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