allegation is that Williams violated Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law when he disclosed a State Ethics Commission letter regarding a complaint against another member of the North Star School Board to officials of the school district. Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law provides: Section 8. Investigations by the commission (k) As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. However, a person may disclose or acknowledge to another person matters held confidential in accordance with this subsection when the matters pertain to any of the following:. (1) final orders of the commission as provided in subsection (h); (2) hearings conducted in public pursuant to subsection (g); (3) for the purpose of seeking advice of legal counsel; (4) filing an appeal from a commission order; (5) communicating with the commission or its staff, in the course of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration by the commission; (6) consulting with a law enforcement official or agency for the purpose of initiating, participating in or responding to an investigation or prosecution by the law enforcement official or agency; (7) testifying under oath before a governmental body or a similar body of the United States of America; Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 7 65 P.S. §408(k). facts. (8) any information, records or proceedings relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which the person is the subject of; or (9) such other exceptions as the commission, by regulation, may direct. Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 provides in part that no person shall disclose or acknowledge any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or reconsideration petition which is before the Commission. Section 8(k) further provides for nine exceptions which are not relevant to this case. Having noted the issue and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant Williams serves as a Board Member of the North Star School District. On June 5, 1996 a signed and sworn complaint was filed with the Commission alleging that another School Board Member, Marshall Policicchio, violated the Ethics Law. Since the complaint was filed on a standard SEC -3 Rev. 5/90 form, the prohibition against disclosure set forth in Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law as well as the criminal penalties of Section 9(e) of the Ethics Law regarding violations of confidentiality were quoted on the form. The complaint against Policicchio alleged that he participated in discussions and recommendations as to the award of a vending contract to a business with which he was associated. After the Investigative Division conducted a preliminary inquiry, Policicchio was notified by letter of February 21, 1997 that the Investigative Division had received allegations against him of violations of the Ethics Law which were delineated therein and further advised that no action would be taken because a federal agency was pursuing the matter in relation to his activities. Thus, the merits of the allegations were not addressed by this Commission. After Policicchio was indicted by a federal grand jury in October, 1996 which stemmed from his involvement with the vending company, he pled guilty to those charges in July, 1997. Before Policicchio was sentenced on December 24, 1997, he resigned from the School Board on or about October 22, 1997. Williams had access to the February 21, 1997 letter sent to Policicchio from this Commission. The North Star School District held a reorganizational meeting on December 3, 1997, wherein Carol Shaulis was elected Board President. After that meeting but before the regular meeting started, Williams provided Shaulis with a copy of the State Ethics Commission letter of February 21, 1997 sent to Policicchio. Shaulis was aware of the SEC investigation against Policicchio in that she had been contacted by the Investigative Division during the preliminary inquiry. Williams requested Shaulis as Board President to read the letter and then give it to the School Board Solicitor. Shaulis did not initially read the letter but the Superintendent who was at the meeting read it to determine whether the letter had any bearing on School District business. Subsequently, Shaulis contacted the Solicitor and advised him about the meeting and the February 21, 1997 letter. Shaulis then wrote to Williams and asked for a response as to why he gave her the letter which was extremely confidential. Williams, 97- 077 -C2 Page 8 Shaulis requested information as to what actions Williams wanted her to take regarding the letter. Williams responded to Shaulis by letter dated December 16, 1997, wherein he advised that he had received the February 21, 1997 letter from an unknown source. Williams . stated that while he wanted to keep the February 21, 1997 letter confidential, he felt that it should be given to the Board President and Solicitor because Bittner Vending was considering civil action against the School District over the vending contract and the February 21, 1997 letter could be damaging to the School District and Board Members. Williams was aware of confidentiality because the State Ethics Commission Special Investigator had discussed the confidentiality provisions of the Ethics Law with him during the preliminary inquiry. Williams stated that he had no intention of bringing the February 21, 1997 letter before the Board and believed his actions were appropriate because the Board President and Solicitor needed to be aware of the letter in reference to any future lawsuit that might be filed against the Board. Lastly, Williams advised Shaulis that the letter should remain confidential and that the matter should be discussed with the Solicitor. We shall now consider whether a violation of Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred in this case. Section 8(k) prohibits, in part, a person from disclosing or acknowledging to any other person information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, or investigation before the Commission. Since the facts establish that Williams gave the School Board President the letter regarding the complaint filed against Policicchio, Williams disclosed information about the complaint against Policicchio. Since the stipulated findings establish that Williams made a disclosure about the complaint filed against Policicchio, Williams technically violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989. Neary, Order No. 613 -R. We will take no further action because Williams believed that the disclosed information related to a final order of the Commission and that such disclosure was for the purpose of seeking the advice of the solicitor. 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. Larry Williams, as a private citizen and member of the North Star School Board, is subject to the confidentiality provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Williams technically violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 when he breached confidentiality as to the complaint filed against another School Board Member. In Re: Larry Williams File Docket: 97- 077 -C2 Date Decided: 10/8/98 Date Mailed: 10/20/98 ORDER NO. 1095 1. Larry Williams, a member of the North Star School Board, technically violated Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 when he breached confidentiality as to the complaint filed against another School Board Member. BY THE COMMISSION, ettamo6 DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR