HomeMy WebLinkAbout979-2 SnyderIn Re: James L. Snyder
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17(20
File Docket: 93- 057 -C2
Date Decided: 2/16/96
Date Mailed: 3/1/96
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
John R. Showers
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 s g.
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 held. The record is complete. 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. §409(e). Confidentiality does not
preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That James Snyder, as a public official /public employee in the
position of supervisor for Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County,
violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of
1989) when he participated in decisions of the board of supervisors
regarding private developments and subsequently his firm privately
contracted with the developers to provide stone facade work.
Section 3. Restricted Activities
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S.
5403(a).
II. FINDINGS:
A. PLEADINGS:
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 of his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402.
1. On October 8, 1993, a letter was forwarded to Respondent by
the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission
informing Respondent of the fact that the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission was commencing a full
investigation of the matter.
a. Said letter outlined the nature and scope of the
allegations and further delineated the applicable
sections of the Ethics Law in question.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 3
b. Said letter was forwarded return receipt requested.
2. James Snyder has served as a Lower Paxton Township Supervisor
since at least 1988.
a. He was re- elected to a six year term in 1989.
b. Snyder served as Vice- Chairman of the board in 1989.
c. Snyder currently serves as Chairman.
3. James Snyder is an owner of Snyder Stone Company.
a. Snyder Stone is a business which specializes in selling
stone, brick, slate and veneer products and applying same
to buildings.
4. Snyder Stone Company, Inc. was incorporated in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 15, 1989.
a. The incorporators were James L. Snyder and Sandra L.
Snyder.
(1) Sandra Snyder is the wife of James Snyder.
b. The business address of the corporation was listed as
2325 Marion View Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17112.
(1) This is the home address of James Snyder.
5. New Market Development Company is the developer of the
Colonial Commons Shopping Center in Lower Paxton Township.
6. New Market presented re- zoning applications to the Lower
Paxton Township Planning Commission.
7. New Market filed proposed zoning amendments with the Township.
8. New Market resubmitted zoning amendments.
9. On July 10, 1989, the Dauphin County Planning Commission
approved the revised zoning amendments.
10. A major portion of NMDC proposal included the swapping of a
9.0 acre of property to the township in return for a 4.29 acre
portion of Brightbill Park, a township park.
a. - -This exchange required the approval of the Pennsylvania
General Assembly due to the funding sources used in the
acquisition and improvement in Brightbill Park.
11. Appraisals were done on both pieces of property.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 4
a. The 9 acre parcel to be received by the township was
appraised as having a fair market value as zoned
commercial at $422,000.
b. The 4.29 acre parcel to be received by NMDC was appraised
at $76,000 with the R -1 zoning and $179,000 with C -1
zoning.
12. James Snyder, Vice - Chairman of the LPT Board of Supervisors,
signed Ordinance No. 91 -2 dated February 25, 1991.
13. In 1990, James Snyder had discussions regarding bidding on the
stone veneer installation for the Colonial Commons Shopping project.
14. An estimate signed by James Snyder was furnished for the
installation of stone veneer at Colonial Commons.
15. Cross /Hoar awarded the stone veneer portion of the project to
Snyder Stone.
a. No other bids were sought.
16. Prior to the Colonial Commons project, Snyder Stone did not
have any commercial jobs of similar size.
a. Snyder Stone specialized in residential work.
17. During the Harrisburg Home Builders Show held between February
24, 1990, and March 3, 1990, Snyder met Edward Sinko and David
Horvath, D /B /A Rustic Exteriors.
a. Snyder was operating an exhibitors booth as Snyder Stone
and a dealer of Eldorado Stone, a brand of Synthetic
Stone.
b. Horvath and Sinko are installers of stone veneer and are
also dealers of Eldorado Stone.
c. At that time, Snyder discussed with Horvath and Sinko the
possibility of working for him as installers on the
Colonial Commons job.
18. Rustic Exteriors entered into an oral contract with James
Snyder of Snyder Stone to install the stone at Colonial
Commons.
19. Triple Crown Corporation is a developer /builder located in
Harrisburg, PA.
a. Triple Crown's main offices are located at 5351 Jaycee
Avenue, Harrisburg, PA in Lower Paxton Township.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 5
b. Triple Crown does both residential and commercial
building.
c. Triple Crown specializes in residential building on the
east shore of the Harrisburg area.
20. Triple Crown has a large residential development in Lower
Paxton Township known as Blue Meadow Farms.
21. James Snyder participated in LPT Board of Supervisor
discussions, reviews and decisions pertaining to Blue Meadow
Farms Development.
22. James Snyder participated as Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors regarding a curative amendment for Triple Crown
Corp. at Blue Meadow Farms.
23. Prior to voting, James Snyder disclosed that his company has
a business relationship with Triple Crown Corporation.
a. He stated that Snyder Stone Company has no financial gain
to benefit in this curative amendment.
b. He stated there have been no promises or inducements
offered to him or his company,to gain his vote.
c. Supervisor William Hornung made a motion to table the
curative amendment until the Board has met with the
solicitor to discuss it from a legal representation.
Seconded by Norman Hoffer. The Board was polled as
follows: Hornung - aye; Hoffer - aye; Liptak -
abstained; Seeds - aye; and Snyder - aye. The motion
was carried unanimously.
24. While Snyder was participating in actions of the board of
supervisors pertaining to Triple Crown Corporation and its
holdings, Snyder Stone Company had received payments from
Triple Crown Corporation for services rendered.
B. TESTIMONY:
25. The Snyder investigation was initiated by John J. Contino,
Esquire, Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission,
through the "own motion" procedure.
26. Michael Liptak is a Lower Paxton Township (LPT) Supervisor,
having served in that capacity since 1985.
a. At all times relevant to this case, the LPT Board of
Supervisors had the authority to approve or disapprove
developments in LPT.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 6
b. Any changes to a development's plans are requested at the
preliminary plan stage.
(1) After a preliminary plan is approved by the Board
of Supervisors, a final plan that essentially
conforms to the preliminary plan also must be
approved and cannot be rejected.
c. Development plans are available at the Township for
examination by the public.
d. The development of the Colonial Commons Shopping Center
(CCSC) was discussed with the LPT Supervisors for the
first time at a public workshop meeting on April 10,
1989.
g•
(1) The developer was New Market Development
Corporation (NMDC), headquartered in Georgia (NMDC
and its affiliates /subsidiaries are collectively
referred to herein as "NMDC ").
(2) The Supervisors do not take any action at workshop
meetings.
e. The preliminary and final subdivision plans for CCSC came
before the LPT Board of Supervisors in 1990.
f. The LPT Board of Supervisors approved the development of
CCSC.
Snyder participated in the LPT Board's discussions and
decisions regarding CCSC.
h. The LPT Engineer issued a stop work order for CCSC's
parking lot.
(1) The parking lot paving was not thick enough.
(2) It would have cost NMDC hundreds of thousands of
dollars to remove and repave the parking lot to
comply with Township specifications.
(3) The LPT Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance
(Ordinance 91 -2) that modified the specification
and relaxed the standard for the paving.
(a) Liptak stated that he believed that Snyder
participated in discussion of the Board
leading up to the vote in this matter.
(b) Snyder was not present at the meeting at which
the Board passed the paving ordinance.
,$nyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 7
i. Triple Crown Corporation (TCC) has developments in LPT.
j.
(c) Snyder subsequently signed the ordinance.
(4) At the time, there were no other paving disputes
before the Board.
(1) Alex DiSanto is the President of TCC, and his sons,
Mark and John DiSanto, are officers of the
corporation.
(2) One of TCC's developments is Blue Meadow Farms
(BMF) .
Snyder Stone Company (SSC) did stone facing in BMF.
k. Snyder participated as a Supervisor in matters related to
BMF.
1. In 1994, TCC sought a curative zoning amendment.
(1) Snyder disclosed that he had a business
relationship with TCC.
(a) This was the first time Liptak heard Snyder
make any such disclosure regarding TCC.
(2) Liptak could not recall whether the request for the
curative amendment was tabled or denied.
(3) When TCC subsequently filed a law suit on the
curative amendment issue, the question of whether
to defend the law suit was withdrawn from the
Board's agenda.
(a) As Chairman of the Board at the time, Snyder
had the authority to remove an item from the
agenda.
(b) Snyder indicated that the item was removed
from the agenda.
(c) Liptak testified that the removal of the item
from the agenda resulted in the curative
amendment taking place by operation of law.
m. There are personal and political differences between
„Liptak and Snyder.
27. Donald C. Alfano is a former LPT Supervisor, having served in
that capacity from 1988 to 1993.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 8
a .
When Alfano first became a Supervisor, Snyder was a
strong advocate of controlled development.
(1) After Snyder took over SSC, Snyder questioned
Township Ordinances as being unfair to contractors
and criticized Township employees as being too
strict with contractors.
b. NMDC first approached the Township on CCSC at an
informational meeting in 1989 or 1990.
c. The CCSC plans were public, and there were no private
meetings between the LPT Board and NMDC.
d. The crucial time for the Board of Supervisors to get
changes made to a plan is before the Board gives its
preliminary approval.
(1) After a plan is preliminarily approved, the Board
of Supervisors must approve the final plan unless
it deviates from the preliminary plan in some
substantial way.
e. About a week after the CCSC plan had been approved,
Alfano became aware of a business relationship between
Snyder and the developer or contractor for CCSC.
28. Steven Cadranel was at all times relevant to these proceedings
the Vice President and Development Officer of NIrIDC.
a. Cadranel's responsibilities for CCSC were to identify the
site, oversee conceptual site planning, negotiate tenant
leases and coordinate the municipal approval process.
b. NMDC used Ogram Architects, Inc. as the architect for
CCSC.
(1) NMDC has used Ogram for other projects.
c. NMDC chose Hoar Construction Company (HCC) as the general
contractor for CCSC.
(1) The contract between NMDC and HCC was dated April
7, 1990, which was after the date the Board of
Supervisors gave final approval for CCSC.
d. As the general
subcontractors.
(1) HCC awarded the
contractor, HCC
selected the
stone veneer subcontract to SSC.
Bnyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 9
g•
(2) Cadranel stated that NMDC would not have been
involved in awarding the subcontract to SSC.
(3) NMDC does usually retain some right of review of
the subcontractors that are chosen by the general
contractor.
e. Cadranel testified that Snyder did not inquire of
Cadranel and Cadranel had no discussions with Snyder
about Snyder /SSC getting a subcontract or doing work on
the CCSC project.
(1) Cadranel testified that he was not involved in
providing any specifications or plans to SSC.
f. Cadranel testified that most of his daily dealings with
the Township were with John Kerschner.
Cadranel testified that all of his meetings with the LPT
Board of Supervisors and all of his presentations of
plans were done at public meetings.
h. Cadranel was present at meetings where Snyder disclosed
that he had a conflict of interest because he had
contracted to do work at CCSC.
i. A problem developed during construction regarding the
thickness of the parking lot paving that was being
installed at CCSC.
(1) It would have cost NMDC an additional $250,000-
$500,000 to rebuild the parking lot to satisfy the
Township staff.
(2) The Board of Supervisors enacted an ordinance which
changed the Township's requirements for private
parking lots.
(a) The ordinance applied to anyone building a
private parking lot.
j. NMDC's former telephone number was 404 -231 -9333.
k. Ogram Architect's telephone number is 404 - 874 -7460.
29. Jerry Cross has, at all times relevant to this case, been
HCC's Vice President for project management.
a. Cross was HCC's project manager for CCSC.
b. In December, 1989 the CCSC plans would have been at the
"conceptual plan" stage.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 10
(1) At the "conceptual plan" stage, a potential
subcontractor might contact the architect to get
his product put into the specifications.
c. To the extent possible, HCC would limit its work and
involvement on a project until the project received
preliminary approval.
d. HCC made an initial contact with NMDC in the fall of
1989, regarding the possibility of HCC being involved in
CCSC.
e. In the latter part of 1989, NMDC contacted HCC to supply
a bid for CCSC.
f. In January, 1990, HCC made initial contacts to various
contractors and suppliers.
(1) At that time, the CCSC plans and specifications
were not complete.
In early February, 1990, HCC got the complete CCSC plans
and specifications from Ogram Architects so that HCC
could get sub -bids and prepare its own package and bid to
submit to NMDC.
g.
h. On February 6 -7, 1990, Cross went to Harrisburg to
distribute the plans to subcontractors and suppliers
through the Harrisburg Builders Exchange.
(1) This would have been one of the initial stages in
HCC's effort to present a bid to NMDC.
i. Ogram had specified Eldorado Stone for the stonework at
CCSC.
(1) Cross stated that HCC did not necessarily know that
Ogram had specified Eldorado Stone until the
specifications were published in early February,
1990.
(2) Cross testified that HCC went through the Builders
Exchange, Dodge Reports and telephone book for the
Eldorado Stone, but that he believed he contacted
Snyder after the Eldorado Stone Company gave him
Snyder's name.
. , -SSC submitted a bid for the CCSC stone work.
(1) HCC received SSC's bid prior to February 22, 1990.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 11
p•
q.
(2) HCC found SSC's quoted price per square foot to be
fair and reasonable based upon other shopping
centers HCC had built.
(3) Cross testified that there were no other bids for
the CCSC stonework.
(a) Cross stated that he would have welcomed more
bids.
(b) Cross stated that he never told Newswanger or
anyone else that he would not accept a bid
from them for the CCSC stonework.
(4) HCC did obtain competitive bids from subcontractors
for all aspects of the CCSC project except the
stonework and the electrical and mechanical work.
k. Cross discussed SSC's proposal with Snyder.
(1) Snyder was the only SSC representative with whom
Cross dealt as to the CCSC stonework.
(2) Cross stated that he had no dealings with Snyder
other than in relation to his proposal to do the
stonework.
1. Cross first met Snyder in the summer of 1990 but talked
to him on prior occasions.
m. Cross stated that when he first dealt with Snyder, he did
not know that Snyder was a supervisor.
n. Cross testified that Snyder never approached him and said
that Snyder had to be given a contract because he held
office, or in any way tried to improperly influence Cross
to get a contract.
o. On February 22, 1990, HCC submitted its guaranteed
maximum price to NMDC for CCSC.
HCC entered into a contract with NMDC.
Cross stated that he had no reason to doubt that the date
of the contract between HCC and NMDC was April 7, 1990.
(1) Cross recalled that HCC commenced work on CCSC in
early April.
r. Cross testified that at the time HCC signed the contract
with NMDC, HCC was "locked in" with a number of
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 12
t. All
subcontractors but had not signed all of the subcontract
agreements.
s. Cross testified that HCC did not have a subcontract with
SSC until June, 1990.
(1) Even though HCC did not contract
June, 1990, HCC knew Snyder was the
the stone veneer aspect of the
February 22, 1990.
of the subcontractors were reviewed by N4DC.
with SSC until
only bidder for
project as of
(1) Cross testified that no one from NMDC told him that
he had to use SSC.
u. On or about August 27, 1990, SSC informed HCC that its
bid had been too low and that it needed an additional
monetary allowance.
(1) HCC rejected the request.
(2) Cross testified that Snyder did not try to use his
influence as a Township .Supervisor with Cross to
get more money on the SSC subcontract.
(3) By that time (August 27, 1990), all of the
necessary and required approvals for CCSC had
already been obtained from the Township officials,
and all that remained to be done were inspections
and the issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy.
(4) The parking lot pavement dispute did occur after
August 27, 1990, but Cross stated that HCC as the
general contractor was not involved, being only
required to build the parking lot in accordance
with the plans and specifications.
v. HCC did not build the entire CCSC project.
w. The total CCSC project was slightly more than $10
million.
(1) Snyder's portion of the CCSC
$90,000.00.
project was
x. . telephone number is 205 - 969 -1900.
30. Daniel J. Flint was the Township Engineer for LPT from January
2, 1990 to February 4, 1993.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 13
a .
During the installation of the CCSC parking lot, a stop
work order was issued due to the absence of a permit.
(1)
Flint reviewed the work that had been done and
determined that the parking lot pavement was not
thick enough to comply with Township ordinances.
(2) NMDC was notified that it would have
the Township ordinances.
(3) NMDC requested a waiver from the
Supervisors.
to comply with
LPT Board of
(a) Flint recommended to the Supervisors that a
waiver not be granted, and that the paving be
installed in accordance with the Township
ordinances.
(b) Flint recalls that Snyder was in favor of
granting a waiver to NMDC.
(4) The Board of Supervisors denied the requested
waiver.
(5) NMDC took an appeal to the zoning hearing board.
(6) The zoning hearing board denied NMDC's request for
relief.
(7) Subsequently, NMDC sought to have a new ordinance
passed.
(8)
The Board's discussion on the parking lot paving
ordinance included questioning whether it should be
applied to private developers.
b. Snyder criticized the Township staff for operating in a
fashion that was anti -small business, and for enforcing
ordinances that were very difficult on small businesses.
c. Flint does not recall Snyder placing any pressure upon
him to deviate from Township ordinances or specifications
in relation to contractors doing work in the Township.
31. John Kerschner was employed by LPT from mid 1987 to August
1994.
a. .- Kerschner was initially employed as a planning and zoning
officer, and subsequently, around 1991, he became the
community development director.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 14
b. Under procedures in effect during the years 1989 to 1990,
a developer's day -to -day dealings would primarily be with
Township staff rather than with the Township Supervisors.
(1) Although a developer could make initial contact
with the Supervisors at a Township workshop
session, to see if a project would be well
received, the Board of Supervisors usually would
not get involved with a development until after it
had been reviewed by Township staff and the
planning commission.
(2) Usually, the developer or its consultant would
initially discuss a proposed project with the
Township planning and zoning office, which would
provide guidance and information regarding
pertinent Township ordinances.
(3) After the developer had formally submitted a
preliminary plan, the plan would be reviewed by
Township staff and the Engineer, who would submit
comments to the planning commission.
(4) The planning commission would make a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors.
c. The Hoard of Supervisors has the authority to approve a
plan.
d. During the years 1988, 1989, and 1990, individual
Supervisors would not ordinarily be involved in dealing
with a developer's architect, engineer or surveyor as the
plans were being developed.
e. Kerschner was involved in the approval process as to
CCSC.
f. The Township Engineer imposed a stop work order for the
CCSC parking area.
(1) Kerschner testified that the contractor (HCC) and
NMDC approached the Township staff to try to work
out an alternative paving thickness or design.
(2) When the negotiations between NMDC and Township
staff failed, NMDC unsuccessfully sought a variance
from the zoning hearing board.
(3) When the matter came before the Board of
Supervisors, Snyder stated that the Township staff
was too stringent or harsh on the development
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 15
g-
community and particularly relative to the paving
specification for CCSC.
(4) It was stated that it would cost NMDC about a
quarter of a million dollars to bring the parking
lot into conformity as recommended by staff and as
upheld by the zoning hearing board.
(5) NMDC submitted evidence indicating that it was not
the only entity that would be affected by the
proposed ordinance change, in that there were other
commercial centers in the Township with
noncomplying paving.
(a) Kerschner stated that these other entities had
not suffered any penalty or been proceeded
against up to that point in time.
(6) The Township Supervisors directed the Township
staff to prepare an ordinance that would amend the
paving specifications for parking lots on private
property.
(7) In Snyder's absence, the LPT Board adopted the
ordinance, granting the relief requested by NMDC.
(8) The ordinance was adopted to apply prospectively as
well as retroactively to include any project that
had received approvals.
SSC did stonework at CCSC.
(1) Kerschner stated that he became aware of this when
the stone went up and there were signs advertising
SSC.
(a) This would have been in the summer of 1990,
after construction started but before the
black top issue arose.
h. Snyder did stonework for TCC.
i. TCC's plans for BMF had originally been rejected by the
Board of Supervisors and were approved on a technicality
because of a staff error.
Snyder as a Township Supervisor participated in the
.I review of plans of TCC as to BMF.
k. In 1989, Snyder's attitude as a Supervisor seemed to
Kerschner to go through a transition to become pro -
development.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 16
32. Carl C. Lentz is a former LPT Supervisor, having served in
that capacity from 1982 to 1993.
a. Once the Board of Supervisors gives a plan preliminary
approval, under the law, the Board of Supervisors must
also approve the final plan if it follows the original
preliminary plan.
b. The proposed development of CCSC was presented at public
meetings.
c. In January, 1990, the LPT Board of Supervisors voted
unanimously to give preliminary approval to the CCSC
plan.
d. In February, 1990, HCC solicited prices for work related
to CCSC from various trades.
e. Lentz, who is a sales representative for Pennsy Supply,
discussed concrete for CCSC with HCC.
(1) On or about February 6, 1990, Lentz discussed
concrete specifications with HCC.
(2) By letters dated February 8, 1990 and February 19,
1990, Lentz quoted some initial concrete prices for
CCSC to HCC.
(3) Penney Supply subsequently got the contract to
supply concrete for CCSC.
f. During what Lentz described as the latter phases of the
township approval process for CCSC, Snyder made a
statement in front of Lentz and the other Board members
that he might be getting the stone veneer work at CCSC.
(1) Lentz determined that this particular statement was
made approximately a week after February 26, 1990.
(2) Lentz concluded that Snyder must have had the
blueprints and plans.
(a) Lentz testified that Snyder would need these
documents or a "spec book" to make a "takeoff"
and submit a bid to HCC.
(b) Lentz did not have personal knowledge of
whether HCC had the CCSC blueprints at the
Harrisburg Builders' Exchange.
(c) The Harrisburg Builders' Exchange is a place
where contractors or developers who want to
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 17
solicit bids will leave plans and specs for
review by subcontractors and suppliers.
(3) Lentz testified that, at that time, ". . . [Snyder]
wasn't sure he had the job yet because he had
signed no contract."
(4) Snyder indicated that he had been in contact with
the prime contractor (HCC).
(5) Lentz testified that at that time, Pennsy Supply
did not know who the prime contractor was.
(6) Lentz testified, "I know he had prior contact with
Hoar Construction before we did."
g. After the CCSC project had been approved by the Board of
Supervisors, Snyder told Lentz that he was going to do
the stone masonry work.
h. With regard to the parking lot paving issue at CCSC, it
was Lentz' view that private parking lots should not be
regulated because they would not be under Township
supervision and maintenance.
(1) There was a lot of debate and discussion among the
Supervisors on the subject.
(2) Lentz made the motion to pass the ordinance which
was adopted by the Board in February, 1991.
(3) Lentz testified that Steve Stine did not talk to
him about voting on this issue.
i. Although in 1989 and 1990, Lentz considered Snyder to be
a friend, the relationship subsequently deteriorated in
1993 when Snyder supported candidates who were opposing
Lentz.
33. Robert C. Grubic is a licensed professional engineer and a
consulting engineer with "Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc."
(HRG).
a. In late 1989 or early 1990, Snyder contacted HRG
regarding hiring HRG to do "quantity takeoffs" for the
stonework at CCSC.
- A "quantity takeoff" is an estimate of the
materials that would be required to complete a
project or a portion of a project in
accordance with certain plans and
specifications.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 18
(2) A quantity takeoff is prepared using the plans.
(3) Grubic testified, "You couldn't submit an educated
bid without the plans and specs."
b. Snyder delivered the plans for CCSC, as prepared by Ogram
Architects, to ERG so that HRG could prepare the quantity
takeoffs.
c. Snyder advised Grubic's firm that he obtained the plans
from the Harrisburg Builders' Exchange.
(1) Developers or general contractors who are looking
for bidders put plans at places like the Harrisburg
Builders' Exchange in order to get subcontractors
to submit quotes or bids.
(2) It is common practice for subcontractors or bidders
to be able to access plans for a project at the
Harrisburg Builders' Exchange.
d. In a letter dated June 29, 1994, Grubic told an SEC
Investigator that it was on or about February 15, 1990
that he was given verbal authorization to do the quantity
takeoff work for SSC.
e. ERG did the takeoff work for SSC at some point within
HRG's billing period for February, which ran from
February 3, 1990 through March 2, 1990.
(1) In reviewing the invoice, Grubic testified that
Snyder's contact would probably have been before
that time, because the invoice reflected the time
where the work was performed and "the contact would
have been before the dates for this invoice."
(2) In further questioning, Grubic was directly asked
whether the contact would have been sometime before
February 3, 1990, whereupon he responded, "I would
say yes. I don't recall the exact date."
f. The quantity takeoff work was done by an employee of the
firm rather than by Grubic personally.
g The HRG employee made a mistake in preparing the quantity
takeoff for the CCSC stonework.
.'"(1) As a result of HRG's error, Snyder /SSC submitted a
quote to HCC which was less than what it should
have been.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 19
h. Once a preliminary plan has been granted approval by a
municipality, under the law, the municipality must
approve the final plan as long as it follows the
preliminary.
34. Clare Newswanger is a 25 percent owner of Schuylkill Stone
(SS) .
a. SS has a franchise from Eldorado Stone.
b. SS supplies but does not install stone.
c. There are other companies in Pennsylvania besides SS
which manufacture and deal in Eldorado Stone.
d. SS is located approximately 50 miles from Harrisburg.
e. Before the CCSC job arose, Newswanger knew that Snyder
was a dealer of Eldorado Stone in the Harrisburg area.
f. Approximately two years in advance of the CCSC project,
SS dealt with Ogram Architects in supplying the Eldorado
Stone that was used on the Exton Mall project.
(1) Ogram told SS that there would be another project
in Pennsylvania similar to the Exton Mall project.
g Prior to the start of the CCSC project, at Ogram's
request, SS sent stone samples to Ogram in Atlanta.
h. Newswanger was under the impression from his discussions
with Ogram that his company, SS, would be providing the
stone materials for the CCSC project.
i. Ogram specified Eldorado Stone for CCSC but did not
specify SS as the manufacturer.
j•
Under Ogram's specifications, the Eldorado Stone could be
purchased from any Eldorado Stone supplier.
k. Newswanger knew that the CCSC general contractor was
soliciting bids for the stonework because approximately
six contractors called SS for prices related to the CCSC
stonework.
(1) Although SS gave prices to different contractors
for the CCSC stonework, Newswanger did not know
whether they submitted bids.
1. Newswanger visited the CCSC site after construction
began.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 20
(1) The HCC Supervisor told Newswanger that SSC already
had the signed contract.
m. Newswanger visited CCSC a second time regarding supplying
stone work for the Service Merchandise building, which
was bid out separately.
(1) Snyder was on the job site working.
(2) Newswanger testified, "[Snyder] said that he had
this job long before we even knew about it."
(a) Newswanger stated, "At the time, I didn't know
what he really meant. I couldn't figure that
out."
(b) Newswanger subsequently stated, "I took it as
he had some type of connection that we didn't
have."
n. Newswanger was disappointed because Snyder chose to buy
the Eldorado Stone for CCSC from another manufacturer.
35. David Horvath is employed by Rustic Exteriors, Inc. (RE).
a. RE sells and installs Eldorado Stone.
b. SSC itself neither manufactured nor installed stone.
c. In March, 1990, Horvath met Snyder at the Harrisburg Home
Builders Show, and Snyder mentioned the CCSC project as
work that he could have for RE.
d. RE initially did residential work for Snyder, and
subsequently subcontracted to do the CCSC job.
e. CCSC required a more difficult and time- consuming method
of stone installation than Snyder had thought would be
involved.
f. RE additionally was not getting paid for back charge work
at CCSC, which was work that had to be redone.
(1) RE had to ask Snyder for more money.
(2) Snyder agreed to pay RE an additional amount due to
the error that had been made.
g. A dispute developed between RE and SSC due to the
delinquency of payments to RE.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 21
(2) Horvath stated, "That's when we were always after
Mr. Snyder for money."
h. On or about November, 1990, as a Township paving deadline
was approaching, Snyder stated that he was going to use
his position in the Township to get the paving deadline
pushed back, and that there was going to be an exchange
of favors that would lead to money going through channels
faster so that RE would get paid faster.
i. Horvath testified that ultimately, RE did not complete
the CCSC job because SSC owed RE so much money.
(1) SSC hired other installers to complete the CCSC
job.
(1) There was a multi -step billing process which
resulted in slow payments to RE.
Manufacturers and dealers of Eldorado Stone are all
permitted to compete in the same geographical areas.
(1) There is no exclusive franchise area for
manufacturers, dealers or installers.
(2) Any of these companies can bid on any job.
36. Edward Sinko, Jr. is the vice president of RE.
a. In the spring of 1990, Horvath and Sinko met Snyder at
the Harrisburg Home Builders Show.
b. In 1990, RE installed stone at CCSC pursuant to an oral
contract with Snyder /SSC.
c. While RE was installing the stone at CCSC, Sinko had
concerns about collecting money for certain "back
charges."
(1) Snyder told Sinko not to worry about collecting
compensation for the back charges in that Snyder
"pulled some strings" to have paving done at CCSC
after the township's winter paving deadline and was
owed some favors.
37. Steven Stine is the LPT Solicitor, having served in that
capacity since January, 1995.
a. Stine was an employee of LPT from 1987 through 1994.
(1) Stine initially was hired as a staff attorney and
he subsequently also served as assistant manager.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 22
b. During the time that Snyder /SSC was doing work at CCSC,
the Township Manager asked Stine whether a Supervisor
could vote on matters where he might have some personal
interest.
(1) Stine responded that such could be done if the
official would declare the conflict on the record
and file a written statement to that effect.
(2) At the Township Manager's request, Stine prepared a
general, fill -in- the - blanks form to be used for
disclosing conflicts.
(a) Subsequently, Snyder and Lentz reviewed the
for in Stine's presence.
(b) Snyder stated that he would not proceed with
having the form completed and signed.
(3) Stine does not recall any conversation or advice
given by him in the presence of Snyder and Lentz as
to whether a conflict of interest existed.
(4) Stine's legal opinion was that where SSC and Pennsy
Supply had contracts as to CCSC, Snyder and Lentz
would not be disqualified from voting per se on
matters that affected CCSC, but they would have to
meet the notice requirements.
c. In 1994, TCC filed a request for a curative amendment.
(1) At the hearing, Snyder declared he had a business
relationship with TCC.
(2) There was a 2 -2 -1 (abstention) vote on the curative
amendment.
(3) TCC subsequently filed an appeal in court.
(4) A settlement was proposed.
(a) Liptak and Snyder indicated they would not
vote on the settlement issue.
(b) The Township neither settled nor pursued the
matter because the Board failed to reach the
requisite majority consensus.
(c) Although the matter was placed on the
Township's agenda at one point in 1995, it was
subsequently removed because it would have
been a meaningless vote.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 23
[1] Stine was not sure how the agenda item
was removed—whether by decision of. the
Board or the Township Manager.
(d) TCC ultimately prevailed.
d. Once a preliminary plan is approved, if the final plan
conforms to that preliminary plan, the Township has to
approve it.
38. Robert Caruso is employed as the Deputy Executive Director and
Director of Investigations for the State Ethics Commission.
a. Caruso supervises the investigative staff.
(1) Caruso assigns cases to the investigators.
(2) Caruso reviews the investigators' reports as well
as the documents they obtain.
b. A case before the State Ethics Commission is originated
through a sworn complaint received by the Commission or
through the Executive Director's "own motion."
c. Caruso's signature approving a.case for docketing is the
trigger for the investigation.
d. The date that a case is docketed in the Investigative
Division's files is known as the "docket date."
e. The docket date triggers the first phase of an
investigation, the "preliminary inquiry," which must be
completed within 60 days.
f. Upon the completion of the preliminary inquiry, a case is
either closed or continued as a full investigation.
g.
Investigations must be completed within 180 days unless
extensions are obtained from the Commission.
h. No member of the SEC has access to investigative
information during the course of the investigation.
i. No member of the SEC plays any role in the investigative
process.
J
From approximately mid - April, 1993 until approximately
June, 1993, Caruso received anonymous telephone calls
regarding Lower Paxton Township Commissioners, including
Snyder.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 24
k. Caruso directed Commission investigators to
Statement of Financial Interests compliance
Lower Paxton Township.
(1) The Investigative Division routinely
Statement of Financial Interests audits
nothing to do with investigations.
A Statement of Financial Interests compliance audit
is completely different from an investigation.
1. On June 4, 1993, the Investigative Division ,received a
"carbon copy" of a letter and package of information
regarding Snyder from the Dauphin County District
Attorney.
(1) The letter was addressed to Captain Catherine Dowd
at the Pennsylvania State Police, Troop H.
The letter to Captain Dowd indicated that the
matter was also being referred to the State Ethics
Commission.
(2)
(2)
n. The State Ethics Commission's investigation of
authorized by the Executive Director.
o. ID 1 is the Investigative Division's "master
the Snyder investigation.
(1) Caruso's signature approving
docketing and investigation was
1993.
(2)
conduct a
audit of
performs
that have
m. Between June 4 and August 10, 1993, there were several
telephone calls and a meeting among the Investigative
Division and different agencies /officials to determine
who would handle the case.
Discussions /meetings of the investigative staff
with the State Police in the summer of 1993 related
to whether someone would investigate Snyder.
Caruso recalled that it was the last week of July,
1993 or the first week of August, 1993, that the
state police notified the Investigative Division
that the state police were not going to do an
investigation in this matter.
Snyder was
sheet" for
this case for
dated August 10,
The docket date for the Snyder case was August 10,
1993.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 25
P•
q.
No investigative activity was initiated prior to the
docket date (August 10, 1993).
August 10, 1993, was the beginning of the 60 day time
period for completion of the preliminary inquiry.
(1) October 8, 1993 was the deadline for completing the
preliminary inquiry as to Snyder.
(2) The preliminary inquiry was completed on or before
October 8, 1993.
r. The lead SEC investigator on the Snyder case was Frank
Finegan.
s. ID 2 is the investigative notice letter to Snyder, dated
October 8, 1993, advising Snyder of the general
allegations that were being reviewed.
(1) The investigative notice letter initiates the full
investigative phase.
(2) The investigative notice letter to Snyder was
issued on the last day that the preliminary inquiry
had to be completed.
t. Ninety day status letters were sent to Snyder.
u. Two ninety day extensions were timely obtained for the
Snyder investigation.
v. The investigative complaint was issued to Snyder on
October 3, 1994.
(1) The investigative complaint was issued within 360
days of the initiation of the full investigation.
w. ID 59 is a time chart of the actions of the LPT Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission relative to
actions and appearances by NMDC, HCC and Snyder /SSC.
(1) The chart covers the period from April, 1989
through February, 1991.
(2) The first entry for activities by SSC is for three
telephone calls placed to Ogram Architects on
December 14, 1989.
(a) These telephone calls were placed one day
before SSC incorporated, three days after a
December 11, 1989 workshop session where the
LPT Board discussed the preliminary plans for
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 26
CCSC, and prior to the Board's acting on the
preliminary subdivision plans for CCSC.
(3) Between SSC's first calls on December 14, 1989 and
action by the Supervisors on January 22, 1990,
additional calls were placed to Ogram from SSC on
December 15, December 18, December 19, January 9,
January 10, and January 15.
(a) Calls were also placed to HCC.
x. SSC was in telephone contact with NMDC on December 17,
1990, the date the LPT Board of Supervisors directed the
Solicitor to prepare an order amending the Township
Ordinance as to parking lot paving thickness.
(1) On the following day, December 18, 1990, calls were
placed from SSC to NMDC and HCC.
Following HCC's submission of a guaranteed maximum price
to NMDC on or about February 22, 1990, no telephone calls
were placed from SSC to Ogram, other than 2 calls placed
approximately 7 months later in September, 1990.
z. ID 60 is a compilation of the telephone calls placed from
SSC's telephone number at 657 -1615 to Ogram Architects,
HCC and NMDC.
Y-
(1) Caruso personally prepared ID 60.
(2) The information on the chart was taken from the
subpoenaed telephone toll logs that the
Investigative Division obtained from Sandra Snyder.
(3) Caruso testified that it is his understanding that
a telephone call that is under a minute in length
will result in a charge on the bill for a one -
minute call.
(a) An unsuccessful attempt to reach a particular
person that might only take 10 or 15 seconds
would appear on the telephone bill as a one -
minute call.
(4) Caruso had no knowledge as to the content of the
telephone calls or whether particular calls were
for the purpose of returning a prior call placed to
SSC.
aa. ID 58 is a compilation of checks evidencing various
payments and disbursements by SSC and payments received
by SSC for the CCSC project.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 27
bb. ID 64 is a chart of payments made by TCC to SSC between
January, 1992 and June, 1994.
g g•
(1) SSC's disbursements included one payment to Ogram
Architects in the amount of $45.00.
(2) There were eleven payments from HCC to SSC,
commencing 12/20/90 and ending 9/05/91, in the
total amount of $105,397.44.
(3) The difference in the amount SSC received from HCC
and the amount that was paid out to the various
subcontractors and other professionals who
performed services and for the supplying of
materials was $48,885.65.
(1) The total payments during this 2 year period
exceeded $160,000.00.
cc. With regard to ID 58 and ID 64, the profit Snyder
realized as to CCSC and TCC cannot be determined by the
information obtained by the Investigative Division.
dd. Caruso testified that there is no evidence that Snyder
received confidential information as a Supervisor as to
the CCSC project.
ee. Snyder's /SSC's contract for the CCSC stonework was with
HCC.
(1) Snyder /SSC did not have any contract with NMDC.
(2) There is no evidence that Snyder /SSC got any
payments from NMDC.
(3) The only company that Snyder /SSC received payments
from for the CCSC project was HCC.
ff. When the Investigative Division interviewed Cross of HCC,
Cross advised that Snyder did not attempt to pressure him
or HCC into giving Snyder /SSC the contract for CCSC.
Cadranel of NMDC also told the Investigative Division
that Snyder did not attempt to pressure him or NMDC with
regard to CCSC.
hh. As to the blacktop issue, there was no evidence that any
extension of time for paving at CCSC had been granted to
,
NMDC.
(1) Caruso stated, "There were no extensions granted."
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 28
ii. Snyder either abstained or was not present at the
meetings from November of 1990 through February 25, 1991,
where Ordinance 91 -2 (changing paving specifications for
private parking lots) was considered and ultimately
adopted.
39. Mark X. DiSanto is the Vice President of Operations for TCC.
a. TCC is involved in land development and property
management.
b. BMF is a TCC development in LPT which was initiated
approximately 1984 -1985.
(1) BMF had six phases.
(2) The final phase of BMF was completed in March,
1995.
c. Snyder voted against the BMF plan.
(1) The vote on the BMF plan took place years before
Snyder performed any services for TCC.
d. Although the LPT Board originally rejected the BMF Plan,
the plan became approved as a matter of law when the
Township failed to provide a proper notification to TCC.
e. Once TCC had the preliminary approval for BMF, the final
approval had to be granted as long as TCC did not deviate
from the preliminary approval.
(1) The final plans for BMF did conform to the approved
preliminary plans.
f. Snyder /SSC has done work for TCC since approximately
1992.
g•
(1) Snyder did not approach DiSanto to ask for work.
(2) DiSanto approached Snyder and asked him to bid on
stone work.
(3) DiSanto testified that Snyder never asked for
stonework jobs in exchange for his favorable action
as a Supervisor, and DiSanto never asked for favors
or votes from Snyder on the promise of giving work.
Snyder first worked for TCC in 1992/1993 in Paxton Mills
Estates.
(1) Paxton Mills Estates is not in LPT.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 29
h. Snyder also did work for TCC in BMF in 1992/1993.
.I
(2) The Paxton Mills Estates stonework was a large job
that was negotiated at one price.
(3) DiSanto personally negotiated the Paxton Mills
Estates stone contract with Snyder.
(4) At that time, DiSanto knew that Snyder was a
Supervisor in LPT.
(1) SSC did not have an "overall" contract with TCC for
BMF.
(2) Each job was a separate contract that was
separately negotiated and bid among several
subcontractors.
i. TCC has a continuing business relationship with Snyder on
an "as needed" basis.
In 1994, TCC filed a request for a curative amendment
with LPT.
(1) The curative amendment request pertained to a
rental provision in the Township's Ordinance.
(2) It was the Township's position that TCC could not
rent townhouses that TCC had built.
(3) At the meeting where the proposed curative
amendment was considered, Snyder publicly disclosed
that his company had a business relationship with
TCC.
k. Snyder has voted against TCC's interests on certain
occasions, but Snyder did not have a business
relationship with TCC at such times.
1. On April 27, 1992, Snyder voted in favor of TCC's
position by voting against a motion to retain existing
zoning for two parcels of land for which TCC sought a
zoning change.
40. Sandra Snyder is married to James Snyder.
a. James Snyder is the president of SSC.
b. Sandra Snyder is listed on SSC's incorporation documents
as its secretary /treasurer.
$pyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 30
c. SSC was formerly located at the Snyder residence at 2325
Marion View Drive.
(1) SSC is now located at the corner of Linglestown
Road and Blue Mountain Parkway.
d. Prior to its incorporation in December, 1989, Sandra
Snyder operated SSC as a sole proprietorship.
(1) SSC was at that time a very small business.
e. Since the company's incorporation in December, 1989, SSC
has been and continues to be totally run by James Snyder.
(1) Since SSC's incorporation in December, 1989, Snyder
has dealt with and negotiated with the architects
and contractors when SSC has bid on projects.
[a] Sandra Snyder has not had any involvement with
architects or contractors since SSC's
incorporation.
(2) In 1990 or 1991 specifically, James Snyder did the
bidding on SSC jobs.
f. For a short period of time after SSC's incorporation,
Sandra Snyder performed a clerical role by writing checks
to pay bills and doing the sales and quarterly tax
reports.
(1) James Snyder gave the information for these reports
to Sandra Snyder.
(2) Sandra Snyder filled in the reports with the
information she was given.
g. For a short period of time, Jason Snyder, a son of Sandra
and James Snyder, worked part -time at SSC while attending
college.
(1) Jason Snyder's work consisted of cleaning up jobs,
delivering stone to small jobs, and the like.
(2) Jason Snyder did not play any role in dealing with
architects or contractors.
h. During the past several years, Sandra Snyder has not had
,.- access to SSC records or SSC buildings.
(1) Sandra and James Snyder are involved in a divorce
proceeding.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 31
(2) Sandra Snyder does not have a key to SSC.
(3) Sandra Snyder estimates that it has been several
years since the last time she was at SSC.
i. Sandra and James Snyder reside in the same house and have
done so continuously since 1977.
7•
ID 52 consists of telephone bills for SSC.
k. Sandra Snyder found the telephone records which comprise
ID 52, together with other records, in a trash can in
James Snyder's car after Snyder was served with discovery
documents in the Snyder's divorce proceeding.
(1) The car was locked, but a window was open.
(2) Sandra Snyder retrieved and removed the records.
(3) Sandra Snyder was not aware that the records were
subpoenaed by the State Ethics Commission.
(4) Previously, the records were kept in the Snyder's
home rather than with other SSC business records
maintained at the SSC office building.
1. Sandra Snyder never made any telephone calls to Ogram
Architects, HCC, or NMDC.
41. Gary Harnisch is Vice President of Manufacturing of L &S
Stone.
a. L &S manufactures Eldorado Stone.
b. L &S has approximately 150 to 200 dealers, of which 50 to
75 are located in Pennsylvania.
c. Snyder is L &S's dealer in the Harrisburg area.
d. L &S has been selling stone to Snyder for twenty years.
e. Harnisch recalled that Ogram had contacted L &S regarding
CCSC, and that L &S referred Ogram to Snyder /SSC as its
Harrisburg dealer.
(1) In the Harrisburg area, L &S sells only to Snyder
because Snyder is L &S's Harrisburg representative
and dealer.
f. Harnisch testified that Ogram contacted L &S because L &S
had previously supplied stone for a shopping center in
Massachusetts for which Ogram had been the architect.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 32
L &S supplied Snyder /SSC with the Eldorado Stone for CCSC.
h. ID 55 includes invoices from L &S to SSC for the Eldorado
Stone for CCSC.
42. James Snyder is the Respondent in this case.
a. Snyder testified that R -5 and R -6 are SSC's 1990 and 1991
federal corporate income tax returns.
(1) The returns were prepared by CPA's.
b. For 1990, SSC reported "gross receipts or sales" in the
amount of $308,160.08 (R -5).
(1) The "cost of goods sold" was reported to be
$224,877.77, resulting in a calculation of "gross
profit" in the amount of $83,282.31.
(2) "Other income" was reported in the amount of
$2,310.00, resulting in a calculation of "total
income" in the amount of $85,592.31.
c. For 1991, SSC reported "gross receipts or sales" in the
amount of $372,246 (R -6).
(1) The "cost of goods sold" was reported to be
$286,588.00, resulting in a calculation of "gross
profit" in the amount of $85,658.00.
(2) "Interest" income was reported in the amount of
$191.00, resulting in a calculation of "total
income" in the amount of $85,849.00.
d. Snyder was a compensated officer of SSC in 1990 and 1991.
(1) Snyder stated that the officers of the corporation
were: James Snyder, President; Sandra Snyder,
Secretary /Treasurer; and Jason Snyder, Vice
President.
(2) Snyder stated that he did not recall whether his
wife, Sandra Snyder, was a compensated officer in
1990 or 1991.
(3) Snyder stated that he did not know whether Jason
Snyder was a compensated officer in 1990 and that
he did not believe that Jason Snyder was a
compensated officer in 1991.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 33
(4) Line 12 of SSC's 1990 federal corporate income tax
return lists "compensation of officers" in the
amount of $29,695.00 (R -5).
(5) Line 12 of SSC's 1991 federal corporate income tax
return lists "compensation of officers" in the
amount of $26,635.00.
(6) "Compensation of officers" appears on the corporate
tax returns as a deduction from total income to the
corporation, together with other deductions such as
depreciation.
e. At the time SSC provided its business records to the CPA
for preparation of the 1991 corporate income tax return,
some of the SSC business records were at the office and
some were at the Snyder residence.
(1) Snyder testified that the records were in both
locations due to office renovations.
f. Snyder said that Sandra Snyder was probably involved in
the bookkeeping for SSC through 1991 or 1992.
43. Frank Finegan is an Investigator for the State Ethics
Commission.
a. As an Investigator for the State Ethics Commission,
Finegan periodically conducts Statement of Financial
Interests audits.
(1) There is no set basis for determining which
municipalities will be audited.
(2) Audits are not only conducted when a complaint is
made to the Commission, or there is a possibility
that the Ethics Law may have been violated.
(3) The Commission conducts audits in various sections
of the Commonwealth.
(4) If Finegan is working in an area where an audit has
not been done, he is often asked to do an audit.
(5) The number of audits Finegan does in a year varies
as time permits.
b. In performing a Statement of Financial Interests audit,
the Investigator's procedure is to go to the municipality
and request the Statements of Financial Interests,
usually for the past three years.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 34
(1) In the course of an audit, the Investigator reviews
the records to ensure that the forms have been
filed and completed, but does not review the forms
in order to verify the accuracy of the reported
information.
c. Finegan uses the term "straight- through audit" to mean an
audit where he takes a roster of the officials, gets the
last three years of Statements of Financial Interests,
and sees whether those officials filed the forms and how
the forms were completed.
(1) Finegan estimated that he prepares reports for only
half of the straight- through audits which he does.
(2) For most of the straight- through audits, Finegan
obtains copies of the Statements of Financial
Interests to bring back to the office.
d. At Caruso's instruction, Finegan conducted a Statement of
Financial Interests audit in LPT.
(1) Finegan conducted the Statement of Financial
Interests audit for LPT before August 10, 1993.
(2) Finegan believed that he 'conducted the Statement of
Financial Interests audit of LPT on May 6, 1993.
(a) An SEC log for April 26, 1993 to May 7, 1993
reflects that Finegan was at LPT on May 6,
1993 for the first time.
(3) This particular audit was Finegan's first audit of
LPT.
(a) Finegan stated that this was not unusual due
to the number of municipalities.
(b) Finegan stated that there are many
municipalities that have never been audited.
(c) Finegan did not know whether other SEC
investigators may have audited LPT in the
past.
(4) A second municipal audit is unusual and occurs if
problems are found as to the first audit.
e. Finegan's audit of LPT was a "straight- through" audit.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 35
f. When Finegan did the audit of LPT, he obtained copies of
various Statements of Financial Interests, which included
the forms for Snyder, Lentz, and Liptak.
(1) Finegan believed that after he completed the audit,
he retained the Statement of Financial Interests
forms for Snyder, Lentz, and Liptak.
In his audit of LPT, Finegan did not find any non -
filings, deficient filings, or unsigned or undated
Financial Interest Statements.
g•
h. When a State Ethics Commission Investigator finds no
discrepancies in a municipal Financial Interests
Statement audit, it is not unusual for the Investigator
not to report to Caruso.
i. Finegan's recollection was that he did not make a report
to Caruso at the completion of the LPT audit.
j. There were discussions between the District Attorney's
office and Caruso about Snyder during the summer of 1993.
k. Prior to the docket date (August 10, 1993) Caruso had
conversations with Finegan regarding Snyder.
(1) These conversations pertained to the fact that the
District Attorney's office and State Police were
looking into the Snyder matter.
1. The first time Finegan saw any information from the
District Attorney's office regarding this case was when
the case was assigned to Finegan, after the docket date.
m. Prior to the docket date of this case, August 10, 1993,
Finegan did not interview any witnesses, did not take any
documents from LPT other than FIS's, and did not issue
any subpoenas as to Snyder.
44. George Wolfe is the manager of LPT, having served in that
capacity since January 1, 1990.
a. Wolfe had no personal knowledge of the date when the SEC
investigator was at LPT's Township building.
(1) Based upon information from other staff members,
Wolfe opined that the State Ethics Commissions
Investigator was probably at the Township office in
June, 1993.
C. DOCUMENTS:
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 36
45. ID 7 is a certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation for
SSC.
a.
b.
c .
46. ID
of
47. ID
a.
b.
The Articles of Incorporation were signed on December 15,
1989 and filed on December 26, 1989.
The Snyder residence at 2325 Marion View Drive,
Harrisburg, PA is the address listed as SSC's registered
office in Pennsylvania.
James and Sandra Snyder are listed as the incorporators.
8 -44 consist of copies of the minutes of various meetings
the LPT Board of Supervisors.
24 reflects that on August 21, 1989:
Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to adopt Ordinance 89 -11 rezoning the CCSC
site for NMDC. (ID 24, page 4)
c. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to grant Solicitor Wix the authority to
proceed with an equity action against the developer of
BMF (TCC) . (ID 24, page 15) .
48. ID 26 reflects that on October 16, 1989:
a .
b.
Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
Traffic Signal Resolution 89 -28 for NMDC was unanimously
approved. (ID 26, page 8).
49. ID 28 reflects that on November 20, 1989:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve Sewer Resolution 89 -32 for CCSC.
(ID 28, page 9).
c. Snyder made the motion and the LPT
unanimously to approve Conditional Use
automotive supply and repair shop in CCSC.
11) .
Board voted
89 -7 for an
(ID 28, page
,Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 37
50. ID 29 reflects that on December 11, 1989, at a workshop
meeting:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The preliminary plans for CCSC were discussed.
c. Snyder participated:
Mr. Snyder stated that if we
don't have a timetable on this,
nothing will happen. If I was the
developer and I was going to donate
this land, I would want the
assurances that the Township is
going to do something with it or I
would have my shopping center
extended back there.
(ID 29, page 11).
51. ID 30 reflects that on December 18, 1989:
a. Four LPT Supervisors including,Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to accept a settlement agreement among the
BMF developer, residents, and the Township, which
pertained to lots, street acceptance, and a street name
change. (ID 30, page 8) .
52. ID 31 reflects that on January 22, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The Board unanimously approved the Preliminary
Subdivision and Land Development Plan for CCSC subject to
conditions. (ID 31, page 4).
53. ID 33 reflects that on February 26, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. , -The Board unanimously approved the Final Subdivision and
Land Development Plan for CCSC subject to conditions.
(ID 33, page 17).
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 38
c. The Board voted unanimously to execute the Development
Agreement for CCSC. (ID 33, page 17).
54. ID 34 reflects that on March 5, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The Board unanimously approved the Final Land Development
and Subdivision Plan, Phase A, for CCSC, subject to
conditions. (ID 34, page 5).
(1) This action approved revisions to the Final
Subdivision and Land Development Plan which the LPT
Board had previously approved on February 26, 1990.
(2) The revisions, which the minutes characterize as
"slight," included the movement of the balifield
into an area that had been set aside for open
space, the movement of parking, and the phasing of
the project in two phases.
(3) This action taken on March 5, 1990 superseded the
approval granted by the Board on February 26, 1990
(See ID 35, page 11).
55. ID 35 reflects that on March 19, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve Resolution 90 -15 for street
acceptance for BMF, Phases I and II. (ID 35, page 7).
c. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve the Reaffirmation of the Approval
for the Final Subdivision Plan of BMF, Phase 1 -B. (ID 35,
page 9) .
d. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve the Final Subdivision and Land
Development Plan for Colonial Commons Commercial Complex,
Phase B, subject to conditions. (ID 35, page 11).
(1) This action approved the CCSC project as it had
been previously approved on February 26, 1990, such
that the location of the ball field was not to be
changed.
e. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve the establishment of a guarantee
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 39
for CCSC in the amount of $1,213,300.00 commencing March
14, 1990 and ending February 19, 1992. (ID 35, page 13).
56. ID 36 reflects that on November 5, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. There were discussions about the stop work.order issued
to CCSC as to its parking lot. (ID 36, pages 10 -12).
c. Cadranel of NMDC also indicated NMDC's desire for an
extension of the time for paving:
The purpose of our appearance
is to explain the miscommunications
that have led us to this point and
to seek approval or waiver of
specifications, and to also seek a
waiver of the time frames within
which you can and cannot pave.
Weather conditions permitting, we
would like to continue to pave our
lot and accomplish as much as we can
while the weather is still good.
(ID 36, page 11).
d. The minutes do not include any comments by Snyder.
57. ID 37 reflects that on December 10, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting, which was a workshop session.
b. Snyder participated in discussions concerning the CCSC
parking lot paving matter. (ID 37, pages 4 -7).
c. According to the minutes, Snyder's participation was as
follows:
Mr. Snyder asked, what specifications did
the two surrounding parking lots build under,
namely K -Mart and Pathmark? They don't show
signs of wear.
Mr. Lentz stated that they were all laid
with No. 4.
Mr. Snyder asked, were they higher or
lower than the specifications that New Market
is suggesting?
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 40
Mr. Lentz indicated that we would have to
talk to HRG.
(ID 37, page 5) .
58. ID 38 reflects that on December 17, 1990:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. There were discussions concerning the parking lot
pavement dispute with NMDC as to CCSC. (ID 38, pages 5-
8) .
c. The minutes do not include any comments by Snyder.
d. A motion to direct the Solicitor to prepare an amendment
to the ordinance, enabling NMDC to build the parking lot,
with applicability to future parking lots as well, failed
by a 2 -1 -2 vote. (ID 38, page 7).
(1) Snyder and Lentz abstained. (ID 38, page 7).
59. ID 41 reflects that on February 25, 1991:
a. Four LPT Supervisors were present at the meeting.
b. Snyder was not present at the meeting.
c. The Board voted unanimously to approve Ordinance 91 -2,
Amendments to Article 1187 pertaining to parking lot
paving specifications. -(ID 41, page 6).
(1) The amendment establishes new paving standards for
parking lots.
60. ID 43 reflects that on February 3, 1992:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to release TCC's improvement guarantee for
BMF from $105,000.00 to $13,926.00. (ID 43, page 3).
61. ID 43 reflects that on April 27, 1992:
a. ,_Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Mark DiSanto requested rezoning for two tracts along
Colonial Road. (ID 43, pages 6 -7).
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 41
c. The Board passed a motion by a 3 -2 vote, to
existing zoning for both tracts of land. (ID
8)
d. Snyder voted against the motion to keep the
zoning. (ID 43, page 8).
keep the
43, page
existing
62. ID 43 reflects that on August 3, 1992:
a. Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board including
Snyder voted 3 -0 to approve Resolution 92 -21 for the
street acceptance of Commons Drive at CCSC. (ID 43, page
15) .
c. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board including
Snyder voted 3 -0 to adopt Resolution 92 -22 for Street
Acceptance of 5 streets at BMF. (ID 43, page 15).
63. ID 43 reflects that on August 17, 1992:
a. Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to grant reaffirmation of the Final
Subdivision Plan for BMF, Phase 4, conditioned on the
establishment of the proper improvement guarantee. (ID
43, page 19).
64. ID 43 reflects that on September 14, 1992:
a. Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board including Snyder
voted 3 -0 to approve the Preliminary /Final Re- subdivision
Plan of Lot 26 of BMF. (ID 43, page 23).
65. ID 43 reflects that on March 15, 1993:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0 in favor of a
motion to approve the reaffirmation of the approval
granted to the Final Subdivision Plan of BMF, Phase 5.
(ID 43, page 37).
66. ID 43 reflects that on April 5, 1993:
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 42
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0 to approve the
Reaffirmation of the Preliminary /Final Subdivision Land
Development Plan for lots 22 and 2C on Jaycee Avenue for
TCC. (ID 43, page 40).
67. ID 43 reflects that on July 12, 1993:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0 to approve the
Final Re- subdivision Plan of Open Space "J" in BMF, Phase
2. (ID 43, pages 43 -44).
68. ID 43 reflects that on November 1, 1993:
a. Four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were present at the
meeting.
b. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 3 -0 to approve the
Reaffirmation of the approval granted for the Final
Subdivision Plan of BMF, Phase 6, conditioned on
establishment of the proper improvement guarantee. (ID
43, pages 47 -48).
69. ID 44 reflects that on April 18, 1994:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as Chair were
present at the meeting.
b. Alex and Donna DiSanto were seeking the adoption of
Curative Zoning Amendment 94 -01, regarding tenant
occupancy of townhouse units in the zoning district. (ID
44, pages 2 -9).
c. Mark DiSanto addressed the Board on behalf of TCC,
specifically with regard to BMF.
d. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0 -1 to table
Curative Zoning Amendment 94 -01. (ID 44, page 9).
(1) Liptak abstained. (ID 44, page 9).
e. As to Snyder, the minutes state:
Mr. Snyder, prior to voting, disclosed
that his company does have a business relation
with Triple Crown. The company has no
financial gain to benefit in this Curative
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 43
Amendment and there has been no promises or
any types of inducements offered to him or his
company to gain his vote.
(ID 44, page 9).
70. ID 44 reflects that on May 2, 1994:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as Chair were
present at the meeting.
b. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 3 -1 -0 to table
Curative Zoning Amendment 94 -01. (ID 44, page 14).
(1) Snyder voted "aye." (ID 44, page 14).
71. ID 44 reflects that on May 16, 1994:
a. Five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as Chair were
present at the meeting.
b. Curative Zoning Amendment 94 -01 was before the Board.
(ID 44, pages 16 -22).
c. A member of the public raised the issue of Snyder's
business relationship to TCC and his work in BMF. (ID
44, page 20).
(1) Snyder asked Solicitor Wix for an opinion.
(2) Wix stated that "the only obligation is to
disclose," and that Snyder "is free to vote or not
vote as he chooses." (ID 44, pages 20 -21).
d. A motion to deny Curative Amendment 94 -01 failed by a 2-
2-1 vote. (ID 44, page 21).
(1) Snyder voted against denying the curative
Amendment. (ID 44, page 21).
72. ID 42 is a copy of LPT Ordinance 91 -2 amending Article 1187 of
the LPT Codified Ordinances as to the construction standards
for paving off - street parking lots.
a. The Ordinance was enacted into law on February 25, 1991.
b. The Ordinance is signed by four LPT Supervisors,
including Snyder.
73. ID 46, pages 1 -3, is a copy of an unsigned, undated letter
with attachments from Snyder, as President of SSC, to Steve
McCord at HCC.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 44
a. The letter is an estimate for stone veneer for the
Montgomery Ward building at CCSC.
b. The letter states, "Once again it is a pleasure to
furnish you with an estimate for the stone veneer
proposed for Colonial Commons."
c. The attachments are dated July 9, 1990, bear the name
"Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.," and estimate the
square footage for Montgomery Ward.
74. ID 46, pages 4 -6, is a copy of an unsigned, undated letter
from Snyder, as President of SSC, to Jerry Cross at HCC.
a. The letter is an estimate for the stone veneer for CCSC.
b. The letter states, "It is indeed a pleasure to furnish
you with the following estimate for the stone veneer
proposed for Colonial Commons."
c. The letter states, "If you are in the Harrisburg Area
between February 24 and March 3, we will have a full
display at the Harrisburg Builder's Show. . . "
75. ID 46, pages 11 -12, is a copy of an unsigned, undated letter
from Jason C. Snyder, as Vice President of SSC, to Jerry Cross
of HCC.
a. The letter bears the stamp "RECEIVED AUG 27 1990 HOAR
CONSTRUCTION."
b. The letter requests an additional monetary allowance from
HCC, either over the contract price or in addition to the
square footage price, to cover SSC's unexpected
engineering costs.
76. ID 48, page 1, is a copy of an invoice dated March 16, 1990
from Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. to SSC.
a. The invoice indicates that the professional services were
rendered during the period from February 3, 1990 through
March 2, 1990.
b. The invoice is for an "Estimate for Stone Quantity for
Colonial Commons Project."
77. ID 48, page 2, is a copy of an invoice dated October 11, 1990
from Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. to SSC.
a. The invoice indicates that the professional services were
rendered during the period from September 1, 1990 through
September 28, 1990.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 45
83. ID
b. The invoice is for an "Estimate for Stone Quantity for
Colonial Commons Project."
78. ID 50, page 1, is the subcontract between HCC and SSC
stonework at CCSC.
a. The subcontract indicates that the agreement was
May 23, 1990.
79. ID 50, page 11, is a subcontract between HCC and SSC
stonework for the AMC Theater at CCSC.
a .
b.
a. A total of 14 calls were made to Ogram beginning
and ending 09/26/90.
b. A total of 57 calls were made to HCC beginning
and ending 04/25/91.
for the
made on
for the
a. The subcontract indicates that the agreement was made
October 15, 1990.
on
80. ID 53 is a copy of the Rental Agreement between the State Farm
Products Show Commission and the Home Builders Association of
Metropolitan Harrisburg, dated February 22, 1990.
a. The 1990 Pennsylvania Home Builders Show was to be held
on February 24, 1990 through March 4, 1990.
81. ID 56 is a copy of the "Dodge Report" for CCSC, dated May 1,
1991.
The date of the "First Report" is indicated to have been
April 19, 1990.
"Status" is indicated as "Final planning report issued in
error - construction nearing completion."
82. ID 57 consists of copies of cancelled checks of SSC.
a. ID 57, page 1, is a cancelled check from SSC to Ogram
Architects in the amount of $45.00.
b. The check is dated February 24, 1990.
60 lists telephone calls from SSC to Ogram, HCC, and NMDC.
12/14/89
01/09/90
c. A total of 2 calls were made to NMDC beginning 12/17/90
and ending 12/18/90.
84. ID 61 is the Owner- Contractor Agreement between NMDC and HCC
for the CCSC project.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 46
a. It is dated April 7, 1990.
85. ID 62 is the portion of Ogram's Specifications Manual for CCSC
which pertains to synthetic stone veneer.
a. The specifications are dated February 1, 1990.
86. Ri is a copy of a letter dated February 8, 1990 from Lentz, as
a Sales Representative for Pennsy Supply, to Jerry Cross or
Roger Guillaume of HCC.
a. The letter quotes prices for materials for CCSC.
b. The letter references a telephone conversation between
Lentz and HCC on February 6.
87. R2 is a copy of a letter dated February 19, 1990 from Lentz,
as a Sales Representative for Pennsy Supply, to HCC which
quotes prices for materials for CCSC.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Lower Paxton Township, Dauphin County,
James Snyder, hereinafter Snyder, 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.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public
official /employee shall not engage in conduct that constitutes a
conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined
under Act 9 of 1989 as set forth in the allegations.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 47
In applying the allegation to the facts before us, the issue
is whether Snyder, as a Lower Paxton Township Supervisor, violated
Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he participated in decisions of
the Board of Supervisors regarding private developments and
subsequently his firm privately contracted with the developers to
provide stone facade work. The developments at issue are Colonial
Commons Shopping Center (CCSC), developed by New Market Development
Corporation (NMDC), and Blue Meadow Farms (BMF), developed by
Triple Crown Corporation. Snyder's firm is Snyder Stone Company,
Inc. (SSC) .
We shall initially review the four legal issues which
Respondent has raised. As to each of the first three issues,
Respondent requests a dismissal of this case. We find no basis for
a dismissal.
First, Respondent seeks a dismissal based upon his view that
this case resulted from a political dispute between Liptak and
Snyder (Brief of Respondent, at 23 -25). To the contrary, this case
was initiated by the Executive Director, upon his "own motion,"
rather than as the result of any complaint. Furthermore, although
a dispute between Liptak and Snyder could affect Liptak's
credibility, it would have no impact upon our decision.
Respondent's second legal argument . is that he has been
selectively prosecuted (Brief of Respondent, at 25 -27). Selective
prosecution only occurs if an individual is "intentionally and
purposefully singled out for prosecution for an invidious reason."
See, Corn. v. Butler, 367 Pa. Super 453, 461 -462, 533 A.2d 105, 109
(Pa. Super 1987)(Citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608,
150 S.Ct. 1524, 1531, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985)), aff'd. 529 Pa. 7, 601
A.2d 268 (1991)). There is no indication that Snyder has been
selectively prosecuted.
Respondent's third legal argument is that although the
testimony and records of the Investigative Division indicate that
the preliminary inquiry in this case began on August 10, 1993, and
the investigation began on October 8, 1993, the investigation of
Snyder actually began in June of 1993, such that the Investigative
Division did not meet its statutory deadlines for the preliminary
inquiry /investigation (Brief of Respondent, at 27 -29). In support
of this argument, Respondent notes that Township Manager Wolfe
indicated that an investigator was "reportedly seen" at the
Township building in June of 1993. Respondent further notes that
SEC Investigator Frank Finegan testified that he conducted a
Statement of Financial Interests audit at the Lower Paxton Township
office on May 6, 1993. Finally, Respondent characterizes, or
rather mischaracterizes, testimony of Finegan, as follows:
Finegan also testified that he was at the Lower Paxton
Township building on June 16 and 17, 1993 regarding
information that the district attorney's office had on
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 48
Lower Paxton Township (R. at 629 -632) -- information
which, presumably, corresponds with the information that
Liptak gave to the district attorney's office on Mr.
Snyder and Lentz.
(See, Brief of Respondent at 28). We shall review Respondent's
proffered "support" for his third legal argument point for point.
First, we can give little -- if any -- weight to Wolfe's cited
testimony. On its face, it was clearly a mere guess which was
rendered further unreliable because it was based upon hearsay:
Wolfe had no personal knowledge of the facts.
Next, Finegan's general, "straight- through" audit of the
Statements of Financial Interests at Lower Paxton Township on May
6, 1993 did not constitute the initiation of an investigation of
Snyder. Such audits are routinely performed, encompass multiple
public officials /public employees, and are limited to determining
whether forms have been completed and filed. They are not
investigations.
Finally, as to Finegan's testimony at pages 629 -632 of the
transcript, the actual testimony was not that Finegan was 41 the
Lower Paxton Township building on June 16 and 17, 1993 regarding
information from the District Attorney, but rather that he had
discussions with Caruso on such dates regarding the information
that had been received and what, if anything, the District
Attorney's Office was going to do. Furthermore, the actual
testimony included the following:
Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this, in all of these
notations where it says Lower Paxton Township
inquiry, it doesn't necessarily say that you were
at Lower Paxton Township on the day of any of these
things; is that correct?
A. That's true.
Tr. at 630.
Accordingly, we reject Respondent's argument. On the evidence
before us, we find that the preliminary inquiry in this case began
on August 10, 1993, the investigation began on October 8, 1993, and
all statutory deadlines were met by the Investigative Division.
Respondent's fourth and final legal argument is that our prior
Order deciding this case was not issued within thirty days of
receipt by the Commission of the hearing record, as required by 65
P.S. §408(f), such that it was also too late for us to grant
reconsideration, and presumably, to issue this decision.
Respondent claims that the hearing record closed June 9, 1995.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 49
(See, Brief in Opposition to Investigative Division's Petition and
Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration, at 7 -9).
Although it is true that at the conclusion of the June 1, 1995
hearing, the Hearing Officer used the word, "record," in keeping
the hearing itself open until June 9, 1995, all that he was doing
was setting a deadline for any further testimony. There was in
fact an indication that further testimony might be presented by
Respondent (Tr. at 647 -648). But the hearing record itself did not
close until the deadline for filing Briefs.
Specifically, after the June 9 deadline for introducing
additional witnesses had passed, the final portion of the hearing
transcript was received by the Commission from the stenographer on
June 14, 1995. The next day, June 15, 1995, a briefing schedule
was issued to the parties giving them until July 14, 1995 to file
their Briefs. Both parties availed themselves of the opportunity.
Indeed, Respondent did not file his Brief until July 14, 1995 --
the last day. With the filing of Briefs, the hearing record closed
on July 14, 1995. Our prior Order was issued on August 11, 1995 --
well within the thirty day issuance deadline.
Having fully availed himself of the time period for filing his
Brief, Respondent cannot now be heard to complain that the
Commission's Order was due almost exactly the day his Brief was
filed. Respondent's theory is not only nonsensical, but it would
preclude any meaningful opportunity for Briefs to be prepared by
the parties or reviewed by the Commission.
In any event, we note that per the decision in Eaker v. DPW,
138 Pa. Commw. 607, 588 A.2d 1337 (1991), it appears that we would
not be bound by such deadlines on our adjudications.
Having disposed of the legal issues, we now turn to the facts
of the case.
Factually, Snyder has been a Lower Paxton Township Supervisor
at all times relevant to this case, having served continuously as
such since at least 1988. Snyder currently serves as Chairman of
the LPT Board.
In his private capacity, Snyder is an owner and the President
of SSC. SSC is a business which specializes in selling stone,
brick, slate, and veneer products, including Eldorado Stone.
Snyder and his wife, Sandra Snyder, are listed on the Articles of
Incorporation as the incorporators of SSC. Although Snyder
testified that his wife is the Secretary /Treasurer of the
corporation and his son, Jason Snyder, is its Vice - President,
Sandra Snyder testified that since the company's incorporation in
December, 1989, it has been and continues to be totally run by
James Snyder. Sandra Snyder testified that following the
incorporation, she had no involvement with architects or
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 50
contractors, but performed a mere clerical role, for a short period
of time, by writing checks to pay bills and doing the sales and
quarterly tax reports based upon information she was provided by
Snyder. Since SSC's incorporation in December, 1989, Sandra Snyder
stated that the Respondent has dealt with and negotiated with the
architects and contractors when SSC has bid on projects. As for
Jason Snyder, he worked part time at SSC while attending college.
His work consisted of cleaning up jobs, delivering stone to small
jobs, and the like, but he did not negotiate contracts for SSC.
This case focuses upon Snyder's official actions relative to
two private developments in Lower Paxton Township, and their
developers: Colonial Commons Shopping Center (CCSC), developed by
NMDC, and Blue Meadow Farms (BMF), developed by TCC. These
developments will be discussed separately, beginning with CCSC.
In his public capacity, Snyder participated in the LPT Board's
discussions and decisions regarding CCSC. The development of CCSC
was discussed with the LPT Supervisors for the first time at a
public workshop meeting on April 10, 1989. Thereafter, there were
several matters before the LPT Board with regard to the development
of CCSC. Initially, there were zoning matters and approvals for
various aspects of the project that were before the LPT Board.
Subsequently, there were actions by the Board involving the
approval of preliminary and final plans submitted for CCSC. The
establishment of a guarantee for CCSC was approved. Thereafter, a
paving dispute arose at CCSC when the Township Engineer issued a
stop work order for the paving of the parking lot. That issue was
ultimately resolved when an Ordinance was adopted by the Board to
revise the paving standards for off - street parking lots in such a
way that NMDC was accommodated.
Still later, action was taken for street acceptance of Commons
Drive at CCSC.
Meanwhile, in his private capacity, Snyder actively sought and
obtained a subcontract for SSC to do the stonework at CCSC.
Immediately following the December 11, 1989 workshop session
of the LPT Board, where the preliminary plans for CCSC were
discussed in Snyder's presence and with his participation,
telephone calls were placed from SSC on December 14, 1989, to Ogram
Architects - the architect that was designing the specifications
for CCSC. The following day, on December 15, 1989, the Articles of
Incorporation for SSC were signed. The testimony of Sandra Snyder
indicated that it was at that point, upon the incorporation of SSC,
that Snyder took over the operation of the company and that she had
nothing to do with architects or contractors from that day forward.
From December 18 through December 19, 1989, four more calls
were placed from SSC to Ogram.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 51
Snyder's wife, Sandra Snyder, testified that she never placed
any calls to Ogram, or to Hoar Construction Company (HCC), which
ultimately became the general contractor for the CCSC project, or
to NMDC. Moreover, Jason Snyder, Snyder's son, did odd jobs for
SSC but he was a college student, and was not involved in
negotiating contracts for CCSC.
It was the position of the Investigative Division that, in
light of Sandra Snyder's testimony and by process of elimination,
these particular documented calls to Ogram, as well as the
subsequent calls to Ogram, HCC and NMDC, were placed by Snyder for
the purpose of securing work at CCSC. Key testimony of Township
staff established that developers routinely dealt with Township
staff rather than with Supervisors, and that a Township Supervisor
in his official capacity would have no need to deal with the
architect, developers, or contractors for a development.
Commencing January 9, 1990, SSC calls were placed not only to
Ogram Architects but also to HCC. From the time of the workshop
session on December 11, 1989 to the Board's approval of the
Preliminary Subdivision Plans for CCSC on January 22, 1990, SSC
placed telephone calls to Ogram on December 15, December 18,
December 19, January 9, January 10, and January 15, 1990. Three
telephone calls were also placed to HCC from SSC (ID 52, 60).
On January 22, 1990, the LPT Board, with Snyder's
participation, unanimously approved the Preliminary Subdivision and
Land Development Plan for CCSC.
At some point in time during the approval process for CCSC,
Snyder contacted an engineering firm, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic
(HRG), for the purpose of obtaining "quantity take- offs" for the
CCSC project. The quantity take -offs were estimates of the
quantity of materials needed to do the stonework at CCSC, and were
needed in order to prepare SSC's bid for a subcontract to do that
stonework.
The precise date at which HRG was contacted by SSC was
difficult to establish.
The person Snyder contacted at HRG was Robert C. Grubic.
Grubic testified as a witness in the proceedings before the
Commission. On direct examination, Grubic testified that he was
contacted by Snyder, and that it may have been late 1989 or early
1990 -- he was not sure of the exact date (Tr. at 244), Finding
33(a)). Subsequently, in reviewing the invoice for the actual work
performed, which covered the monthly billing period between
February .3, 1990 and March 2, 1990, Grubic testified that Snyder's
contact would probably have been before that time, because the
invoice reflected the time where the work was performed and "the
contact would have been before the dates for this invoice." (Tr.
at 247 -248, Finding 33(e)(1)). In further questioning, Grubic was
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 52
directly asked whether the contact would have been sometime before
February 3, 1990, whereupon he responded, "I would say yes. I
don't recall the exact date." (Tr. at 248, Finding 33(e)(2)).
However, on cross examination, Grubic acknowledged that in a letter
dated June 29, 1994 to SEC Investigator Frank Finegan, he had
indicated that he had been given the verbal authorization to do the
quantity take -off work for SSC on or about February 15, 1990. (Tr.
at 249, Finding 33 (d)) .
In any event, Ogram's specifications for CCSC were issued
dated February 1, 1990. The specifications called for Eldorado.
Stone. Snyder obtained a copy of the plans directly from Ogram.
Snyder provided HRG with the plans, indicating that he had obtained
them from the architect, Ogram, and he authorized HRG to do the
quantity take -off work. At some point between February 3, 1990 and
March 2, 1990, the work was performed.
Certainly the quantity take -off work was completed in advance
of February 22, 1990. This fact is indisputable because HCC
submitted its guaranteed maximum price to NMDC for the CCSC project
on February 22, 1990. Cross of HCC testified that SSC's bid for
the CCSC stonework was submitted to HCC prior to that date.
On February 26, 1990, the LPT Board with Snyder's
participation, unanimously approved the Final Plan for CCSC.
Subsequently on March 5, 1990, the Final Plan, Phase A, was
approved which acted to slightly revise the prior plan, but on
March 19, 1990, the plan as approved on February 26, 1990, was
approved again as the Final Plan, Phase B. Snyder participated in
all of these actions, as part of the unanimous LPT Board.
Thereafter, HCC entered into a contract with NMDC, dated April
7, 1990. Cross of HCC testified that at that time, HCC was "locked
in" with a number of subcontractors but had not signed all of the
subcontract agreements. The subcontract between HCC and SSC is
dated May 23, 1990.
Construction began. Pursuant to an oral contract with SSC, a
firm known as Rustic Exteriors (RE) began to do the installation of
the stonework at CCSC. Witnesses Horvath and Sinko of RE did the
installation work. They testified that they first met Snyder at
the Pennsylvania Home Builders Show which was held from February
24, 1990 through March 4, 1990. At that show, Snyder indicated
that he may have installation work for RE. Snyder specifically
mentioned the CCSC project to Horvath and Sinko at that first
meeting. RE initially did some residential work for SSC and
subsequently performed the installation at CCSC.
As the installation work commenced, it became apparent that
the job required a more complex method of installation than had
been anticipated by Snyder or RE. Furthermore, SSC's bid to do the
work reflected the same misunderstanding as to the installation,
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 53
based upon an error by HRG. RE sought additional compensation from
SSC, and Snyder agreed to provide same.
However, other disputes arose between RE and SSC based upon
compensation for "back charge" work at CCSC and the delinquency of
payments to RE. Horvath and Sinko testified that at one point, on
or about November, 1990, as a Township paving deadline was
approaching, beyond which paving could not occur, Snyder stated
that they did not need to worry about the compensation, and that
there was going to be an exchange of favors that would lead to
money going through channels faster so that RE would get paid
faster. Snyder indicated that he was owed favors in relation to
using his position in the Township to get the November paving
deadline pushed back.
Ultimately, the differences between RE and SSC were not
resolved. RE did not complete the work at CCSC and SSC hired other
installers to complete the job.
As for the issue of a paving extension for NMDC, there was
evidence that NMDC wanted an extension of the paving deadline. At
the meeting of November 5, 1990, in addressing the LPT Board,
Cadranel of NMDC indicated that one of NMDC's purposes in appearing
was to seek a waiver of the time frame within which paving was
allowed. NMDC wanted to continue paving the CCSC lot as long as
the weather conditions permitted. (ID 36, page 11, Finding 56(c)).
However, the LPT minutes in evidence do not appear to reflect any
action on that request. Additionally, Deputy Executive Director
Robert Caruso testified that there were no extensions granted.
(Tr. at 504, Finding 38 hh).
The other issue as to the CCSC parking lot paving pertained to
the stop work order which the LPT Engineer issued, initially
because NMDC lacked a required permit. A review of the work done,
however, revealed that the paving was not thick enough to comply
with Township Ordinances. To repave the parking lot to comply with
Township Ordinances would have cost NMDC an additional $250,000 to
$500,000. NMDC initially tried to negotiate with Township staff to
reach an alternate resolution. When that failed, the matter went
to the Zoning Hearing Board which denied the relief requested by
NMDC. When the matter finally came before the Township Supervisors
in the form of a request to amend the Ordinance, Township staff
recommended that such an amendment not be granted. The discussion
of the Board included comments as to whether the Township should
regulate private developers as to such private parking lots. The
LPT Board directed the Solicitor to draft the amendment. The
Ordinance was adopted, and although it had general applicability to
such private parking lots, in effect, it accommodated NMDC's
request.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 54
As for Snyder, the Township minutes reflect only the following
participation by Snyder, which occurred at the meeting of December
10, 1990:
Mr. Snyder asked, what specifications did
the two surrounding parking lots build under,
namely R -Mart and Pathmark? They don't show
signs of wear.
Mr. Lentz stated that they were all laid
with No. 4.
Mr. Snyder asked, were they higher or
lower than the specifications that New Market
is suggesting?
Mr. Lentz indicated that we would have to
talk to HRG.
(ID 37, page 5).
However, testimony by Township staff indicated that when the
matter came before the LPT Board, Snyder stated that the Township
staff was too stringent or harsh on the development community and
particularly relative to the paving specification for CCSC.
Additionally, although Snyder was not present at the February 25,
1991 meeting when the Ordinance was actually adopted, he was one of
the four LPT Supervisors who signed it.
It is also a fact that telephone calls were placed by SSC to
NMDC on December 17 -18, 1990. The Board was having discussions on
the issue at that time, at its December 17, 1990 meeting. At that
meeting, a motion to direct the preparation of the Ordinance had
failed.
The facts highlighted above give an overall view of what was
taking place in this case as to the development of CCSC.
The specific details of the actions taken at the LPT meetings
are as follows.
On August 21, 1989, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board
voted unanimously to adopt Ordinance 89 -11 rezoning the CCSC site
for NMDC.
On October 16, 1989, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. Traffic Signal Resolution 89 -28 for
NMDC was unanimously approved.
On November 20, 1989, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. Snyder seconded the motion and the
LPT Board voted unanimously to approve Sewer Resolution 89 -32 for
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 55
CCSC. Snyder also made the motion and the LPT Board voted
unanimously to approve Conditional Use 89 -7 for an automotive
supply and repair shop in CCSC.
On January 22, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. The Board unanimously approved the
Preliminary Subdivision and Land Development Plan for CCSC subject
to conditions.
On February 26, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. The Board unanimously approved the
Final Subdivision and Land Development Plan for CCSC subject to
conditions. The Board also voted unanimously to execute the
development agreement for CCSC.
On March 5, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. The Board unanimously approved the Final
Land Development and Subdivision Plan, Phase A, for CCSC, subject
to conditions. This action approved revisions to the Final
Subdivision and Land Development Plan which the LPT Board had
previously approved on February 26, 1990. The minutes of that
meeting characterize the revisions as slight, but they did include
the movement of the ball field into an area that had been
previously set aside for open space, the movement of parking, and
the phasing of the project in two phases. Subsequent minutes of
the Board characterize this action taken on March 5, 1990, as
superseding the approval granted by the Board on February 26, 1990.
On March 19, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Snyder made the motion and the LPT Board
voted unanimously to approve the Final Subdivision and Land
Development Plan for Colonial Commons Commercial Complex, Phase B,
subject to conditions. The effect of this action was to approve
the CCSC project as it had been previously approved on February 26,
1990, such that the location of the ball field was not to be
changed after all. Also on that date at that meeting, Snyder
seconded the motion and the LPT Board voted unanimously to approve
the establishment of a guarantee for CCSC in the amount of
$1,213,300 commencing March 14, 1990 and ending February 19, 1992.
On November 5, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. There were discussions about the stop
work order which had been issued to CCSC as to its parking lot.
Cadranel of NMDC indicated NMDC's desire for a waiver as to the
specifications and deadlines for paving. The minutes do not
include any comments by Snyder.
On December 10, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting, which was a workshop session. Snyder
participated in discussions concerning the CCSC parking lot paving
matter. According to the minutes, Snyder's participation was to
pose questions regarding specifications of two surrounding parking
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 56
lots for R -Mart and Pathmark, and whether those specifications were
higher or lower than the specifications that NMDC was suggesting be
observed for its own parking lot.
On December 17, 1990, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. There were discussions concerning the
parking lot paving dispute with NMDC as to CCSC. The minutes do
not include any comments by Snyder. A motion to direct the
Solicitor to prepare an amendment to the Ordinance, enabling NMDC
to build the parking lot, with applicability to future parking lots
as well, failed by a 2 -1 -2 vote. Snyder and Lentz abstained.
On February 25, 1991, four LPT Supervisors were present at the
meeting. Snyder was not present at the meeting. It was at this
meeting that the LPT Board voted unanimously to approve Ordinance
91 -2, which amended the LPT Ordinances pertaining to parking lot
paving specifications in such a way as to grant the relief
requested by NMDC. Although Snyder was not present at this
meeting, he did subsequently sign Ordinance 91 -2 as one of the four
LPT Supervisors who signed that Ordinance.
On August 3, 1992 four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT
Board including Snyder voted 3 -0 to approve Resolution 92 -21 for
the street acceptance of Commons Drive at CCSC.
We shall now review and highlight the facts as to BMF and its
developer, TCC.
Snyder began working for TCC in 1992/1993, initially at a
development located outside of LPT, but subsequently at the BMF
development. From 1992 forward, Snyder worked regularly in BMF
and, according to DiSanto of TCC, continues to work for TCC on an
as- needed basis. During the 2 1/2 year period from January, 1992 to
June, 1994, total payments from TCC to SSC exceeded $160,000.
Although Snyder had, in the past, voted against TCC's interest
on certain occasions, when Snyder did not have a business
relationship with TCC, from 1992 forward, after SSC began to work
for TCC, the evidence reflects only favorable participation by
Snyder.
As to TCC, Snyder's official actions from 1992 forward were as
follows.
On February 3, 1992, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. Snyder made the motion and the LPT
Board voted unanimously to release TCC's improvement guarantee for
BMF from $105,000 to $13,926.
On April 27, 1992, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Mark DiSanto of TCC requested rezoning for
Snydar, 93- 057 -C2
Page 57
two tracts along Colonial Road. The Board passed a motion by a 3 -2
vote to keep the existing zoning for both tracts of land. Snyder
voted against that motion, favoring TCC's position.
On August 3, 1992, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT
Board including Snyder voted 3 -0 to adopt Resolution 92 -22 for
street acceptance of five streets at BMF.
On August 17, 1992, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. Snyder seconded the motion and the LPT
Board voted unanimously to grant reaffirmation of the Final
Subdivision Plan for BMF, Phase 4, conditioned on the establishment
of the proper improvement guarantee.
On September 14, 1992, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. Snyder made the motion and the LPT
Board including Snyder voted 3 -0 to approve the Preliminary /Final
Resubdivision Plan of Lot 26 of BMF.
On March 15, 1993, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0
in favor of a motion to approve the reaffirmation of the approval
granted to the Final Subdivision Plan of BMF, Phase 5.
On April 5, 1993, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0
to approve the reaffirmation of the Preliminary /Final Subdivision
and Land Development Plan for Lots 2B and 2C on Jaycee Avenue for
TCC.
On July 12, 1993, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder were
present at the meeting. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0
to approve the Final Resubdivision Plan of Open Space "J" in BMF,
Phase 2.
On November 1, 1993, four LPT Supervisors including Snyder
were present at the meeting. The LPT Board including Snyder voted
3 -0 to approve the reaffirmation of the approval granted for the
Final Subdivision Plan of BMF, Phase 6, conditioned on
establishment of the proper improvement guarantee.
On April 18, 1994, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as
Chair were present at the meeting. Alex and Donna DiSanto were
seeking the adoption of a Curative Zoning Amendment to allow the
rental of townhouse units which TCC had already built in the zoning
district. The LPT Board including Snyder voted 4 -0 -1 to table the
Curative'Zoning Amendment. At that meeting, the minutes reflect
that Snyder, prior to voting, disclosed SSC's business relationship
with TCC. Snyder stated that the company has no financial gain to
benefit in this Curative Amendment and that there have been no
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 58
promises or any types of inducements offered to him or his company
to gain his vote.
On May 2, 1994, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as Chair
were present at the meeting. Again, the Board voted to table the
Curative Zoning Amendment, this time by a 3 -1 -0 vote with Snyder
voting "aye."
On May 16, 1994, five LPT Supervisors including Snyder as
Chair were present at the meeting. The Curative Zoning Amendment
was again before the Board. A member of the public raised the
issue of Snyder's business relationship to TCC and his work in BMF.
Snyder asked Solicitor Wix for an opinion. Wix indicated that the
only obligation would be disclosure and that Snyder would be free
to vote or not vote as he would choose. A motion to deny the
Curative Amendment failed by a 2 -2 -1 vote. Snyder voted against
denying the Curative Amendment, favoring TCC's position.
With regard to the latter action indicated above, testimony
revealed that TCC subsequently filed an appeal in court. A
settlement was proposed, and Liptak and Snyder indicated they would
not vote on the settlement issue. A majority consensus could not
be reached such that the Township neither settled nor further
pursued the litigation. Testimony indicated that the matter was
placed on the Township's agenda at one point in 1995, but that it
was subsequently removed. Witness Stine testified that he was not
sure how the agenda item was removed -- whether by decision of the
Board or the Township Manager, but that it would have been a
meaningless vote. Witness Liptak testified that as Chairman of the
Board at the time, Snyder had the authority to remove an item from
the agenda. Liptak testified that Snyder indicated the item was
removed from the agenda. Liptak further testified that the removal
of the item from the agenda resulted in the Curative Amendment
taking place by operation of law.
Having highlighted the facts and reviewed the evidence which
is before us, we find that there is clear and convincing evidence
that Snyder violated Section 3(a) of the. Ethics Law as to CCSC and
TCC.
First, as to CCSC, the evidence clearly shows that Snyder was
an active participant in his official capacity as a Lower Paxton
Township Supervisor in reviewing and acting upon matters pertaining
to CCSC, and particularly the development plans of CCSC, at a time
when he knew or had reasonable expectations that he would offer his
services to perform stonework as a subcontractor at CCSC.
Furthermore, we find that Snyder had reasonable expectations that
he would fact receive the subcontract to perform those services
while taking such actions.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 59
At the time that the LPT Board was reviewing the preliminary
and final plans for CCSC, Snyder was actively attempting to secure
the stonework subcontract.
As noted in the recitation of the facts above, beginning in
April of 1989, NMDC was submitting in a conceptual sense, its
proposals to the LPT Supervisors. On December 11, 1989, at a
workshop meeting, the LPT Board addressed the formal proposals that
were going to be submitted by NXDC for CCSC. Snyder was present at
that workshop and participated in the discussions as to CCSC.
Immediately thereafter, specifically, three days after that
workshop meeting, three telephone calls were placed on December 14,
1989, to Ogram Architects, the architect for the CCSC project.
This fact is established by the telephone records of SSC which are
in evidence. Furthermore, through the testimony of Sandra Snyder
noted above, the evidence is clear and convincing that the only
person who could have placed those calls was the Respondent,
Snyder.
Based upon the testimony of numerous individuals who were
familiar with the development process, it is clear that there was
no conceivable reason for Snyder to contact the architect for this
development in any official capacity. Rather, the only reason for
these calls to have been placed was for the purpose of pursuing
business for SSC. It is clear that in the ordinary course of
events at LPT, developers, architects, and contractors dealt with
Township staff rather than the Supervisors.
We find that there is clear and convincing evidence that as of
December 14, 1989, SSC was taking steps to secure work at CCSC.
Even at this early point in the development process, Snyder was
actively seeking to place his company in a position to secure the
subcontract to perform the stonework at CCSC.
Specifically, the testimony before this Commission was that
the only reason that a potential subcontractor would have for
calling an architect prior to the issuance of the official
specifications would be either to obtain a copy of the
specifications or to get his product specified within them. Thus,
all of the telephone calls to Ogram Architects prior to the
issuance of the specifications were geared toward the prospect of
SSC doing the stonework at CCSC.
A mere four days after the workshop session -- the very day
after the calls were placed to Ogram -- SSC incorporated and Snyder
took control of the company. Prior to that time, SSC was a sole
proprietorship which, according to the testimony of Sandra Snyder,
she operated. We do not view the timing of these events to be
coincidental.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 60
On the same day that SSC incorporated, additional calls were
placed by Snyder from SSC to Ogram. This was more than mere
coincidence. Once again, the evidence establishes an effort by
Respondent Snyder to initiate a process whereby he would place his
company, SSC in a position to obtain the stone veneer work at CCSC.
On January 22, 1990, the LPT Board approved the Preliminary
Plan for CCSC. Snyder was present and participated in the vote,
voting in favor of approving the plan. Snyder's vote clearly
occurred at a time when he knew that he had already_ contacted
Ogram, the architect for CCSC. In fact, between the time of the
workshop session on December 11, 1989, and the vote approving the
preliminary plan on January 22, 1990, at least 11 calls were placed
from SSC to Ogram and several calls were placed from SSC to ACC as
well.
Jerry Cross of HCC, who served as HCC's Project Manager at
CCSC, testified that the only times he talked to Snyder were about
Snyder's bid on this project. Cross indicated that he did not talk
to Snyder in any other capacity.
Clearly, Snyder was working actively throughout this process
to the point of approval of the preliminary plan to put his company
in line to get the subcontract to do the stone veneer work at CCSC.
It is interesting to note that Snyder obtained the plans
directly from Ogram rather than from HCC. Snyder specifically
informed HRG when he delivered the plans to them for the quantity
take off work, that he had obtained the plans from Ogram.
Meanwhile, Cross testified that HCC did not distribute the plans in
the Harrisburg area until February 6 -7, when Cross traveled to
Harrisburg to place the plans at the Harrisburg Builder's Exchange.
The reason that Snyder hired ERG to do quantity take -offs was
so that SSC could submit an educated bid to HCC. Based upon the
evidence before us, we cannot conclusively pinpoint the exact date
that Snyder initially contacted HRG. However, it is clear that SSC
had immediate access to the Ogram specifications and promptly acted
to secure quantity take offs for the preparation of its own bid.
Clearly the actions of Snyder in obtaining the plans and
immediately forwarding those plans to ERG for quantity take offs,
was to place himself in a position to submit a bid. It is
undisputed that these professional services were rendered during
HRG's billing period from February 3, 1990 to March 2, 1990. It is
also indisputable that the work was completed prior to February 22,
1990. That was the date when HCC submitted its own "guaranteed
maximum price" to NMDC. Cross of HCC specifically testified that
HCC had -SSC's bid by that date and knew that SSC was the only
bidder for the stonework.
Based upon all of the above evidence, the necessary conclusion
is that at the time of the LPT Board's vote on the preliminary
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 61
plan, Snyder had a reasonable expectation or actual knowledge that
he was going to submit a bid on this project.
Furthermore, on February 26, 1990, after submitting his bid to
HCC, Snyder voted with the LPT Board to approve the final plans for
CCSC. Not only did SSC have its bid to HCC prior to Snyder's vote
on the final plan, but as noted above, it was the only bid
submitted to HCC for the CCSC stonework. Cross testified that even
though HCC had not entered into a subcontract with SSC as of the
February 22, 1990 deadline, it knew that SSC was the only bidder
for the stonework. Thus, prior to Snyder's vote in favor of the
final plan for CCSC, SSC was, as a matter of fact, the only bidder
to submit a bid to HCC for the CCSC stonework.
Between the January 22, 1990 vote on the preliminary plan and
the February 26, 1990 vote on the final plan, approximately 7
additional calls were placed by Snyder from SSC to HCC.
There was a pattern to Snyder's telephone calls from SSC.
Before the specifications were issued, SSC's calls were placed to
Ogram, which was preparing the specifications. From the time the
specifications were issued to the February 26, 1990 vote, all but
one of the SSC calls were placed to HCC.
All of these activities by Snyder,as President of SSC were
being done at the time that he was actively participating as a
Township Supervisor on matters pertaining to CCSC.
After the February 26, 1990 vote on the final plan, a few
additional issues arose as to CCSC. In March, Snyder voted twice
on aspects of the Final Plans of CCSC. Snyder also seconded the
motion and voted as to the establishment of a guarantee for CCSC.
Obviously, these actions likewise occurred after the point at which
it was clear that SSC was the only bidder to submit a proposal to
HCC to do the stonework at CCSC.
Thus, based upon all of the above, it is clear to us that
Respondent Snyder voted and participated in the approval of plans
for CCSC, as well as other matters, at a time when he knew or at
the very least reasonably expected that he would be offering his
services and /or performing the work at CCSC.
Yet another significant aspect of this case occurred when a
problem subsequently developed as to the paving thickness for the
parking lot at CCSC. The Township Engineer had issued a stop work
order based upon the lack of a permit. Upon reviewing the work
that had been done, the Engineer was of the opinion that the paving
was not thick enough to comply with the Township Ordinances. NMDC
first attempted to negotiate with Township staff. When that
failed, NMDC unsuccessfully sought a waiver from the Zoning Hearing
Board. Ultimately, NMDC ended up before the LPT Board of
Supervisors, requesting an amendment to the Township Ordinance.
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 62
Although Snyder was not present at the February 25, 1991
meeting where the LPT Board unanimously approved the Ordinance,
thereby changing the private parking lot specifications as
requested by NMDC, there was testimony that prior to the vote,
Snyder indicated his view that the Township staff was too stringent
or harsh on the development community, particularly in relation to
the parking specifications which, per the evidence, was at the time
only being pursued as to NMDC. Additional testimony indicated that
Snyder had been in favor of granting a waiver of the Ordinance as
to NMDC.
The ultimate amendment of the specifications clearly saved
NMDC substantial expense. By its own estimation, repaving the
parking lot to conform to the position of Township staff would have
cost NMDC additional hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As for the other issue as to paving, this with regard to
extending the Township's paving deadline for NMDC, the testimony of
Horvath and Sinko is most disconcerting. Snyder made statements in
their presence to the effect that he was owed some favors with
regard to getting a Township paving deadline pushed back. These
statements were made in the context of assuring Horvath and Sinko.
that Snyder would get a return favor in the nature of expedited
payments to SSC and consequently RE.
It is clear that NMDC was seeking such an extension. (ID 36).
However, the Deputy Executive Director of the Investigative
Division, Robert Caruso, specifically testified that there was no
evidence of any extensions and that "there were no extensions
granted." (Tr. at 504, Finding 38hh).
In any event, this case does not hinge upon this particular
matter. There is certainly clear and convincing evidence to
establish that Snyder violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law with
regard to his actions as to CCSC.
With regard to TCC, there was similar action by Snyder as to
a development, BMF, during a time period where SSC was performing
work for TCC.
Commencing in January, 1992, Snyder /SSC performed work for
TCC, originally in a development outside of LPT known as Paxton
Mills Estates. On or about the same time, Snyder /SSC commenced
working for TCC at BMF as well. BMF is located in LPT.
Between 1989 and 1992, there were numerous TCC actions before
the LPT Board in which Snyder participated. From 1992 forward,
during the time period that SSC was receiving payments from TCC,
Snyder likewise participated on TCC matters before the Board. The
details of these actions are set forth in the factual recitation
above. While participating favorably toward TCC in his capacity as
a LPT Supervisor, during the years from 1992 forward, Snyder /SSC
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 63
received total payments from TCC in an amount exceeding $160,000.
Clearly, in light of the ongoing business relationship with
TCC from 1992 forward, during which time SSC was paid over $160,000
by TCC, Snyder had a reasonable expectation of being in a
continuing business relationship with TCC, yet he nevertheless
voted on TCC matters before the LPT Board.
Additionally, before Snyder /SSC began working for TCC, Snyder
did vote against TCC on certain occasions. However, after the
business relationship with TCC commenced, all of Snyder's actions
were in favor of TCC.
Upon reviewing the evidence and in light of various Commission
precedents, a finding of a violation of Section 3(a) in this case
is mandated as to Snyder's actions as to these
developments /developers.
Each element of a Section 3(a) violation has been established.
There were repeated instances where Snyder used the authority of
his office through voting, participating in discussions, and
remonstrating Township staff, all for the benefit of these
developments and their developers, and ultimately for the private
pecuniary benefit of SSC and himself as its compensated President.
The private pecuniary benefit to Snyder /SSC was, in each case,
significant. Although the actual "profit" to SSC could not be
calculated in an accounting sense, nevertheless, as to CCSC, the
difference in the amount SSC received from HCC and various amounts
that were paid out to subcontractors and other professionals for
services and for materials was $48,885.65. As to TCC, we have
already discussed the extent of that work by SSC and the ongoing
payments to Snyder /SSC that flowed therefrom.
Our finding of a violation is consistent with Commission
precedent.
In Sowers, Opinion 80 -050, issued under Act 170 of 1978, we
stated that pursuant to Section 3(d) of that law:
First, if the supervisor knows at the time of his
vote that he has been or can legitimately expect to be
asked to do work for the developer or that he will offer
his services to the developer, the supervisor should
refrain from voting on the project and state his reasons
for doing so. The "legitimate expectation" of work can
arise from many factors: the fact that the supervisor and
developer have often worked together in the past; the
fact that the supervisor owns the only grader or
particular type of machine required by the developer in
the locality, for example. If, however, the supervisor
has not been hired and has no legitimate expectation of
being hired by the developer or offering his services to
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 64
Second, however, if the supervisor who has voted on
a project subsequently obtains employment or acquires a
contract with the developer on whose project he voted,
this employment should be publicly disclosed. The
supervisor should then refrain from voting on any matters
subsequently arising regarding the project, including but
not limited to acceptance of the roads of the
subdivision, release of the guarantee bond, etc. Public
disclosure of employment by the developer should be made
at the next public meeting of the Supervisors and should
be made a part of the minutes of that Zd,, at 3.
More recently, in Kannebecker, Opinion 92 -010, under Act 9 of
1989, we concluded:
id,_,, at 6.
the developer, the supervisor may and should vote on the
project.
A township supervisor has a conflict as to individuals
who have matters pending before the township when the
supervisor is an attorney for those individuals in
unrelated matters when the attorney - client relationship
is ongoing or when the client is on a retainer.
Circumstances could arise where a conflict may exist even
as to past clients.
In Garner, Opinion 93 -004, we reiterated the principal from
prior SEC precedents, that a reasonable or legitimate anticipation
of a financial relationship resulting from a project may form the
basis for a conflict of interests.
While we are mindful of the fact that the above were Opinions,
not Orders, and as it was duly noted by the Investigative Division
in its presentation of February 16, 1996, opinions are only
advisory, and cannot be equated to a Commission Order where an
actual violation of the Ethics Law is found based upon concrete
evidence establishing the elements of a violation, nevertheless,
they do provide guidance to us, and certainly in this case, each
element of a Section 3(a) violation has been established.
Snyder violated Section 3(a).
Snyder was self - dealing.
Snyder violated the public trust.
Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Ethics Law, 65 P.S. §408(a),
we have the statutory authority and discretion to refer appropriate
Snyder, 93- 057 -C2
Page 65
cases to law enforcement officials. With all of the above, this
case clearly warrants such a referral.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. James L. Snyder, as a Lower Paxton Township Supervisor is a
public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law
(Act 9 of 1989, 65 B.S. 68401 -413).
2. James L. Snyder violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act
9 of 1989, 65 P.S. 66401 -413) when he participated in
deliberations of the Board of Supervisors concerning the
private developments of Colonial Commons Shopping Center and
Blue Meadow Farms where his business contracted to install
stone veneers on buildings in both developments.
In Re: James L. Snyder
Vice -Chair Austin M. Lee dissents.
File Docket: 93- 057 -C2
Date Decided: 2/16/96
Date Mailed: 3/1/96
ORDER NO. 979 -2
1. James L. Snyder, as a Lower Paxton Township Supervisor,
violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law (Act 9 of 1989, 65
P.S. §5401 -413) when he participated in deliberations of the
board of supervisors concerning the private developments of
Colonial Commons Shopping Center and Blue Meadow Farms where
his business contracted to install stone veneers on buildings
in both developments.
2. This matter will be referred to a law enforcement agency for
review and appropriate action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
setui_
DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR