Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout997 RansdorfSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Thomas Ransdorf File Docket: 95- 025 -C2 . Date Decided: 2/15/96 Date Mailed: 3/1/96 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Boyd E. Wolff The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 At, sec. Written notice of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served upon completion of the investigation which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A consent agreement was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document thirty days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of issuance 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). 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. 5409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Thomas Ransdorf (Ransdorf), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Leidy Township, Clinton County, violated Sections 3(a) and /or 3(f) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a company with which he is associated when he participated in discussions, and /or actions of the Board of Supervisors to award a contract to a business with which his company subcontracted; when he participated in payments to said business and /or to his company, when his company entered into contracts valued in excess of $500 with his governmental body to provide fuel oil and related items and services without an open and public process, and when he participated in the award of said contracts and subsequent payments to his company in relation thereto. II. FINDINGS: 1. Thomas Ransdorf has served as a supervisor for Leidy Township, Clinton County since January, 1994. a. Ransdorf previously served as a supervisor from 1988 through 1991, resigning in December, 1991. b. Ransdorf served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 1990 and 1991. 2. Ransdorf is a partner, along with his wife, in a full service heating business, Ransdorf & Sons Fuel Oil Service. a. Ransdorf operates the business along with his wife, son and daughter. b. Ransdorf's business provides fuel oil, fuel equipment and authorized service technicians to work on the equipment. c. The business has been in operation since 1986. d. Ransdorf's business consists of commercial and residential customers. 3. In early 1995, the Leidy Township Supervisors decided to install a new furnace in the township building. a. The board authorized the advertising of bids for this project. b. The announcement appeared in the Renovo Record Newspaper on January 25, 1995. Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 3 4. On February 8, 1995, the Leidy Township Supervisors accepted bids to install a furnace at the township building. 5. Minutes of the Leidy Township Supervisor's Meeting for February 8, 1995, confirm the following regarding the supervisors acceptance of bids to install a furnace. February 8. 1995: Those present were supervisors Barb Summerson, Coolidge Dingman and Tom Ransdorf. Heating bids were opened. Barry Gipe $1,697.00; Dremel's Sunoco $1,876.00. Apparent low bidder is Barry Gipe at $1,697.00. Motion made by Tom (Ransdorf) and second by Ding (Dingman) to award contract to Barry Gipe. M.C. (Motion Carried). An award letter will be sent out to Barry Gipe. 6. Prior to submitting his bid to the township, Barry Gipe contacted Alice Ransdorf from Ransdorf & Sons for an estimate to install the furnace at the township building. a. Gipe based the bid that he submitted to the township on information and pricing obtained from Ransdorf and Sons as noted above. 7. Barry Gipe has used Ransdorf & Sons as his subcontractor on furnace work. 8. Barry Gipe used Ransdorf & Sons as a subcontractor to install the furnace at the township building. 9. The furnace installed at the township building was purchased from Reeler Supply Company, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. a. The type of furnace purchased was a Bard Oil Hi -boy Furnace. b. The total cost of the furnace was $1,312.00 10. Keeler Supply Invoice No. 1012918 -0001 identified the customer as Leidy Township, c/o Barry Gipe. a. The date listed on the invoice was February 28, 1995. b. Barry Gipe was not involved in the pick up or delivery of the furnace. 11. The furnace was installed at the township building by Ransdorf & Sons on February 23, 1995. Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 4 a. This was prior to an award letter being sent to Barry Gipe notifying him that he was the successful bidder. 12. Ransdorf & Sons submitted Invoice No. 4749 to Barry Gipe on February 23, 1995. a. Gipe was billed by Ransdorf & Sons in the amount of $285.00 to remove and install a furnace at the Leidy Township Building. b. The invoice consisted of charges of $135.00 /materials and $150 /labor. c. This was five days prior to the invoice from Keeler. 13. On the night of the Leidy Township Supervisors' Meeting of February 8, 1995, Alice Ransdorf advised Mary Ann Flack, Township Secretary, that Barry Gipe was getting the furnace from their business. 14. Barry Gipe's checking account with Commonwealth Bank reflects payments were made for the purchase and installation of the furnace at the Leidy Township Building. Data Check Number Amount Payee 03/14/95 2010 $ 285.00 Ransdorf & Sons 03/28/95 2016 $1,312.00 Keeler Supply Co. 15. Leidy Township Solicitor Charles Rosamilia advised the Leidy Township Supervisors at their meeting of March 2, 1995, to request an opinion from the State Ethics Commission before authorizing payment to Barry Gipe for the work he completed on the furnace. a. Rosamilia wanted the conflict of interest issue addressed prior to any further action taking place. b. Thomas Ransdorf was present at this meeting. 16. A majority of the Leidy Township Board of Supervisors ignored Rosamilia's legal advice and voted to pay the Gipe bills. 17. Minutes of the April 5, 1995, Leidy Township Supervisors meeting reflect a payment was awarded to Barry Gipe for installing the furnace. a. April 5, 1995: Those present were supervisors Barb Summerson, Coolidge Dingman and Tom Ransdorf. Motion to approve payment to Barry Gipe for installation of a furnace made by Coolidge (Dingman) and Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 5 seconded by Tom (Ransdorf). Barb (Summerson) voted no. b. The vote was 2 -1. c. The deciding vote was cast by Thomas Ransdorf. 18. The Leidy Township Supervisors issued check no. 3472 on April 5, 1995, in the amount of $1,697.00 made payable to Barry Gipe Home Improvements. a. Thomas Ransdorf co- signed the check as supervisor. b. The check was made payable to Gipe furnace. 19. Barry Gipe asserted he made $100.00 profit at Leidy Township. township for installing the for the furnace job 20. Thomas Ransdorf never disclosed that Ransdorf & Sons may have an interest in the furnace project to the other supervisors or public prior to the award of the contract. 21. Ransdorf has been supplying fuel oil, fuel equipment and maintenance for the equipment for Leidy Township since he assumed ownership of the business in 1986. a. Prior to Thomas Ransdorf's interest in the business; Ransdorf & Brothers (the prior name of the business) also supplied fuel oil, equipment and maintenance to the township. b. These services were never put out for bid until October, 1995. 22. Following receipt of the notice of the instant inquiry dated May 8, 1995, Ransdorf advised the township that he would no longer provide oil to the township. 23. In October, 1995, the township put the fuel oil out for bid. a. Ransdorf did not bid because Ransdorf & Sons went out of business in August, 1995. 24. Since serving as township supervisor, Ransdorf & Sons has billed Leidy Township for fuel oil, fuel equipment and maintenance and has been paid as follows: 1990 Invoice Date 01/19/90 03/01/90 04/02/90 04/26/90 04/30/90 10/29/90 11/21/90 Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 6 2345 14664 14942 15005 15013 06/07/90 15153 04/25/90 08/28/90 08/29/90 10/02/90 15676 10/16/90 2672 2488 15512 2546 1991 01/07/91 16418 02/06/91 16738 02/27/91 2927 03/06/91 17010 04/29/91 17337 04/29/91 17338 11/06/91 18158 10/11/91 17778 1994 01/18/94 22873 02/07/94 23164 02/08/94 4258 03/11/94 04/06/94 05/02/94 05/02/94 05/10/94 07/15/94 23527 23528 23874 23882 239-20 4417 08/10/94 24145 Invoice Fuel oil, equipment, Number and maintenance Fan Blower, Motor Heating Oil (240 gal) Heating Oil (170 gal) Oil for Equip. (50 gal) Oil (54.5 gal) Oil for Equipment Tank (139.7 gal) Oil for Grader (5 Oil (104.7 gal) 55 Gallon Drum, 4 Seasons Oil Oil (31 gal) Cleaning Furnace 1990 TOTAL Heating Oil (150 gal) Heating Oil (200 gal) Service Call - Limit Control Heating Oil (189 gal) Heating Oil (150 gal) Oil (34.9 gal) Heating Oil (74.6 gal) Oil (85 gal) 1991 TOTAL Oil (124 gal) Oil (112 gal) Transformers, nozzle filter, fan belt gal[2])$ 15808 Heating Oil (54.5 gal) $ 1.24 15987 $ Oil (131 gal) Oil (73.3 gal) Oil (45.8 gal) Oil (73 gal) Oil (31.5 gal) 1 barrel BW -40 motor oil 1 barrel 10 motor oil (hydraulic) Oil (44 gal) $ .80 $ .85 Price per Gallon .81 . 80 .81 .81 . 79 25.44 1.10 $ 1.20 .89 .89 .92 . 86 . 84 .84 .78 . 78 .78 .79 Total Amount $ 93.45 $ 196.56 $ 85.60 $ 40.95 $ 44.64 $ 85.59 2871 $ 111.62 $ 50.88 $ 115.17 $ 208.10 738 $ 37.20 $ 35.00 $ 72.20 2914 $ 67.58 2917 $ 156.00 2924 $1,242.75 $165.00 $212.00 $ 48.94 $179.55 $228.49 $134.85 $ 31.38 $ 69.30 $ 73.87 $914.89 $109.45 $205.66 $110.04 $ 61.57 $ 35.72 $ 56.94 $ 24.57 Check 2833 2854 2863 718 715 2901 2934 2941 2953 2983 772 3038 812 $ 99.20 3264 $ 96.21 3277 3292 955 961 3310 964 $525.17 974 $ 34.75 981 12/13/94 25210 12/13/94 25211 1995 01/12/95 02/07/95 03/20/95 Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 7 25553 24405 27195 Oil (165.2 gal) Oil (31.4 gal) 1994 TOTAL Oil (138.9 gal) Oil (105 gal) Oil (135.9 gal) 1995 TOTAL $ .76 $ 127.00 $ .76 $ 24,15 $ 151.15 3421 $1,304.77 $ .76 $ .74 $ .73 $ 106.12 $ 78.64 $ 184.76 3435 $ 98.84 3464 $283.60 25. The following amounts have been paid to Ransdorf & Sons by Leidy Township while Ransdorf has served as a township supervisor, for his fuel oil, equipment, and maintenance. 1990 $1,242.75 1991 $ 914.89 1994 $1,304.77 1995 $ 283.60 $3,746.01 26. As a Leidy Township Supervisor, Thomas Ransdorf participated in the process of approving and dispensing checks to Ransdorf & Sons. a. Ransdorf participated on 30 occasions in the votes of the board of supervisors approving payments to Ransdorf & Sons. b. All of said votes were unanimous. c. Ransdorf co- signed the 30 checks listed in Finding No. 24. 27. Only one transaction identified in Finding No. 24 (7/15/94) was in excess of $500. 28. Thomas Ransdorf asserted that his fuel service business was the only business in the Leidy Township area that had a full service heating business. a. A full service heating business provides fuel oil and authorized technicians to work on the equipment. b. Ransdorf asserted that most fuel businesses will not repair equipment unless you purchase fuel oil from them. c. Ransdorf estimated that he was only making a $ .05 profit on every gallon of oil he sold to Leidy Township. Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 8 29. Ransdorf & Sons distributor for fuel oil has charged between $ .58 and $ .61 per gallon for fuel oil. a. This averages to approximately $ .595 per gallon. 30. An estimated profit can be approximated by calculating the difference between the actual amount charged to the township for fuel oil as listed in Finding 24 and the estimated amount paid by Ransdorf & Sons (@ $.595) to the distributors. a. The total estimated difference for all sales to the township by Ransdorf & Sons and the price paid the distributor by Ransdorf & Sons during the years 1990 -1995 is $809.87. III. DISCUSSION: As a Supervisor for Leidy Township, Thomas Ransdorf, hereinafter Ransdorf, is a public official as that term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. §402. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as follows: This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act, and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto. Since the occurrences in this case transpired after the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 9 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities 65 P.S. §403 (a) . (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Bansdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 9 The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2. 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. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" 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 or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402. Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 3. Restricted activities (f) 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 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. Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 10 65 P.S. §403(f). Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above specifically provides in part that no public official /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 /employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. The issues before us are whether Ransdorf, as a Leidy Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a), the conflict provision, or Section 3(f), the contracting provision, when he used the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself or a business with which he is associated as to his participation on the Township Board in the award of a contract and subsequent payment to a business with which his company subcontracted and second, when his company entered contracts valued in excess of $500 with his governmental body to provide heating oil, related items and services without an open and public process as to which he participated in the award of the contracts and subsequent payments. Ransdorf served as a Leidy Township Supervisor from 1988 through December, 1991 and from January, 1994 to the present. In a private capacity, Ransdorf, along with his wife, were partners in a full service heating business known as Ransdorf and Sons Fuel Oil Service (R &S). R &S, which was in operation since 1986, provided heating oil, equipment and service to both residential and commercial customers. In early 1995 when the Leidy Township Supervisors decided to install a new furnace in the Township Building, the Board advertised for the submission of bids for the project. On February 8, 1995, the Township Board reviewed the bids and awarded the contract, through a successful motion by Ransdorf, to Barry Gipe who was the low bidder at $1,697. Before Gipe submitted his bid, he contacted Alice Ransdorf from R &S to get an estimate for the furnace installation in the Township Building. That estimate formed the basis for Gipe's bid submission to the Township. Gipe used R &S as a subcontractor to install the furnace at the Township Building. The furnace was purchased from a supply company at a cost of $1,312 which bill was invoiced to the Township care of Barry Gipe. R &S installed the furnace at the Township Building on February 23, 1995 and submitted an invoice to Barry Gipe in the amount of $285 for the removal and installation of a furnace with a calculation of $135 for materials and $150 for labor. Although Alice Ransdorf advised the Township Secretary on February 8, 1995 that Gipe was getting the furnace Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 11 from R &S, award of project. of $1,312 of $285. Ransdorf never advised the other supervisors prior to the the bid that R &S might have an interest in the furnace Barry Gipe issued a check to the supplier in the amount for the furnace and a second check to R &S in the amount At the March, 1995 Board meeting, even though Supervisor Rosamilia suggested that an Opinion be obtained from the State Ethics Commission before authorizing payment to Gipe, no such action was taken by the Board. Thereafter, on April 5, 1995, the Board minutes reflect that payment was awarded to Barry Gipe for installing the furnace by a 2 -1 vote with Ransdorf casting the deciding vote. A check in the amount of $1,697 was made payable to Barry Gipe Home Improvements with Ransdorf co- signing the check as Township Supervisor. Ransdorf asserts that he only made $100 profit on the furnace installation. Aside from the above furnace installation, R &S had been supplying heating oil, equipment and service to Leidy Township since 1986 which was prior to Ransdorf's term as a Supervisor. Those services were never put out to bid until October 1995. After Ransdorf received notice of this investigation on May 8, 1995, he advised the Township that he would no longer provide heating oil and services to the Township. R &S went out of business in August 1995. The transactions involving heating oil, related equipment and maintenance services supplied by R &S to Leidy Township in the relevant time periods are listed in Fact Finding 24. The amounts paid on a yearly basis to R &S for the four relevant years totaled $3,746.01. Fact Finding 25. The difference between the sales price to the Township and the price paid by R &S to its distributors amounted to $809.87. Fact Finding 30a. Ransdorf participated in the process of approving payments to R &S. As to the 30 checks listed in Fact Finding 24, Ransdorf participated in the unanimous votes to approve payments and also co- signed the checks. Parenthetically, only one of the transactions was in excess of the $500 contracting threshold of Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law. Lastly, Ransdorf offered commentary that his heating service business was the only business in the Township which provided full service of heating oil and authorized technicians. Ransdorf stated that most heating oil businesses will not repair equipment unless heating oil is purchased from them. Ransdorf estimated that he only made .05c profit on every gallon of heating oil he sold to the Township: In applying the provisions of Sections 3(a) and 3(f) of the Ethics Law to the instant matter, we shall first consider the issue of the furnace installation. We find violations of Section 3(a) of Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 12 Act 9 of 1989 both as to Ransdorf's participation in the award of the contract to install the furnace as well as his participation in the Township decision to make payment for the completed installation of the furnace that had been installed by the business with which he was associated. There was a use of authority of office as to the participation by Ransdorf. Juliante, Order 809. Second, there was a private pecuniary benefit in this case consisting of the financial gain which was received as to the furnace installation. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit enured to a business with which Ransdorf was associated. The term "business with which he is associated" is defined under the Ethics Law as follows: "Business with which he is associated." Any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or has a financial interest. 65 P.S. §402. Since Ransdorf was a partner in R &S, clearly it was a business with which he was associated. We find no violation of Section 3(f) as to the furnace installation. As noted above, Section 3(f) provides in part that a public official or a business with which he, his spouse or child, is associated may contract with his governmental body but if the contract is valued at $500 or more, it must be awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. Since the contract to install the furnace was awarded through an open and public process in this case, we find no violation of Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989. As to the second part of the allegation concerning Ransdorf's participation as to the heating oil, equipment and service to the Township by R &S, we find a technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Ransdorf participated in the Board's unanimous decisions to pay R &S for the heating oil and related services as well as co- signed checks in payment of such services. Once again, there was a private pecuniary benefit received as a result of such action which enured to a business with which Ransdorf was associated. In reviewing the totality of the facts and circumstances as to this particular allegation, we believe that a technical violation is appropriate. Perino, Order 980. Lastly, we find no violation of Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the heating oil, equipment and services in that, with one exception, the transactions were under $500; as to such transactions, clearly Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 would have no applicability. As to the one transaction on July 15, 1994, that transaction was merely $25.17 in excess of the contracting threshold; as such we find, under these facts and circumstances, such matter to be de minimis. In this regard, we note that there Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 13 were 36 transactions in total with 35 transactions being less than the $500 threshold. The last matter which we will address concerns restitution. This Commission does have the power to impose restitution under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. 5407(13). In this case, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement whereby restitution in the amount of $600 will be paid by Ransdorf over a 12 month period with payments of $50 per month beginning on the first of the month immediately after the month of issuance of this adjudication and every month thereafter. The consent agreement of the parties also sets forth a proposed disposition of the allegations as well as the payment of restitution. 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. As to the restitution, compliance with the above payment schedule will result in the closing of this case with no further action. However, failure to make the agreed restitution will result in the institution of an order enforcement action in this case. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Thomas Ransdorf, as a Supervisor in Leidy Township, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Ransdorf violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to his participation in the award of a contract to install a furnace in the Township building which was subcontracted to the business with which he was associated. 3. Ransdorf violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to his participation in the Township decision to make payment for the installation of the furnace that had been subcontracted to the business with which he was associated. 4. Ransdorf did not violate Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to a contract to install the furnace in the Township building in that such contract was awarded through an open and public process. 5. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law occurred as to Ransdorf's participation in the Township's decision to pay Ransdorf & Sons for the supply of heating oil, related equipment and services and the co- signing of checks by Ransdorf to effectuate such payments. 6. Ransdorf did not violate Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the supply of heating oil, related equipment and services in Ransdorf, 95- 025 -C2 Page 14 that all transactions were less than the $500 contracting threshold of the Ethics Law except one which exceeded the $500 contracting threshold by a de minimis amount. In Re: Thomas Ransdorf File Docket: 95- 025 -C2 Date Decided: 2/15/96 Date Mailed: 3/1/96 ORDER NO. 997 1. Thomas Ransdorf, as a Supervisor in Leidy Township, violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to his participation in the award of a contract to install a furnace in the Township building which was subcontracted to the business with which he was associated. 2. Ransdorf violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to his participation in the Township decision to make payment for the installation of the furnace that had been subcontracted to the business with which he was associated. 3. Ransdorf did not violate Section 3(f) of the Ethics Law as to a contract to install the furnace in the Township building in that such contract was awarded through an open and public process. 4. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law occurred as to Ransdorf's participation in the Township's decision to pay Ransdorf & Sons for the supply of heating oil, related equipment and services and the co- signing of checks by Ransdorf to effectuate such payments. 5. Ransdorf did not violate Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the supply of heating oil, related equipment and services in that all transactions were less than the $500 contracting threshold of the Ethics Law except one which exceeded the $500 contracting threshold by a de minimis amount. 6. Ransdorf is directed to make restitution in the amount of $600 in twelve monthly payments of $50 beginning on the first of the month following the month of issuance of this Order and the first of each month thereafter until total payment is made. A. Compliance with the above will result in the closure of this matter with no further action taken. B. Failure to comply will result in the initiation of an order enforcement action by this Commission. BY THE COMMISSION, &W4U& I .- DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR