HomeMy WebLinkAbout1139 CampbellIn Re: Edward Campbell, Jr.
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair
Julius Uehlein
John J. Bolger
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
98- 065 -C2
Order No. 1 139
11/22/99
12/7/99
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 et seq., 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 waived. The record is complete. A Consent
Agreement was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which
was subsequently approved.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was replaced by the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1101 seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the
completion of pending matters under that Act.
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 the Ethics Act.
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.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Edward Campbell, Jr., a public official in his capacity as a member of the
board of directors of the Elizabeth Forward School District violated Sections 1 103(a)
and 1103(f) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et se=.) when
he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of a member of his
immediate family and /or a business with which a member of his immediate family is
associated by participating in board discussions, negotiations and votes leading to the
awarding of a contract to Lucent Technologies, a business with which his father is
associated; and when the contract with Lucent Technologies was entered into without
an open and public process.
I1. FINDINGS:
1. Edward Campbell, Jr. has been a member of the Elizabeth Forward School
District Board of Directors since December 1995.
a. Campbell was appointed vice president of the board in 1998.
b. Campbell served as Chairman of the Facilities Planning Committee from
January 1996 through at least 1998.
2. The Facilities Planning Committee is responsible for overseeing all capital
improvements and renovations in the district including improvements to
communication systems.
a. The FPC consisted of Campbell as Chairman and board members Frank
Adams, Carol Druga and Kirk Greenwald.
b. Until 1998, Deputy Superintendent Paul Mueller also participated with
the FPC.
3. In 1993, Elizabeth Forward School District Assistant Superintendent Paul
Mueller began researching the possibility of integrating the district on an ATM
Wide Area Network which would provide the school district with an enhanced
voice system, a state -of- the -art data connection and data transfer system, and
a state -of- the -art video conferencing system (network system).
a. Mueller was not officially assigned this task by the EFSD board of
directors.
4. On February 20, 1997, the EFSD board of directors voted unanimously to
authorize a network technology project as part of the renovations to school
district buildings.
a. The board had previously voted to approve a bond issue for
construction /renovation projects.
5. The network system was to be developed in conjunction with the remodeling
of elementary schools and was intended to Zink the various schools via
telephones and video systems.
6. Mueller conferred with representatives of various companies in order to research
the available technology which would best serve the district.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 3
a. Companies contacted by Mueller included Fore Systems, Bay Networks,
Ciscio Systems, and Lucent Technologies.
1. The district was using Lucent Technologies communication
equipment at the time.
7. In 1996 and 1997 Campbell accompanied Mueller on a number of occasions to
research what an ATM Wide Area Network could do for the school district.
a. Campbell was present during consultations with Fore Systems and
Lucent Technologies.
8. On May 13, 1997, presentations on network systems were made to the
Elizabeth Forward School District Board of Directors by TCI Communications,
Lucent Technologies, and Bell Atlantic.
9. At the May 15, 1997 school board meeting, the board unanimously voted to
advertise for bids for the project.
a. Campbell participated in the vote.
10. The project specifications were drafted by Mueller with the assistance of Lucent
Technologies, and Tom Armbruster of the Allegheny County Intermediate Unit.
11. Meetings were held on March 28, 1997, April 28, 1997, May 7, 1997, and
May 13, 1997 between representatives of the EFSD and Lucent Technologies.
a. Edward Campbell attended those meetings as a school district
representative along with Paul Mueller, deputy superintendent and Tom
Armbruster.
12. The work on the account by Lucent and the agreements to proceed with the
EFSD was 90% completed [sic] prior to the district advertising for bids.
a. These details and agreements were made through Mueller and Campbell.
13. The Elizabeth Forward School District advertised for proposals for a "district -
wide, multi -media solution which incorporates all voice, video and data needs
of the district in an integrated system using ATM as its transmission protocol."
a. The advertisement ran on 5/24, 5/31, and 6/2/97 in the Daily News, a
local McKeesport, PA, paper.
b. Deadline for proposals was 6/3/97, to be awarded at the 6/5/97 board
meeting.
14. The district publicly advertised for RFP's for the network system.
15. Elizabeth Forward School District received the Lucent Technologies proposal on
June 3, 1997 for the network system.
a. No other proposals were received.
b. Fore Systems had requested a bid package, but subsequently declined to
submit a proposal.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 4
16. A special meeting of the board was held on June 5, 1997 to discuss the
network system.
a. The agenda for the 6/5/97 special meeting listed, as Item #9, the
contract for a district -wide multi -media communications system.
b. Board action was delayed until the overall cost of the network system
was received from Mueller.
17. During the EFSD meeting of June 5, 1997, an estimated project cost of 2.7
million dollars was discussed by Campbell.
a. Campbell had entered into discussions with Lucent Technologies and
assured the board that the actual cost would be lower than the estimated
2.7 million dollars.
b. During a meeting with Lucent Technologies representatives, Campbell
actively attempted to get Lucent to reduce their costs and challenged
every price for every line item in the contract.
18. On June 10, 1997, the Facilities Planning Committee met for the purpose of
discussing the district multi -media communications system.
a. The discussion centered on the attributes of Lucent Technologies as a
company.
b. No decision was made during that meeting.
c. Campbell was present for that meeting.
19. Between June 3, 1997, the date proposals were due and June 19, 1997,
meetings occurred between Lucent Technology representatives and
representatives of the EFSD.
a. Campbell, Armbruster and Mueller attended on behalf of the school
district.
b. Some of the meetings focused on costs of the project.
c. Campbell was negotiating for reduced costs from Lucent.
20. The majority of the financial review of the RFP was handled by the Lucent
Account Executive, with the emphasis on trimming costs.
a. Revised costs were then presented to the district.
b. Agreements as to costs were then made between Campbell on behalf of
the EFSD and Lucent.
21. The original proposal submitted by Lucent Technologies for the network system
totaled $2,751,604.00. The proposed system included the following:
Monthly
Price Installation Maintenance
Voice communications for 7 schools $335,235.00 $94,533.00 $3,571.00
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 5
Centralized voice mail - 700 subscribers $37,492.00 $4,461.00 $212.00
Homework Hotline
Distribution System Requirements
Data communications and video
Totals
22. Some additional discount was given on the contract by Lucent Technology in
exchange for the district's agreement to offer their [sic] network system as a
showcase for other school districts interested in a similar type of system.
a. This aspect of the agreement was developed at the suggestion of
Campbell.
23. The Tentative Agenda for the June 19, 1997 EFSD meeting, supplied to board
members at the June 12, 1997 Work Session, did not include a reference to
awarding of the network contract.
a.
The network system was not included on the Tentative Agenda because
a definite dollar figure had not been established.
24. The Final Agenda for the June 19, 1997 EFSD board meeting, dated June 17,
1997, included a recommendation by the Facilities Planning Committee and the
administration to award the network contract to Lucent Technologies. The
agenda included the following statements under "New Business ":
"Contract for district wide multi -media communications system. It is the
recommendation of the Administration and the Facilities Planning Committee
that the Board of School Directors approve a contract with Lucent Technologies
for a district wide multi -media communication system, in the amount of
$2,552,763.00."
b.
$49,405.00 $3,854.00 $251.00
$ 100,570.00 $ 159,450.00 N/A
$1,785,460.00 $164,500.00 $12,590.00
$2,308,162.00 $426,818.00(sicl $16,624.00
Board members are supplied with a Tentative Agenda at work sessions
held one week prior to the regular meetings.
a. Campbell was chairman of the FPC and participated in making the
recommendation.
25. At the June 19, 1997 EFSD board meeting, Campbell participated in the board
decision to award the contract for the network system to Lucent Technologies
in an amount not to exceed $2,552,763.00.
a. Campbell made the motion to award the contract to Lucent.
b. The contract was approved by a 5/0 vote. Four members were absent.
26. Edward F. Campbell, Sr. is the father of Edward Campbell, EFSD board member.
a. Edward Campbell, Sr. is employed as a Software Associate for the
Business Communications Division of the Large Business Division of
Lucent Technologies.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 6
27. Edward Campbell, Sr.'s duties as a Software Associate for Lucent Technologies
include the following:
- Completing station reviews,
- Obtaining equipment line location information,
- Inputting system detail information into System Administration Terminal,
- Creating the system tape, and
- Operating the post- customer help desk.
28. Paul Luff is employed as a Project Manager for Lucent Technologies.
a. Luff was assigned to be the manager for the EFSD project in June 1997
after the contract was awarded to Lucent.
29. A Lucent Technologies Project Scheduler assigns personnel to a project based
on a request for services from the project manager.
a. The project scheduler makes assignments based on availability and skill
level for each job.
30. Edward Campbell, Sr. was assigned to the Implementation Team through a
Project Scheduler based out of a Lucent Technologies office near Philadelphia,
31. Paul Luff requested personnel from four areas to handle the voice end of the
project, including the following positions:
- Software Specialist to handle the system network trunking,
- Software Associate to handle the station detail,
- Technical Support to handle the installation, [and]
- Trainer.
32. As Project Manager, Paul Luff had the authority to make changes in the
assignments to the Implementation Team made by the Project Scheduler.
33. Luff wanted Edward Campbell, Sr. assigned to the Elizabeth Forward School
District project's Implementation Team because of the complexity of the project,
Campbell's experience, and reputation for being detail oriented.
a. Edward Campbell, Sr. did not request to be assigned to the Elizabeth
Forward School District project.
34. Edward Campbell, Sr. did not participate in Lucent Technologies presentations
to the EFSD board of directors prior to the awarding of the contract.
35. Edward Campbell, Sr. was the only software associate involved in meetings of
Lucent's Implementation and Provisioning Teams in preparation of Lucent
Technologies' RFP.
a. Edward Campbell, Sr. did all of the work on the EFSD project in relation
to programming the telephone system.
36. As a Software Support/Technician employee, Edward Campbell, Sr. did not
receive commissions, bonuses or awards based on the contract awarded to
Lucent Technologies by the Elizabeth Forward School District.
Ck #
Ck Date
Amount
Mtg Date
Campbell's
Action
Vote
1706
10/17/97
$779,620.62
10/16/97
Motioned
8/0
1843
04/24/98
16,586.00
04/23/98
Motioned
9/0
1847
05/22/98
78,187.00
05/21/98
Motioned
8/0
1848
06/19/98
33,533.63
06/18/98
Seconded
7/0
1849
07/21/98
300,000.00
07/16/98
Motioned
9/0
1859
08/21/98
16,827.78
08/20/98
Motioned
7/0
1865
10/16/98
300,000.00
10/15/98
Motioned
8/0
1869
12/11/98
400,000.00
12/10/98
-
6/0
1876
02/19/98
[sic]
200,000.00
02/18/98
[sic]
-
7/0
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 7
37. Campbell participated in board action to approve payments to Lucent
Technologies for the network system.
a. Payments by the EFSD made from a Bond Issue Construction Fund were
approved individually and were not included on the list of regular bills
approved for payments.
38. The Facilities Planning Committee reviewed all bills paid from the Bond issue
Construction Fund prior to approval for payment by the board at a regular
meeting.
a. Invoices from Lucent Technologies were reviewed by Paul Mueller, who
determined whether the entire invoice amount would be paid.
b. Mueller performed this function as he was most familiar with the
technical nature of the network system.
39. Between June 19, 1997 and March 1998, nine checks were issued to Lucent
Technologies from the 1994 Bond Issue Construction Fund Account. The
checks and Campbell's actions in regard to the approval of the payments were
as follows:
Total Payments: $2,126,554.90
40. Campbell discussed his father's employment with Lucent Technologies with
EFSD Solicitor Jack Cambest in regard to the awarding of the network systems
contract.
I11. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Edward Campbell, Jr.,
hereinafter Campbell, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 8
P.S. §401, s_ea. . as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101, et
The issue is whether Campbell violated Sections 1103(a) and 1 103(f) as to the
allegations that he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of
a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating
in board discussions, negotiations and votes leading to the award of a contract to
Lucent Technologies, a business where his father is employed, when that contract was
awarded without an open and public process.
Section 1 103. Restricted activities.
(a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict
of interest.
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a).
Pursuant to Section 1
is prohibited from engaging
The term "conflict of
Section 1102.
65 Pa.C.S. §1102.
103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee
in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
interest" is defined uhder the Ethics Act as follows:
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.
Section 1 103(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
contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 9
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.
65 Pa.C.S. §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.
Campbell has been a member of Board of Directors of the Elizabeth Forward
School District (School District) since December 1995 and Chairman of the Facilities
Planning Committee (FPC) from January 1996 through at least 1998.
FPC is responsible for overseeing all capital improvements and renovations in the
School District including improvements to communication systems. Until 1998, the
School District Deputy Superintendent Paul Mueller (Mueller) served on FPC along with
Campbell and three other board members. In 1993, Mueller voluntarily began
researching the possibility of integrating the School District with an enhanced voice
system, a state -of- the -art data connection and data transfer system, and a state -of-
the -art video conferencing network system.
On February 20, 1997, the Board unanimously voted to authorize a network
technology project as part of the School District's building renovations to link the
various schools through telephones and video systems. On May 13, 1997, Lucent
Technologies, TCI Communications, and Bell Atlantic made presentations on network
systems before the Board. On May 15, 1997, the Board, with Campbell participating,
unanimously voted to advertise for bids for the project.
Prior to the advertisement of bids, Mueller drafted the project specifications with
the assistance of Lucent Technologies and Tom Armbruster (Armbruster) of the
Allegheny County Intermediate Unit. A number of meetings were also held between
Lucent Technologies and Mueller, Campbell and Armbruster regarding the School
District project.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 10
The School District then advertised for proposals in a local publication for a
"district -wide, multi -media solution which incorporates all voice, video and data needs
of the district in an integrated system using ATM as its transmission protocol." The
deadline for proposals was June 3, 1997. The contract was to be awarded at the
June 5, 1997 Board meeting. On June 3, 1997, the School District received only one
proposal which was from Lucent Technologies. A special meeting of the Board was
held on June 5, 1997 to discuss the network system. During that meeting, Campbell
mentioned a project cost of an estimated 2.7 million dollars, but assured the Board
that the actual cost would be lower. The Board delayed its action until it received an
overall project cost from Mueller. On June 10, 1997, FPC met to discuss the network
system and the attributes of Lucent Technologies but made no decision at that time.
Campbell was present at that meeting.
Between June 3, 1997 and June 19, 1997, representatives of Lucent
Technologies met with Mueller, Campbell and Armbruster to discuss matters including
the cost of the project. Campbell attempted to persuade Lucent Technologies to
reduce its cost by challenging every price for every line item in the contract. Lucent
Technologies reviewed the Request for Proposal (RFP) with a focus on trimming costs
and then presented revised costs to the School District. Agreements as to costs were
made between Lucent Technologies and Campbell, acting on behalf of the School
District. The original proposal submitted by Lucent Technologies for the network
system totaled $2,751,604.00. At the suggestion of Campbell, Lucent Technologies
agreed to build in additional discounts if the School District agreed to showcase its
network system to other interested school districts.
On June 17, 1997, the Final Agenda for the June 19, 1997 Board meeting
included a recommendation by FPC and the School District Administration to award
the network contract to Lucent Technologies in the amount of $2,552,763.00.
Campbell, as Chairman of FPC, participated in making that recommendation. At the
June 19, 1997 Board meeting, Campbell made the motion to award the contract for
the network system to Lucent Technologies which passed by a vote of 5 -0.
Campbell's father, Edward F. Campbell, Sr. (Edward) is employed as a Software
Associate for the Business Communications Division of the Large Business Division of
Lucent Technologies. Paul Luff is employed as a Project Manager for Lucent
Technologies. Luff was assigned to manage the School District's project in June 1997
after the School District awarded the contract to Lucent Technologies. Luff asked for
personnel from four areas including a software associate to handle the station detail.
Luff specifically asked that Edward be assigned to the Implementation Team for the
School District's network systems project. Edward did not ask to be assigned to that
project and did not participate in the presentation given by Lucent Technologies to the
School Board. Luff chose Edward based upon his experience, his reputation for being
detail oriented, and the complexity of the project. Edward was the only Software
Associate involved in the preparation of Lucent Technologies' RFP at meetings of the
Implementation and Provisioning Teams. Edward performed all the work related to
programming the telephone system for the School District project. As a software
support/technician employee, Edward did not receive commissions, bonuses or awards.
Campbell participated in the Board's action to approve disbursements from the
Bond Issue Construction Fund to pay Lucent Technologies for the network system.
Mueller, as a member of FPC, reviewed all Lucent Technologies invoices before the
Board approved any payments at its regular meetings. Nine checks were issued to
Lucent Technologies from the 1994 Bond Issue Construction Fund Account.
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether
the actions of Campbell violated Sections 1 103(a) and 1 103(f) of the Ethics Act.
Campbell, 98- 065 -C2
Page 11
The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of
Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case by finding that a technical violation
of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Edward Campbell, Jr. participated
in actions of the Elizabeth Forward School District resulting in the hiring of Lucent
Technology, a firm that employs his father; and that no violation of Section 1103(f)
occurred because the School District advertised for the proposals through an open and
public process as required by the Ethics Act.
We believe that the Consent Agreement is the proper disposition for this case
based upon our review of the totality of the facts and circumstances.
As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Campbell used the authority of office
to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for a business with which a member of his
immediate family, . his father, Edward F. Campbell, Sr. was employed. In particular,
Campbell was instrumental in negotiating the final project cost, working out the
project details, and making the recommendation to the Board to approve the contract
with Lucent Technologies. At the June 19, 1997 Board meeting, Campbell
participated in the Board's decision by making a motion to award the contract to
Lucent Technologies. However, Campbell also attempted to persuade Lucent
Technologies to reduce its cost as to the contract with the School District.
Accordingly, a technical violation of Section 1 103(a) occurred when Campbell used
the authority of office to participate in the process' as to the award of a School District
contract to Lucent Technologies, a business with which his father is associated.
As to the award of the School District's contract, we find that there is
insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 1 103(f) of the Ethics Act. As
to that particular project, the findings reflect that the School District properly
advertised for bids. The only bid received was from Lucent Technologies. Since the
contract as to the network systems project was $500 or more and was awarded
through an open and public process, we find no violation by Campbell under Section
1 103(f) of the Ethics Act.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Edward Campbell, Jr., as a member of the Board of Directors of the
Elizabeth Forward School District, is a public official subject to the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11.
2. A technical violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when
Campbell used the authority of office to participate in the process as to
the award of a School District Contract to Lucent Technologies, a
business with which his father is associated.
3. Campbell did not violate Section 1 103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding the
School District contract for the network systems project because the
contract, which was $500 or more, was awarded through an open and
public process.
In Re: Edward Campbell, Jr.
ORDER NO. 1139
File Docket: 98- 065 -C2
Date Decided: 11/22/99
Date Mailed: 12/7/99
1. Edward Campbell, Jr., as a member of the Board of Directors of the Elizabeth
Forward School District, technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act (Ethics Act) when he used the authority of
office to participate in the process as to the award of a School District Contract
to Lucent Technologies, a business with which his father is associated.
2. Campbell did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act regarding the School
District contract for the network systems project because the contract, which
was $500 or more, was awarded through an open and public process.
BY THE COMMIS ION,
AUSTIN M. LEE, VICE CHAIR