Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1119 SandersIn Re: George E. Sanders, Sr. 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 Julius Uehlein Louis W. Fryman John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket 98- 038 -C2 Order No. 1 119 2/26/99 3/10/99 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 g egg., 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 not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11, Act 93 of 1998, which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and 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 Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Sanders, Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That George Sanders, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Councilman for Red Lion Borough, York 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 members of his immediate family and /or a business with which a members of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions and /or decisions of council to enter into a contract with Lion Technologies, a business owned by his son; and when the contract, in excess of $500, was entered into without an open and public process. II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that George E. Sanders, Sr., violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989). 2. Upon review of the information the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on April 22, 1998. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On June 10, 1998, a letter was forwarded to George E. Sanders, Sr., by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. P 487 031 838. a. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Celinda Sanders. 5. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to George E. Sanders, Sr., in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation. 6. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on December 3, 1998. 7. George E. Sanders has served as a member of Red Lion Borough Council since January 3, 1994. a. Sanders served as a member of the administrative committee in 1998. 8. The borough's administrative committee responsibilities include determining the borough's computer needs. 9. Councilman Thomas Sinibaldi was chairman of the borough's administration committee in 1998. a. Other committee members included Betty Contino and George Sanders. 10. In November 1997, Councilman Sinibaldi and former assistant borough manager Connie Stokes took an active role in assessing and determining borough computer needs. Sanders. Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 3 a. They were concerned that the borough's computer system was not year 2000 compatible. b. Sinibaldi and Stokes agreed that an internet web site would be beneficial to future development and redevelopment in Red Lion Borough. 11. On or about November 1997, informal discussions occurred among council members regarding the need for and benefits of a Red Lion Borough web site over the past several years. a. Councilman Sinibaldi was the driving force behind these discussions. b. Council collectively was in favor of getting a borough web page but did not take any official action to approve a web site for the borough. c. Sanders participated in these discussions. 12. Councilman Sinibaldi and former assistant borough manager Connie Stokes contacted George A. Sanders, Jr., and discussed the development of a web site for the borough. a. Sinibaldi knew that Sanders was starting a computer company. 13. George A. Sanders, Jr., is the son of Councilman George E. Sanders, Sr. 14. George A. Sanders, Jr., owns and operates Lion Technologies, 133 West Broadway, Suite 1, Red Lion, PA 17356. a. George A. Sanders filed a fictitious name application for Lion Technologies with the Pennsylvania Department of State on or about May 7, 1997. b. Lion Technologies provides internet and computer sales and services. 15. George A. Sanders, Jr., also has a 50% interest in Arastone Internet Inc., 3550 Cimmeron Road, York, PA 17402. 16. George A. Sanders, Jr., was contacted by Sinibaldi and Stokes as owner of Lion Technologies. a. Sinibaldi wanted to deal with a local business and was familiar with Sanders, Jr., as a former student of Sinibaldi's. 17. Sanders, Jr., met with borough's clerical staff to determine the borough's computer and internet needs around November, 1997. 18. Lion Technologies submitted an initial proposal letter to the borough dated December 3, 1997. a. The proposal was hand - delivered to the borough manager by Councilman Sinibaldi. Sanders. Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 4 b. Lion Technologies proposed meeting with staff and management to develop a technology plan for the borough. c. Lion Technologies proposed a $200.00 fee for this service, if the borough decided to implement part or all of the plan developed by Lion Technologies the fee would be waived. d. This proposal did not go before council for approval. 19. Between December 3, 1997, and March 9, 1998, George A. Sanders, Jr., continued to have discussions with Sinibaldi and Stokes regarding the borough's computer and internet needs. a. Councilman Sanders was,not part of these discussions. 20. George A. Sanders, Jr., appeared before council at their March 9, 1998, meeting on behalf of Lion Technologies. Sanders, Jr., made a presentation explaining computer and Internet services he was proposing for Red Lion Borough. Councilman Sanders was present at the meeting. a. b. 21. Lion Technology's proposal provided for an initial cost of $1,356.00 which included a computer, printer, shipping, tax and installation for $1,236.00 and web site, domain name and dial -up Internet access for $120.00. The borough also would incur a $70.00 per month cost for the website and dial -up internet access. 22. Lion Technologies was the only company to appear before council proposing to provide computer and /or internet service. 23. Red Lion Borough did not solicit any competitive bids for computer and /or internet services. a. The decision not to solicit additional quotes or bids was determined by Councilman Sinibaldi and not put before a vote of council. 24. At Council's March 9, 1998, meeting George Sanders, Sr., was present for the presentation made before council by his son d /b /a Lion Technologies and participated in official council action taken to hire Lion Technologies. 25. Minutes from Council's March 9, 1998, meeting include the following recorded discussion and official action taken to hire Lion Technologies: "George Sanders, Jr., of Lion Technologies was present to discuss the Internet and potential web site for Red Lion Borough. Mr Sanders handed out proposals with all costs involved in Internet access and the creation of this (a) web site to all Council members. He feels that a Red Lion web site could be used to promote Red Lion in the following ways: - redevelopment Sanders. Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 5 - advertising - customer service - recreation programs Mr. Sanders also felt that Internet access available to the office would be helpful in the research of various items (including the), possibility of grant funding and accessibility to other communities on the Internet. His goal at the meeting tonight is to get approval from Council for creation of the Web site and to get feedback on (from) Council members on what they may want incorporated into this proposal. Mr. Sanders gave a demonstration of a typical web site by showing Council members the web pages of Lion Technologies. The costs associated with setting up the proposal from Lion Technologies were outlined in the information handed out to the Council members and these cost would run approximately $ 1,100 for set up, which includes new equipment and approximately $1,100 per year to maintain the Internet access and web pages. Lion Technologies will provide an accounting of how many times this site is accessed each month. It was felt that it would be to the Borough's advantage to utilize Lion Technologies since they are local and would be readily available for help and guidance. Mr. Sanders told the Council that the actual site could be up and running within two weeks . Mr. Henshaw made a motion to accept the proposal as outlined by Lion Technologies, but without the dedicated phone line. Mrs. Contino seconded this motion. Council voted unanimously to accept this proposal." Present: Sanders, Sinibaldi, Henshaw, Contino, Shellenberger, Mayes, Missimer 26. During the April 13, 1998, council meeting, Sanders made the motion to approve the minutes of the March 9, 1998, meeting. 27. At Council's June 8, 1998, meeting council was informed that the Red Lion web site is up and can be accessed by www.borough.red- lion.pa.us. The business association is going to advertise the web site on banners that will be hanging over the street by the borough offices." 28. Lion Technologies has received three (3) payments totaling $1,570.00 for computer equipment and Internet services provided Red Lion Borough since March 9, 1998. Individual payments were issued as follows: Check No. Date Amount a. 17347 03/19/98 $1,000.00 b. 17443 04/13/98 $ 35.00 c. 17845 09/14/98 $ 535.00 Sanders, Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 6 $1,570.00 29. Payments issued to Lion Technologies were included as part of council's monthly bill lists and financial statements. a. Bill lists and financial statements are voted on in their entirety by a single motion. b. Bill lists and financial statements are provided to council the night action is to occur on them. c. The approval of bill lists and financial statements is the last order of business during council meetings. d. Council has the duration of the meeting to review the bill lists and financial statements prior to approval. e. Bill lists and financial statements typically are three (3) to five (5) pages in length. 30. Councilman Sanders participated in official action taken to approve all three (3) payments to Lion Technologies. Approvals occurred as follows: Meeting Date Check No. 04/13/98 Included 09/14/98 31. Some members of council questioned whether Sanders had a conflict of interest for voting to contract with his son's company. 32. Borough Solicitor D. Michael Craley provided council president Thomas Sinibaldi with a solicitor's opinion dated April 14, 1998 on behalf of George Sanders, Sr. a. Solicitor Craley's opinion was obtained a month after councilman Sanders participated in action taken to hire his son's company. b. Solicitor Craley did not view Councilman Sanders as having a conflict of interest because Sanders' vote was not determinative. c. Solicitor Craley did not contact the State Ethics Commission for an opinion on behalf of Councilman Sanders. d. Solicitor Craley did not provide Sanders with legal advice regarding voting on bill lists and financial statements which included payments issued to Lion Technologies. 33. Business records of Lion Technologies include overhead costs totaling $ 1,472.12 associated with the equipment and services provided to the borough. Individual costs are as follows: a. Computer: Printer: Tax: 17347 17443 17845 $ 768.66 $ 147.34 $ 46.12 Amount $1,000.00 $ 35.00 $ 535.00 Official Action Vote Motion, Vote Included Motion, Vote 7 -0 hduded 6 -1 Sanders, Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 7 Assembly: $ 80.00 Installation: $ 35.00 $1,077.12 b. Web Site Set -up: $ 300.00 Dial Up Access: $ 20.00 Domain Names: $ 75.00 $ 395.00 34. Lion Technologies realized, a financial gain to date of $97.88 from its dealings with Red Lion Borough. a. Financial gain based on total payments issued to Lion Technologies in the amount of $1,570.00 minus documented business expenses of $1,472.12. 35. Lion Technologies provided its services to the borough at cost in the hopes of generating future business through positive exposure in the community. 36. George Sanders, Sr., used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of his son, George Sanders, Jr. and a business, Lion Technologies, with which his son is associated by participating in council action on March 9, 1998, to hire Lion Technologies to provide Red Lion Borough with computer and internet services without an open and public process. 37. George Sanders, Sr., used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of his son and /or a business with which his son is associated when he made two (2) council motions approving three (3) payments to Lion Technologies totaling $1,570.00. III. DISCUSSION: Initially, we must consider a procedural issue that has arisen regarding the filing of an Answer to the Investigative Complaint. The pleading stage in this case began with the issuance of the Investigative Complaint on December 3, 1998. On its face, the Investigative Complaint stated that an Answer had to be received at this Commission within thirty (30) days of issuance and that the Respondent should take that document immediately to an attorney. In this case, Respondent Sanders already was represented by Counsel and an Answer was due on or before January 4, 1999. No Answer was received. A Petition for Leave to File an Answer and Request a Hearing was received from Sanders' Counsel on January 15, 1999. In the Petition, it is argued that Counsel received the Investigative Complaint but was not certain whether Sanders intended to pursue the matter or to have Counsel represent him; hence, Counsel mistakenly did not contact Sanders, who had no notice of the filing of the Complaint. It is further argued that until January 5, 1999, Sanders had no notice of the Complaint against him, due process requires that Sanders be notified, and any mistake of Counsel should not be attributed to Sanders. On January 15, 1999, the Investigative Division filed an Answer in opposition to the Respondent's Petition raising the following arguments. The Investigative Complaint was specifically addressed to George E. Sanders, Sr. c/o his Counsel who, at all times relevant, has been representing Sanders, specifically asserting such by way Sanders. Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 8 of letter dated June 30, 1998. In said letter, Counsel acknowledged that Sanders intended to "vigorously defend the violation." The Investigative Division was ethically obligated not to communicate with Sanders, only Counsel. In addition, on November 20 and 23, 1998, representatives of the Investigative Division contacted Counsel's office to request the scheduling of an interview with Sanders, to which Counsel failed to respond. On December 3, 1998 the Investigative Complaint was forwarded to Counsel in the name of Sanders and Counsel's office had been contacted so that he knew that the Investigative Division continued to pursue the matter. Counsel never advised of any change of status as to his representation of Sanders. Counsel's assertion, that his failure to file an Answer resulted from a mistake, is insufficient to allow the filing of an Answer beyond the allowed time. Sanders' Counsel filed a Reply to the New Matter in the Investigative Division's Answer, asserting that he did not enter a formal appearance of record, he should be allowed to file an Answer because no prejudice exists, and an Answer would allow this Commission to thoughtfully consider the case under the Ethics Act which has "quasi criminal" penalties. Under the Ethics Act and Regulations, a response to the Investigative Complaint must be received within 30 days. 65 Pa.C.S. §1108(e); 51 Pa. Code §21.5(k). As noted above, even the face sheet of the Investigative Complaint states that an Answer must be received within 30 days. In order for a late answer to be deemed timely filed, we apply the same standard as is applied by the courts to untimely appeals (see, Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 475 A.2d 1369 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984) applying that standard in administrative proceedings to an untimely request for a hearing). The standard is that to accept the untimely filing as if it were timely, there must either have been fraud or a breakdown in the administrative process, see, West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 460 Pa. 551, 333 A.2d 909 (1975); Bianco v. Robinson Twp., 556 A.2d 993 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989), which includes the postal process (Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 475 A.2d 1369 (1984)), or there must have been unique and compelling factual circumstances establishing non - negligent failure to file timely, Grimaud v. Dep't of Env. Resources, 638 A.2d 299 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994); Bass v. Com., 485 Pa. 256, 401 A.2d 1133 (1979). None of the conditions for allowing the filing of a late Answer is present in this case. There has not even been any allegation of fraud, any breakdown in the administrative process or the mail delivery system, or any unique and compelling factual circumstances that would establish a non - negligent failure to timely file. The issue in this case reduces to whether the receipt of the Investigative Complaint by Respondent's Counsel, who received the Complaint but took no action because he was unsure whether the Respondent wanted to pursue the case, warrants the granting of the Petition. Based upon the above case law, such action does not constitute a non - negligent failure to file. Given a 30 -day deadline to file an Answer, it was incumbent upon Counsel to determine what action should be taken before the deadline. Counsel could have requested a 30 -day extension to file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint. Parenthetically, we note that our Regulations allow for the filing of an application for an extension to file an Answer. 51 Pa.Code §21.5(k). No such request was made in this case prior to the filing deadline. Since the arguments raised on the procedural issue by Sanders' Counsel have no merit, we reject the arguments. The Petition is denied. Turning to the substantive aspect of the case, at all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, George E. Sanders, Sr., hereinafter Sanders, has been a public Sanders. Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 9 official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, el seg. /Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. The issue is whether Sanders, as a Councilman for Red Lion Borough, York County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11) based upon the allegation that he participated in actions of Council to enter into a contract with Lion Technologies, a business owned by his son, when the contract, in excess of $500, was not awarded through an open and public process. Section 1103. Restricted activities. (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, §1103(a). Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act 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 the Ethics Act as follows: Section 1102. 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 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. The term 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. Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 1 1, §1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Section 1103. Restricted activities. (f) Contract. - -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 Sanders, Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 10 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. Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, §1103(f). Section 1103(f) 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 relevant facts. Sanders has served as a Member of the Red Lion Borough Council and Borough Administrative Committee, which has the responsibility for determining the Borough's computer needs. Councilman Thomas Sinibaldi and former Assistant Borough Manager Connie Stokes, who took an active role in determining the Borough's computer needs, had concerns about resolving any Borough year 2000 computer problem as well as developing a Borough Internet website. Sinibaldi and Stokes contacted George A. Sanders, Jr. ( "Sanders, Jr."), who is the son of Sanders and the owner /operator of Lion Technologies, a business which provides Internet and computer sales and services. Sinibaldi contacted Sanders, Jr. because he wanted to deal with a local business. After Sanders, Jr. met with clerical staff to determine the Borough's computer needs, Lion Technologies submitted an initial proposal to the Borough which was not presented to a Council for review. Sanders, Jr. appeared at a subsequent Council meeting and proposed to provide computer and Internet services to the Borough at a cost of $1,356, comprised of $1,236 for a computer, printer, shipping, tax and installation plus $120 for a website, domain name and dial -up Internet access. The Borough would also incur a $70 per month fee for the website and dial -up Internet access. The Borough did not solicit competitive bids for the computer /Internet services. Sanders, Jr. on behalf of Lion Technologies was the only person to appear before Council to make a proposal for computer /Internet service. The decision not to solicit Sanders, Sr., 98- 038 -C2 Page 11 additional bids was made by Sinibaidi. At the March 9, 1998 Council meeting with Sanders present, the Borough unanimously voted to accept the proposal from Lion Technologies. Subsequently, at an April 13, 1998 Borough Council meeting, Sanders made the motion to approve bill lists which included payments to Lion Technologies, which motion passed unanimously. In addition, at a September 14, 1998 Council meeting, Sanders made a successful motion and voted in favor of paying bill lists which included invoices of Lion Technologies. After some members of Council questioned whether Sanders had a conflict of interest as to the contract awarded to his son's business, the Borough Solicitor was contacted. The Borough Solicitor, in an opinion which was rendered a month after Sanders participated in the action to award the contract to his son's business, concluded that Sanders had no conflict because his vote was not determinative. The opinion only dealt with the conflict of interest issue and not the question of voting on bill lists. Lastly, the Borough Solicitor did not contact the Ethics Commission for an advisory as the propriety of Sanders' conduct. Lion Technologies provided its services at cost to the Borough in the hope of generating future business. The total financial gain realized by Lion Technologies as to the contract with the Borough for computer and Internet services was $97.88. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Sanders violated Sections 1103(a) and 1 103(f) of the Ethics Act. As to Section 1 103(a) of the Ethics Act, it is clear that there was a use of authority of office on the part of Sanders. See, Juliante, Order No. 809. But for the fact that Sanders was a Council Member, he could not have participated and voted as to the award of the contract to his son's business and the approval of payments to that business. The use of the authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the profit on the Borough contract that was awarded to Lion Technologies. The private pecuniary benefit inured to Lion Technologies, which is a business with which a member of Sanders' immediate family, his son, is associated. See, Section 1102 of the Ethics Act. Hence, Sanders violated Section 1103(a) when he used the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated, by participating in the award of a Borough contract to Lion Technologies for computer /Internet services. See, Schubenski, Order No. 1066. Similarly, Sanders used the authority of office by participating and voting to approve payments to Lion Technologies, a business with which his son is associated. Such action resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to that business. Hence, Sanders technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in Council actions to approve payments to a business with which his son is associated. Smith, Order No. 1063. As to Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, a contract was awarded by the Borough to Sanders' son's business. No other bids were solicited for that contract, which was not awarded through an open and public process. The contract also exceeded the $500 threshold of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act. We find that Sanders violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of Council to award a contract of $500 or more to a business owned by his son, which was not awarded through an open and public process as required by the Ethics Act. See, Beatty, Order No. 1034. The Borough Solicitor gave an after - the -fact opinion on the issue of the award of the contract to Sanders, Jr.'s business. Although the advice of a solicitor provides Sanders. Sr.., 98- 038 -C2 Page 12 such a defense to ot offer defense nse as to a violation of the Ethics Act. § 1109 advice does not (g) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1109(g). Turning to the matter of restitution, the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1107(13), specifically empowers this Commission to impose restitution in those instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. In this case, since it has been determined that a financial gain has been obtained in violation of the Ethics Act, restitution is warranted. Therefore, Sanders is directed to pay restitution in the amount of $97.88 to Red Lion Borough through this Commission within 30 days of the mailing of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by the Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. George E. Sanders, Sr., as a Councilman for Red Lion Borough, York County, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. 2. Sanders violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of Council to award a Borough contract to a business with which his son is associated to provide computer and Internet services to the Borough. 3. art ci P ated in Council violated Section 1103(a) of the actions to approve payments on a Borough participated cont act with his son's business. 4. Sanders of violated Council to award contract Act when he act of $ 500 or more to a business actions o owned by his son without an open and public process. In Re: George E. Sanders, Sr. ORDER NO. 1119 File Docket: 98- 038 -C2 Date Decided: 2/26/99 Date Mailed: 3/10/99 1. George E. Sanders, Sr., as a Councilman for Red Lion Borough, York County, violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when -he participated in actions of Council to award a Borough contract to a business with which his son is associated to provide computer and Internet services to the Borough. 2. Sanders technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in Council actions to approve payments on a Borough contract with his son's business. 3. Sanders violated Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of Council to award a contract of $500 or more to a business owned by his son without an open and public process. 4. Sanders is directed to make payment of $97.88 through this Commission to Red Lion Borough within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by the Commission. b. Non- compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, eguwe DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR