Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1141 ArmitageIn Re: Donna Armitage 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- 078 -C2 Order No. 1141 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 mi., 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 et seg., 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. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Donna Armitage, a public official in her capacity as a member of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board, violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq.) when she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary benefit of herself and /or a member of her immediate family; and when she solicited something of monetary value based on her understanding that her official action or judgment would be influenced thereby by soliciting a vehicle loan for her daughter from sales representatives of New Stanton Auto Sales, an entity which she regulated as a member of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board; and when she solicited a job for her daughter from the New Stanton Ramada Inn at a time when the corporation had matters before the Zoning Hearing Board. I1. FINDINGS: 1. Donna Armitage served as a member of the Zoning Stanton Borough, Westmoreland County, from April 1 1998. a. Armitage was appointed to fill an unexpired December 1995. Hearing Board of New 995 through December term which ended in b. Armitage was reappointed to a full term in January 1996. 2. Zoning Hearing Board positions are filled by appointment of Borough Council. a. The term of appointment is three years. 3. The New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board consists of three members. 4. Duties and responsibilities of the Zoning Hearing Board are outlined in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, (MPC), Section 909.1- Jurisdiction- Subsection A. 5. The Zoning Hearing Board is authorized to hear an[d] decide the following types of matters: a. Substantive challenges to the validity of any land use ordinances, except curative amendments; b. Procedural challenges to a land use ordinances; c. Appeals from the "determination" of the zoning officer, including, but not limited to the following: 1) The granting or denial of any permit, or failure to act on the application, 2) The issuance of any cease and desist order or, 3) The registration or refusal to register any non - conforming use, structure, or lot; d. Appeals from a determination by the municipal engineer or zoning officer with respect to the administration of any flood plain or flood hazard ordinance or such provisions within a land use ordinance; Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 3 e. Applications for variances; f. Applications for special exceptions; g. Appeals from the determination of any officer or agency charged with the administration of any transfers of development rights or performance density provisions of the zoning ordinance; h. Appeals from the zoning officer's determination for a "preliminary opinion" under MPC, Section 916.2; Appeals from the determination of the zoning officer or municipal engineer in the administration of any land use ordinance or provision with reference to sedimentation and erosion control of storm water management insofar as the same relates to development not involving Article V (subdivision or land development) or VII (planned residential development) applications. In other words, appeals from erosion or storm water provisions under a zoning ordinance dealing with building on a single lot. 6. The Ramada Inn and Pepper Tree Restaurant and Lounge is located at 110 North Main Street and Byers Avenue, New Stanton, PA. a. The corporate name of the Ramada Inn is Arpita, Inc. b. Arpita, Inc. is owned by Patel Management Company. 1. Sanji Patel is the owner of Patel Management Company. 7. The General Manager of the Ramada Inn in New Stanton, PA., is Ruth Ann Stefanick. a. In 1997, part of Ruth Ann Stefanick's duties was the sole responsibility for the hiring of employees at the Ramada Inn. 8. On February 27, 1997, a hearing of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board was conducted regarding a variance submitted by Arpita, Inc. a. This variance involved the construction of a canopy on the hotel located on Byers Avenue. b. This variance was denied by the Zoning Hearing Board. c. Donna Armitage participated in the discussion of the Zoning Hearing Board and voted to deny the variance. 9. Arpita was advised of the decision by the Zoning Hearing Board on March 5, 1997. 10. Arpita submitted an amended variance request to the Zoning Hearing Board in August, 1997. a. The request also concerned the location of a canopy. b. The request was for a side yard variance for location of a canopy. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 4 c. The request reduced the size of the set back and size of the canopy from the February 1997 request. 11. On August 13, 1997, a hearing of the Zoning Hearing Board was conducted regarding the amended variance submitted by Arpita, Inc. 12. The variance was approved by unanimous vote of the Zoning Hearing Board with conditions. a. Armitage participated in the discussion and voted to approve the ordinance. b. A copy of the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board was sent to Arpita, Inc. on August 21, 1997. 13. After the conclusion of the August 13, 1997 hearing,. Donna Armitage approached Ruth Ann Stefanick at the Borough Building and inquired if the Ramada Inn was hiring. a. Stefanick had never personally spoken to Armitage prior to this encounter. b. Donna Armitage informed Stefanick that her daughter, Karla Armitage, needed a job. c. Stefanick informed Donna Armitage to have her daughter submit an application. d. Donna Armitage informed Stefanick that she could meet Karla Armitage that night. 1. Karla Armitage was present outside of the Borough Building. 14. Donna Armitage introduced Karla Armitage to Stefanick on the evening of August 13, 1997. a. b. Stefanick advised Karla Armitage that evening to complete an application for employment. No offer of employment was made by Stefanick at that time. 15. Donna Armitage placed numerous calls to Stefanick at the Ramada Inn several times between August 14, 1997, and August 24, 1997, inquiring about a position for her daughter. a. On some days Armitage called several times during the day. 16. Karla Armitage submitted an employment application to Stefanick dated August 25, 1997, twelve days after the vote to approve Arpita, Inc.'s zoning variance. 17. Karla Armitage was interviewed and hired by Stefanick at a wage of $5.15 per hour for a part-time position on August 25, 1997, the same day she was interviewed. 18. Karla Armitage was hired as a dishwasher in the kitchen department, but she worked other positions in the Ramada Inn, including in the laundry. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 5 19. The position for which Karia Armitage was hired did not exist before Karia Armitage was hired. a. The position was not needed at that time due to ongoing renovations. b. It was a position which would have been created in the future. 20. Prior to Karla Armitage being hired, no other applications which were then on file were reviewed or considered by Stefanick. a. No other applicants were interviewed for this position. 21. At the time Donna Armitage approached Stefanick for a job for her daughter, the Ramada Inn was not advertising for positions due to renovations occurring at the Ramada Inn. 22. Stefanick was influenced to hire Karia Armitage due to Donna Armitage's position as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board. a. Stefanick knew Donna Armitage was part of the Board which made a decision regarding the Ramada Inn's variance, and that one previous variance request was denied. b. Stefanick believed other permits /exceptions may be necessary in the future from the Zoning Hearing Board due to the construction that was ongoing at the Ramada Inn. c. The persistent calling of Donna Armitage influenced how quickly her daughter was hired by Stefanick. 23. Karla Armitage was employed at the Ramada Inn from September 4, 1997, until voluntarily resigning on 10/29/97. 24. Karla Armitage was compensated $114.58 [sic] by Arpita, Inc. during the time from 9/4/97 to 10/29/97 as listed below: Date Check # Gross Amount Net Amount 09/12/97 576 $ 66.95 $ 59.29 09/26/97 585 115.88 100.19 10/10/97 597 122.31 95.12 10/24/97 608 109.44 95.64 Total: $414.58 $350.24 The following findings relate to the allegation that Armitage used her position on the Zoning Hearing Board to influence New Stanton Auto Sales to provide a car loan to her daughter. 25. The New Stanton Auto Sales is a used car dealership located at 105 South Center Avenue, New Stanton, PA. a. New Stanton Auto Sales is a subsidiary of Mike Petrillo Auto Sales, Inc. b. The property is owned by Stella Morgan. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 6 26. Ron Soltis is the owner /general manager of New Stanton Auto Sales and a business partner of Mike Petrillo. 27. On November 13, 1997, New Stanton Borough received an application for Special Exception from New Stanton Auto Sales. a. A special exception is required for all car dealerships doing business in the Borough. 28. A hearing for the New Stanton Auto Sales Special Exception was scheduled before the Zoning Hearing Board on December 9, 1997. a. The Special Exception for New Stanton Auto Sales was approved by unanimous vote of the Zoning Hearing Board. b. Donna Armitage participated in the decision. c. A copy of the decision of the Zoning Hearing Board was sent to Stella Morgan on December 17, 1997. 29. On Tuesday, May 26, 1998, Karla Armitage attempted to purchase a vehicle from New Stanton Auto Sales. a. Karla Armitage was assisted by Nick Troilo, a sales representative for New Stanton Auto Sales. 30. Karla Armitage was not approved for a loan based on her credit history. 31. Karla Armitage was informed that she would need a co- signer to obtain the loan. a. Donna Armitage agreed to co -sign the loan for her daughter. 32. Donna Armitage completed a separate credit application at New Stanton Auto Sales but was not offered a loan due to her credit history. 33. Donna Armitage advised Troilo and Graham of New Stanton Auto Sales that because of her position on the Zoning Hearing Board, she did not care what needed to be done, that New Stanton Auto Sales should get the loan approval. a. She stated that "you guys know who I am and who I'm with. I don't think you want to be on my bad side." b. Troilo and Graham believed Armitage was referring to Armitage's position as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board. c. Troilo felt threatened to obtain financing for Karla Armitage. 34. No loan was approved for Karla or Donna Armitage. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Donna Armitage, hereinafter Armitage, 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 P.S. §401, et =./Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101, et seq. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 7 The issue is whether Armitage violated Section 1 103(a) or Section 1 103(c) of the Ethics Act regarding the allegation that she used the authority of her position for the private pecuniary benefit of her daughter, and that she solicited something of monetary value based upon her understanding that her official action or judgment would be influenced by soliciting a job for her daughter at the New Stanton Ramada Inn when the Inn had matters before the Zoning Board and by soliciting a vehicle loan from New Stanton Auto Sales which is subject to regulation by the Zoning Hearing Board. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 1103. 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 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 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: 65 Pa.C.S. §1102. 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. 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 1 103. Restricted activities. (c) Accepting improper influence. - -No public official, public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding of that Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 8 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(c). public official, public employee or nominee that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. Section 1 103(c) of the Ethics Act provides in part that a public official /public employee shall not solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon any understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Armitage served as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board of New Stanton Borough, Westmoreland County from April 1995 through December 1998. The three - member Board has the authority to hear and decide matters outlined in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, including substantive and procedural challenges to the validity of any land use ordinance, and applications for variances and special exceptions. On February 27, 1997, the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board conducted a hearing to consider a variance submitted by Arpita, Inc. for the construction of a canopy at the Ramada Inn on Byers Avenue in New Stanton. Arpita, Inc. is the corporate name of the Ramada Inn. Armitage participated in the discussion of the Zoning Hearing Board and voted to deny the variance. On March 5, 1997, the Zoning Hearing Board advised Arpita, Inc. in writing of its decision to deny the variance. The Zoning Hearing Board met again on August 13, 1997 to consider an amended variance submitted by Arpita, Inc. for a smaller canopy with a reduced set back. Armitage participated in the discussion of the Zoning Hearing Board and voted to approve the amended variance. On August 21, 1997, the Zoning Hearing Board advised Arpita, Inc. in writing of its decision to approve the variance. Immediately following the August 13, 1997 hearing, Armitage approached the Ramada Inn's General Manager Ruth Ann Stefanick who was solely responsible for hiring employees and asked whether the hotel was hiring. In fact, the Ramada Inn was not advertising for any positions at that time due to ongoing renovations at the hotel. After Armitage informed Stefanick that her daughter, Karla Armitage, needed a job, Stefanick told Armitage to have her daughter submit a job application. Armitage then told Stefanick that she could meet Armitage's daughter who was outside the Borough Building. Armitage introduced Karla Armitage to Stefanick who advised her to submit a job application. No offer of employment was made by Stefanick at that time. Between August 14, 1997 and August 24, 1997, Armitage placed numerous calls, sometimes several per day, to Stefanick at the Ramada Inn to inquire about a position for her daughter. On August 25, 1997, twelve days after the Zoning Hearing Board voted to approve Arpita, Inc.'s amended zoning variance, Karla Armitage submitted a job application to Stefanick, interviewed with her, and accepted a part- time position as a dishwasher at the Ramada Inn for $5.15 per hour. The dishwasher position did not exist before Karla Armitage was hired; in fact, at that time, it was not needed due to ongoing renovations at the hotel. Before Stefanick hired Karla Armitage, Stefanick did not review other job applications then on file or interview any other applicants for the dishwasher position. Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 9 Stefanick hired Karla Armitage because Armitage was a member of the Zoning Hearing Board which exercised authority over the variance requests for the Ramada Inn. Stefanick was aware that the ongoing renovations at the Ramada Inn might lead to future applications for permits /exceptions that would have to be submitted to the Zoning Hearing Board. The speed with which Karla Armitage was hired was a result of Armitage's persistent calls to Stefanick on behalf of Armitage's daughter. Karla Armitage worked at the Ramada Inn from September 4, 1997 until October 29, 1997 when she voluntarily resigned. During that time, she received gross compensation from Arpita, Inc. in the amount of $414.58. New Stanton Auto Sales is a used car dealership located on Center Avenue in New Stanton. On December 9, 1997, the Zoning Hearing Board conducted a hearing to consider the car dealership's application for a special exception. Armitage participated in the Board's decision to unanimously approve the special exception. On May 26, 1998, Karla Armitage attempted to buy a vehicle from New Stanton Auto Sales. She was assisted by Nick Troilo, a sales representative. Based on her credit history, Karla Armitage was not approved for a loan and was told that she would need a co- signer. Armitage agreed to co -sign a loan for her daughter and completed a separate credit application. However, she was not approved for a loan due to her credit history. Armitage advised Troilo and another individual at New Stanton Auto Sales named Graham, that she did not care what needed to be done to approve the loan. She told them , "[Y]ou guys know who I am and who I'm with. I don't think you want to be on my bad side ". Based upon that statement, Troilo and Graham believed Armitage was referring to her position as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board and felt threatened to obtain financing for Karla Armitage. However, no loan was approved for either Armitage or her daughter. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Armitage violated Section 1103(a) or Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act. The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case by finding that violations of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Armitage used her position as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board to obtain employment for her daughter with the New Stanton Ramada Inn, and when she attempted to obtain a car loan for her daughter; that no violation of Section 1103(c) occurred; and payments by Armitage through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of $500 in 11 equal monthly payments in the amount of $41.67, with a final payment of $41.63, commencing within thirty days of the date of mailing of this Order. 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. With regard to the first factual scenario involving the Ramada Inn, we find clear and convincing proof to establish a violation of Section 1 103(a) of the Ethics Act. Armitage used the authority of her position as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board to solicit employment for a member of her immediate family, her daughter Karla Armitage, at the Ramada Inn. By approaching Ruth Ann Stefanick immediately after the August 13, 1997 hearing to ask about a job for her daughter, Armitage demonstrated to Stefanick her authority to decide land use matters affecting Arpita, Inc. /Ramada Inn. Armitage repeatedly used the authority of her office between August 14, 1997 and August 24, 1997 when she placed numerous calls to Stefanick at the Ramada Inn to inquire about a position for Karla Armitage. On August 25, 1997, only Armitage, 98- 078 -C2 Page 10 twelve days after the Zoning Hearing Board voted to approve Arpita, Inc.'s amended zoning variance, Karla Armitage submitted a job application to Stefanick. As a result of Armitage's actions, Stefanick disregarded other job applications then on file and essentially created a position for Karla Armitage who received gross compensation from Arpita, Inc. in the amount of $414.58. Armitage violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she used the authority of her office to obtain a pecuniary benefit for her daughter. With regard to the second factual scenario involving New Stanton Auto Sales, we also find clear and convincing proof to establish a violation of Section 1 103(a) of the Ethics Act. The most blatant use of authority occurred after Armitage and her daughter were disapproved for a car loan at New Stanton Auto Sales. By insinuating that the car dealership should approve the loan because Armitage, as a member of the Zoning Hearing Board, could affect the success of matters that New Stanton Auto Sales might bring before the Board, she used the authority of her office in an attempt to obtain a prohibited pecuniary benefit in violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, Taylor, Order 983; Metrick, Order, 1037. There is insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 1 103(c) of the Ethics Act in either of the above factual scenarios. A violation of Section 1 103(c) of the Ethics Act as to a public official /public employee must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the public official /public employee solicited or accepted something of monetary value based upon that public official /public employee's understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. Based upon the facts before us, there is insufficient evidence to establish the requisite elements of such a violation. See, Kasaback, Order 993. Accordingly, we approve the consent agreement that has been submitted by the parties. We find a violation of Section 1 103(a) of the Ethics Act as set forth above. The parties having agreed that the appropriate payment to be made by Armitage would be in the amount of $500, payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 11 equal monthly payments of $41.67, with a final payment of $41.63, we direct Armitage to make said payment(s) to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission commencing within 30 days of the date of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Donna Armitage, as a member of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board, was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. 2. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Armitage used the authority of her position as a member of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board to obtain employment for her daughter with the New Stanton Ramada Inn and to attempt to obtain a car loan for her daughter at New Stanton Auto Sales. 3. No violation of Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act occurred as to Armitage obtaining employment for her daughter with the New Stanton Ramada Inn and attempting to obtain a car loan for her daughter at New Stanton Auto Sales based upon an insufficiency of evidence. In Re: Donna Armitage : File Docket: 98- 078 -C2 Date Decided: 11/22/99 Date Mailed: 12/7/99 ORDER NO. 1141 1. Donna Armitage, as a member of the New Stanton Zoning Hearing Board, violated Section 1 103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), when she used the authority of office for a private pecuniary benefit to a member of her immediate family by obtaining employment for her daughter with the New Stanton Ramada Inn, and by attempting to obtain a car loan for her daughter at New Stanton Auto Sales. 2. No violation of Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act occurred as to Armitage obtaining employment for her daughter with the New Stanton Ramada Inn and attempting to obtain a car loan for her daughter at New Stanton Auto Sales based upon an insufficiency of evidence. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Armitage is directed to make payment in the amount of $500 to the Commonwealth in 11 equal monthly installments of $41.67, with a final payment of $41.63 through this Commission commencing within 30 days of the issuance 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 TH OMMI ION, AUSTIN M. LEE, VICE CHAIR