Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout982 BartlettSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Oliver Bartlett File Docket: 93- 084 -C2 . Date Decided: 08/03/95 Date Mailed: 08/14/95 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger 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 et. seg. Written notice of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served upon completion of the investigation which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A consent agreement was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document thirty days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That, Oliver Bartlett, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as a Commissioner of Tioga County, violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he submitted and was compensated for excess mileage reimbursements, and when he received double reimbursement from both the County and the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners for attending a convention. Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). II. FINDINGS: 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. Oliver Bartlett has served as a Tioga County Commissioner in Tioga County, Pennsylvania, from 1976 to present. a. Bartlett was Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners intermittently during the period 1976 to 1991. 2. Bartlett served as Tioga County's representative to the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Commissioners Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 3 (PSACC) . 3. Records of the Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners (PSACC) reflect that during 1989 through May, 1992, Bartlett served on various committees. 1989 - Unemployment Compensation Trustees 1990 - Unemployment Compensation Trustees 1991 - Unemployment Compensation Trustees 1992 - Unemployment Compensation Trustees, Curriculum, Personnel, Bylaws, Executive and Committee on the Future of Counties. a. During 1992, Bartlett served as an ex- officio member of all other PSACC committees, including Legislative, Human Services, Energy, Environment and Land Use, Justice and Public Safety, Resolutions, County Code and Tax Reform. b. In his PSACC roles, Bartlett attended many meetings in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and other localities. 4. Bartlett's expenses incurred while on PSACC business were reimbursed through submission of a travel expense voucher to PSACC. a. These expenses included mileage, air fare, taxi fare, parking, tolls, and lodging when an over -night stay at a motel was necessitated. 5. Mileage reimbursement was made by PSACC at the following rates: 1989 - .20 /mile; 1990 - .20 /mile; 1991 - .24 /mile; and 1992 - .24 /mile. 6. Bartlett received reimbursement from Tioga County for expenses incurred while traveling on county business. 7. A reimbursement policy for Tioga County officials and employees has been in effect since January 1, 1977. AUTOMOBILE AND PERSONAL EXPENSES Employees will be reimbursed by the County for personal expenses incurred while working for the county on official business, subject to guidelines set forth by law and the Board of County Commissioners, upon the submission of a properly executed expense account form. Employees who drive county owned cars are required to fill out and turn in monthly reports of daily maintenance. Gasoline should Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 4 be used from the county pump and outside purchase of fuel should be kept to a minimum. Employees who drive their own cars on county business do so by arrangement with the Department Head or County Commissioners. 8. During the mid- 1980's, Bartlett was assigned a county car, a 1982 Ford Grenada, for use while on county business. a. This vehicle had a license number MG76099. 9. During the late 1980's, the 1982 Ford Grenada began to break down and required frequent repair work. 10. Sometime prior to April, 1989, former Commissioner Brian Edgcomb informally discussed with Bartlett the use of Bartlett's personal car for long distance travel on county business. a. At the time of this discussion, Mr. Bartlett was to continue driving the 1982 Ford Grenada during short trips on county business. b. This discussion did not take place during a board of commissioners meeting. c. Bartlett's use of his personal car was necessitated by the poor condition of the 1982 Granada. d. Bartlett believed that he would be paid mileage and, from time to time, fill his vehicle with gas to make up for the fact that the other two commissioners had county vehicles for their use. 11. Based on this discussion, Bartlett began using his personal vehicle when traveling on county business. a. Bartlett has utilized his personal vehicle since 1989. b. Bartlett's personal vehicle has a tag number of 152738. 12. Mr. Bartlett was to be reimbursed for mileage when driving his personal car on county business. 13. The other county commissioners were not effected by this agreement. a. The other county commissioners were each driving newer county vehicles, and did not use personal vehicles when traveling on county business. Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 5 14. Bartlett has been provided a gasoline credit card and a county Mastercard credit card by Tioga County for use when traveling on official county business. a. Bartlett has been assigned gasoline credit cards for Sunoco, number 5628 9426605 0012; Exxon, number 339 103 5254; Gulf, number 099 901 2743; and Mobile, number 836 931 0613. b. Bartlett has been assigned a county Mastercard credit card. c. Bartlett has utilized these cards since at least 1989. 15 Bartlett has utilized county assigned gasoline credit cards to purchase gasoline for his personal vehicle when traveling on county business. 16. From 1989 through 1991, Bartlett submitted monthly vouchers to Tioga requesting reimbursement for travel expenses, including mileage for use of his personal vehicle. a. The vouchers did not itemize mileage traveled on county business or the purpose of travel. b. The vouchers requested reimbursement for total mileage travelled during a month. 1. A deduction was made by Bartlett for personal travel. c. The policy was changed in 1992 to provide a detailed list of miles traveled. 17. Between July, 1989, and December, 1991, Bartlett submitted mileage for reimbursement for use of his personal vehicle while utilizing a county credit card to purchase gasoline. a. 1989 Mileage July August 2151 x .20 $430.20 Claims miles per mile 2444 miles x .20 per mile $488.80 Gasoline Credit Card Purchases $ 9.50 $ 3.00 (Car Wash) $ 6.00 $1.8.50 $ 5.00 - 08/20/89 $ 9.50 - 08/25/89 $14.50 Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 6 September February March April May 1450 miles x .20 per mile $290.00 October 1553 miles - 0 - x .20 per mile $310.66 November - 1775 miles $ 7.50-12/14/89 December x .20 per mile $355.00 TOTAL $1444.46 $67.96 b. 1990 January 1110 miles - 0 x .20 per mile $222.00 1312 miles x .20 per mile $262.40 1443 miles x .20 per mile $288.60 1443 miles x .20 per mile $288.60 2050 miles x .20 per mile $410.00 $ 8.75 - 09/02/89 $ 8.51 - 09/02/89 $10.20 - 09/15/89 $27.46 $ 7.00 - 02/08/90 $ 8.50 - 02/11/90 $ 8.75 - 02/28/90 $24.25 $13.00 - 03/25/90 $10.00 - 03/27/90 $23.00 $ 7.00 - 04/20/90 $ 6.00 $ 9.50 - 04/24/90 $22.50 $ 8.00 - 05/16/90 $ 9.00 $10.50 - 05/23/90 $27.50 Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 7 June July August c. 1991 September October November December TOTAL January 1320 miles x .20 per mile $264.00 1692 miles x .20 per mile $338.40 1138 miles x .20 per mile $227.60 1302 miles x 20 per mile $260.40 2165 miles x .20 per Mile $433.00 1381 miles x .20 per mile $276.20 1441 miles x .20 per mile $288.20 $3207.80 1441 miles x. 20 per mile $288.20 *$10.90 - 06/01/90 $ 8.50 $ 8.75 - 06/20/90 $28.15 0 $14.00 - 08/05/90 $16.00 - 08/09/90 $30.00 *$10.80 - 09/21/90 (County vehicle license #MG76099) $10.50 - 09/25/90 $21.30 - 0 - - 0 - $ 9.25 - 12/31/90 $185.95 $ 9.25 - 01/20/91 Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 8 February March April May June July August September October 1520 miles $11.00 - 02/08/91 x .20 per mile $304.00 1438 miles $10.50 - 03/12/91 x .20 per mile $287.60 1210 miles - 0 - x .20 per mile $242.00 1410 miles x .20 per mile $282.00 1642 miles x .20 per mile $328.40 1541 miles x .20 per mile $308.20 884 miles x .20 per mile $176.80 1728 miles x .20 per mile $345.60 1552 miles x .20 per mile $310.40 *$ 8.52 - 05/10/91 *$10.00 - 05/10/91 $18.52 $ 9.74 - 06/27/91 $11.25 - 07/25/91 $ 8.50 - 08/22/91 $ 8.00 - 09/13/91 $ 9.85 - 09/21/91 $17.85 *$ 9.75 - 10/03/91 *$ 8.50 - 10/04/91 $18.25 (Listed as county car license no. MG76099) Date 09/15/89 12/06/89 02/09/90 06/01/90 09/21/90 05/10/91 10/04/91 01/08/92 04/07/92 05/29/92 Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 9 November December TOTAL $3054.60 18. Oliver Bartlett submitted expense vouchers to PSACC as for reimbursement while traveling on PSACC business: Purpose of Travel U.C. U.C. U.C. Unknown Trustee Trustee Trustee Meeting Meeting Meeting U.C. Trustee Meeting U.C. Meeting U.C. Meeting D.E.R. Meeting Meet with Senate Leaders Executive Committee Meeting 1313 miles x .20 per mile $262.60 1035 miles x.20 per mile $207.00 - 0 - $ 8.90 - 12/17/91 $123 .76 follows Expense Claimed Total 280 miles @ .20 /mile $56.00 290 miles @ .20 /mile $58.00 290 miles @ .20 /mile $58.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile $56.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile $56.00 280 miles @ .24 /mile $67.20 300 miles @ .24 /mile $72.00 280 miles @ .24 /mile $67.20 290 miles @ .24 /mile $69.60 326 miles @ .24 /mile $78.24 Hotel Room $38.11 19. Bartlett utilized his personal vehicle while traveling to attend PSACC functions. 20. On the following dates when Bartlett received mileage reimbursements from PSACC (See Finding No. 18), he also charged gasoline on a county credit card for use in his personal vehicle, and was paid mileage by the county for using his personal vehicle. Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 10 Charges to County Credit PSACC Mileage Date Card Reimburs. Claimed 09/15/89 $10.20 $56.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 02/09/90 $10.90 $58.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 06/01/90 $10.90 $56.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 09/21/90 $10.80 $56.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 05 /10/91 $18.52 $67.20 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 10/04/91 $ 8.50 $72.00 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 01/08/92 $10.50 $67.20 280 miles @ .20 /mile = $56.00 Total $80.32 $432.40 $392.00 21. When attending a PSACC Executive Committee Meeting on May 29, 1992, Bartlett was reimbursed by PSACC in an amount of $38.11 for lodging at the Budgetel Motel, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. a. Bartlett also charged one nights lodging at the Budgetel in an amount of $38.11 on his county Mastercard. 22. Beginning in January, 1992, Bartlett began itemizing mileage on a daily basis and by locations travelled. 23. On January 16, 1992, Bartlett charged mileage for use of his personal vehicle while also using a county gasoline credit card to purchase gasoline for his personal vehicle. Date 1/16/92 Mileage Claim Credit Card Charge 190 miles @ .20 /mile $12.50 $38.00 24. Oliver Bartlett received excess expense reimbursement as follows: a. Finding No. 20: $392.00 - Mileage Reimbursement b. Finding No. 21: $ 38.11 - Motel Reimbursement c. Finding No. 23: $ 12.50 - Credit Card Charge TOTAL $442.61 Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 11 25. Oliver Bartlett relied on his discussion with County Commissioners Edgcomb and Emmons when submitting his reimbursement requests and utilizing county credit cards. a. He believed that collection of mileage reimbursement and use of the credit card was permissible because the other commissioners agreed. b. The agreement was reached because the other commissioners were using newer county vehicles and a savings could be realized by paying Bartlett mileage, plus gasoline rather than purchasing a new county car. 26. Bartlett did not believe these actions violated any laws since there was an informal agreement. III. DISCUSSION: As a Commissioner of Tioga County, Oliver Bartlett, hereinafter Bartlett, 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 above. The issue before us is whether Bartlett as a Tioga County Commissioner violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, the conflict provision defined above, as to the allegation that he received Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 12 excess mileage reimbursements and double reimbursements from both the county and Pennsylvania State Association of County Commissioners (PSACC) for attending a convention. Factually, Bartlett has served as Tioga County Commissioner since 1976. As Tioga County's representative to PSACC, Bartlett served on various committees of PSACC from the period 1989 through May, 1992. In 1992, Bartlett served as an ex officio member of certain other PSACC committees. Bartlett's involvement with PSACC necessitated travel to meetings in Harrisburg and other localities. While on PSACC business, Bartlett incurred and received reimbursement for various expenses including mileage, air fare, taxi fare, parking, tolls and lodging. Bartlett also received reimbursement from Tioga County for expenses incurred while travelling on county business. Tioga County had an "automobile and personal expenses" policy which provided: county employees would be reimbursed for personal expenses while on official county business following the submission of a properly executed expense account forms; employees who drive county owned cars would be required to complete monthly maintenance reports and obtain gasoline from the county pump so as to minimize outside purchases of fuel; and employees who drive their own cars on county business would do so by arrangement with department heads or county commissioners. In the mid 1980's, Bartlett was assigned a county car which began in the late 1980's to break down and need require frequent repair work. Thereafter and sometime prior to April, 1989, Commissioner Edgcomb had an informal discussion with Bartlett whereby Bartlett would use the county car on short trips and his personal car for long distance travel for county business. Bartlett believed that he would receive paid mileage as well as occasionally fill his vehicle with gasoline to compensate for the fact that the other two commissioners had county vehicles for their own use. Bartlett received a gasoline credit card and a county Mastercard credit card for use when travelling on official county business. From 1989, Bartlett did in fact use his personal vehicle and received reimbursement for mileage while driving his personal car on county business. Between July, 1989 and December, 1991, Bartlett submitted mileage for reimbursement and used the county credit card to purchase gasoline. Bartlett submitted monthly vouchers to Tioga County requesting a reimbursement for travel expenses including mileage for his personal vehicle. The vouchers Bartlett submitted did not itemize mileage or state the purpose of the travel but merely contained total mileage for the month with a deduction for personal travel. The county "automobile and personal expenses" policy was changed in 1992 so that a detailed list of miles travelled was required to be listed. Bartlett also utilized his personal vehicle while travelling Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 13 to attend PSACC functions for which he submitted expense vouchers to PSACC for reimbursement. On several occasions, Bartlett not only received mileage reimbursements from PSACC but he also charged gasoline on the county credit card and received paid mileage from the county for using his personal vehicle (Fact Finding 20). Bartlett therefore received excessive expense reimbursements in the amount of $392.00 for such activity (Fact Findings 20, 24a). While attending a PSACC executive committee meeting on May 29, 1992, Bartlett was reimbursed by PSACC in the amount of $38.11 for lodging at a motel. However, Bartlett did not incur an out -of- pocket expense for the lodging for which he paid by using his county Mastercard. Therefore, Bartlett received an excess expense reimbursement of $38.11 for the one night lodging (Fact Finding 21, 24d) . Lastly, on January 16, 1992, which was after the time that county employees were required to itemize mileage on a daily basis with a listing of locations travelled, Bartlett charged mileage for use of his personal vehicle while also using the county gasoline credit card to purchase gasoline. Therefore, Bartlett received an excess reimbursement of $12.50 as to the credit card charge for mileage (Fact Finding 23, 24c) . The record reflects that Bartlett relied upon discussions with the other two county commissioners when submitting his reimbursement requests and utilizing county credit cards. Bartlett believed that the receipt of mileage reimbursement plus the use of the county credit card were permissible as per the agreement of the other commissioners who were using newer county vehicles. Through Bartlett's use of his own personal car, he believed there was a savings to the county which did not have to purchase a new county car for Bartlett. Given the informal agreement with the other commissioners, Bartlett was of the view that his actions did not violate any laws. In applying the provisions of Section 3 (a) of Act 9 of 1989 to the above facts of record, we must determine whether there was a use of authority of office on the part of Bartlett to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself. We do find a use of authority of office on the part of Bartlett through his activity of submitting various expense reimbursements as to county or PSACC matters; but for the fact that Bartlett was a county commissioner, he would not have been in a position to submit such expense reimbursements as to the county official business and the PSACC activities. Juliante, Order 809. Second, the use of authority of office did result in a private pecuniary benefit to Bartlett consisting of various excess expense reimbursements which he received as outlined above. Therefore, such actions of Bartlett did transgress Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. Our decision is in accord with Dinzeo, Order 947 where we found a technical violation Bartlett, 93- 084 -C2 Page 14 as to certain mileage reimbursement that Dinzeo as a township commissioner received which was in excess of that authorized in law. The parties in this case have entered into a consent agreement for an unintentional violation coupled with a restitution payback of $442.61. We believe that the consent agreement is the proper disposition for this case given the totality of facts and circumstances. In this regard, we do note that Bartlett relied on discussions and agreements with the other county commissioners when submitting mileage and expense reimbursement. Since the parties have contractually agreed as to the appropriate amount of restitution and since our review of the case reflects that such amount appears to be a fair and appropriate restitution figure, we accept the restitution figure of $442.61 and direct Bartlett to make timely restitution of that amount through this Commission to Tioga County. Compliance with the above will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Failure to comply with the above will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Oliver Bartlett as a Tioga County Commissioner is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. An unintentional violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Oliver Bartlett submitted and was compensated for excess mileage reimbursement by the county and when he collected reimbursement from both the county and the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners for attending a convention. 3. The private pecuniary benefit received by Bartlett amounted to $442.61. In Re: Oliver Bartlett File Docket: 93- 084 -C2 Date Decided: 08/03/95 Date Mailed: 08/14/95 ORDER NO. 982 1. Oliver Bartlett as a Tioga County Commissioner unintentionally violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when Bartlett submitted and was compensated for excess mileage reimbursement by the county and when he collected reimbursement from both the county and the Pennsylvania Association of County Commissioners for attending a convention. 2. The private pecuniary benefit received by Bartlett amounted to $442.61. 3. Bartlett is ordered to make timely restitution in the amount of $442.61 through this Commission to Tioga County. a. Compliance with the above will result in the closing of this case with no further action. b. Failure to comply with the above will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, cY04140,u6 DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR