Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout968 LawrukSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In Re: Maurice Lawruk File Docket: 94- 002 -C2 . Date Decided: 05/04/95 . Date Mailed: 05/16/95 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt 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 seq. 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 fifteen 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 fifteen 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. Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That, Maurice Lawruk, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as a member of the Altoona City Authority, Blair County, violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he accepted compensation for attendance at meetings without the approval of the appointing authority. 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). 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. 5402. II. FINDINGS: 1. Maurice Lawruk has served as an appointed member of the Altoona City Authority since January, 1987. 2. The Altoona City Authority provides sewer and /or water service for the City of Altoona and neighboring municipalities. a. Under the City Authority umbrella are separate sewer and water divisions. 3. The Altoona City Authority is operated by a five member board appointed by City Council. a. Members are appointed to five year terms with one term Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 3 expiring annually. b. Altoona City Authority became an operating Authority effective February 1, 1981. 4. During the early 1980's, the City Authority undertook several capital ventures which put extra time demands on Authority members. Most notably was the acquisition of the Blair Gap Water System. 5. In 1986, the City of Altoona transferred operational control of its sewer system to the City Authority. a. Since 1986, the City Authority has handled sewer and water service exclusively. 6. The Altoona City Authority employs approximately 116 people. Employees perform both administrative and operational functions. 7. Between 1989 and 1993, William Cochran served as Executive Director; Ronald Shimmel as Controller; and Karen Anderson as Executive Secretary. a. Cochran was responsible for overseeing the day to day operation of the Authority. b. Shimmel was responsible for handling the financial aspects of Authority operation. c. Anderson recorded and prepared board meeting minutes and other designated administrative duties. 8. The Altoona City Authority holds one regularly scheduled monthly meeting to conduct Authority business. a. Special meetings and work sessions are held on an as needed basis. 9. By -laws of the Altoona City Authority, in part, define officers of the Authority as Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary /Treasurer, and officers that may from time to time be selected by the Board. 10. By -laws of the Altoona City Authority provide the following definition of duties of officers: a. Chairman: The Chairman shall conduct all meetings of the board, shall jointly with the secretary execute all contracts and shall jointly, with the treasurer, sign all checks, and shall have general and active management of Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 4 b. Vice Chairman- The Vice Chairman shall have all the powers of the chairman in his absence. c. Secretary: The secretary shall act as clerk of all meetings of the board; shall record all the proceedings of such meetings in a book kept for that purpose; shall give proper notice of all meetings; shall record all votes, and shall have custody of all the books and records of the authority, except those kept by the treasurer and shall jointly, with the chairman, execute all contracts and perform all other duties as may from time to time be assigned to him. d. Treasurer: The treasurer shall jointly with the chairman sign all checks and keep the financial records of the authority, provide for the custody of the funds and other property of the authority, and perform all other duties incident to his office. e. Other Officers: Such other officers as may from time to time be selected by the board to perform such duties as may be specifically assigned to them by the board. 11. Members of the City Authority Board have annually been appointed to officer positions since at least 1981. 12. During his tenure on the City Authority Board, Lawruk held officer positions including Assistant Secretary and Vice Chairman. a. Lawruk was the Assistant Secretary during calendar year 1987. b. Lawruk was the Vice Chairman during the calendar year 1993. 13. Meeting minutes of the Altoona City Authority Annual Reorganizational Meetings include action appointing all board members to officer positions. a. Reorganizational meeting minutes reflect board members were appointed to the following office positions for a term of one year: Meeting Date Officer Position 12/28/81 the affairs of the corporation. Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Member Frank Smith Joseph Reilly Ardie J. Dillen Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 5 01/28/83 01/27/84 01/25/85 01/31/86 01/29/87 01/28/88 01/27/89 01/31/90 Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Secretary Assistant Treasurer Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Secretary Assistant Treasurer Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Secretary Assistant Treasurer Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Secretary Assistant Treasurer Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Robert Sheetz Robert Freeburn Frank Smith Joseph Reilly Ardie Dillen Robert Freeburn Robert Smith Frank Smith Robert Smith Robert Freeburn Andronic Pappas Joseph Reilly Robert Smith Andronic Pappas Robert Freeburn Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly Robert Smith Andronic Pappas Robert Freeburn Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly Andronic Pappas Robert Smith Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly Maurice Lawruk Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly William Geis Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly William Geis Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Joseph Reilly William Geis awruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 6 01/30/91 01/29/92 01/22/93 Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary /Treasurer Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Patrick Fiore William Geis Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Patrick Fiore William Geis Andronic Pappas Maurice Lawruk Richard Fornwalt Patrick Fiore William Geis 14. By -laws of the Altoona City Authority provide that city council can set a salary for board members attendance at meetings and that the board can set compensation for members who serve as officers. 15. By -laws of the Altoona City Authority include the following specific guidelines for members receipt of compensation: "Members of the Board shall receive such a salary as may be determined by the Council of the City of Altoona but no salary of any member shall be increased or diminished by the said council during the term for which the members receiving the same shall have been appointed. All officers and agents of this authority shall receive such compensation as shall be determined and fixed by the members of the Board." 16. By way of Resolution #7445, adopted October 10, 1950, Altoona City Council set compensation for City Authority members at $20.00 per meeting. a. A meeting pay fee of $20.00 per event was the only compensation approved by Altoona City Council for members of the Authority. 17. The Altoona City Authority held a special Executive Session on March 17, 1981. A recommendation was made that members be compensated as follows: $100.00 per meeting attended by authority ($30.00 from Sewer EPA Grant Fund and $70.00 from Water Division Operating funds) . $200.00 per month for authority secretary ($100.00 from EPA Grant Fund and $100 from Water Division funds). Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 7 $50.00 per committee meeting attended any duly called Water Division meeting." Present: Smith, Reilly, Dilien, Freeburn. 18. At the City Authority's March 27, 1981, Regular meeting, the recommendations approved at the March 17, 1981, Special Work Session were approved as follows: a. Compensation for Authority members for regular meetings attended $100 ($30 from EPA grant funds $70 from Water Division) $50 per committee meeting attended (from Water Division) b. Compensation for Authority Secretary $200 per month ($100 from EPA grant fund, $100 from Water Division) Present: Smith Reilly, Dilien, Freeburn, Sheetz. 19. No salaries were set by the Authority for the officer positions of Chairman, Vice Chairman, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer. 20. Members of the Altoona City Authority board were compensated for attending regular meetings, special meetings and work sessions based on the resolution passed March 17, 1981. 21. Meeting compensation is paid to the Altoona City Authority Board Members on a quarterly basis. a. Payments are made from both the sewer and water divisions operating accounts. b. The Board Secretary /Treasurer provides Controller Ronald Shimmel with a list of meetings attended by board members during each quarter. c. Board members are compensated for attending meetings based on these quarterly reports. d. Checks were signed by Executive Director William Cochran. e. Executive Director William Cochran was authorized by the City Authority to issue checks in amounts less than $500.00. f. Board action was not required for the issuance of meeting pay. 22. Since March 27, 1981, Authority Board members received $100.00 per regular meeting attended and $50.00 for each special Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 8 meeting or work session attended. During 1992 and 1993, some special meetings were paid at a rate of $100.00 per meeting. a. Members received $80.00 in excess pay for each regular meeting attended. b. Members received $80.00 . in excess pay for special meetings held during 1992 and 1993 paid at a rate of $100.00 per meeting. c. Members received $30.00 in excess pay for each special meeting or work session attended paid at a rate of $50.00 per meeting. 23. 1099 Miscellaneous Income Statements on file with the City Authority reflect the following aggregate disbursements to Lawruk for his attendance at meetings during the specified calendar year: Year Amount 1989 $ 950.00 1990 $ 850.00 1991 $1,250.00 1992 $1,550.00 1993 $1,110.00 24. Around October, 1993, the compensation for City Authority Board members was questioned by Altoona City Council. 25. By way of correspondence dated November 4, 1993, William Cochran, Executive Director of the Altoona City Authority advised N. John Casanave, Altoona City Solicitor Cochran that "Altoona City Authority Board members are paid $100.00 for regular board meetings and $50.00 for work sessions. Each individual board member must be in attendance to receive the above mentioned director's fees." 26. By way of memorandum dated December 8, 1993, Robert F. Hagemann III, City Manager requested a written opinion of John Casanave, City Solicitor, regarding, "the legalities involved with the current fee structure utilized by appointed board members of the City Authority for attending board meetings." 27. City Solicitor N. John Casanave provided City Council with an Opinion dated December 21, 1993, on the compensation issue. "After researching the Municipal Authorities Act and reviewing the minutes of the Authority meetings and the resolutions of the City of Altoona, I have concluded as follows: Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 9 It is my judgement and opinion that the Authority Board had no authority to unilaterally raise their fees for attendance at meetings because only the City Council of the City of Altoona has the authority to increase those fees. Reference to the following section of the Municipal Authorities Act governs this issue in it's entirety: "Members of an Authority shall hold office until their successors have been appointed, and may succeed themselves and shall receive such salaries as may be determined by the governing body of the municipality, but none of such salaries shall be increased or diminished by such governing body during the term for which the member receiving same shall be appointed." With regard to the instant matter, the only governmental action taken by the City of Altoona was a resolution dated October 10, 1950, a copy of which is attached to this opinion, wherein the compensation of the members of the Altoona City Authority was determined and fixed at TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00), per member per meeting. Thus, it appears that the only valid consideration for the current members of the Altoona City Authority would be TWENTY DOLLARS ($20.00) per meeting as heretofore established by the governing body of the City as far as the official records of the City are concerned. 28. With respect to Authority Board members compensation, correspondence was submitted to Altoona City Council by former city officials on December 7 and 8, 1993. a. The former officials, including the Mayor and four former council members, believed authority members should receive an increase in meeting compensation. b. They requested council to consider granting a retroactive increase. 29. Altoona City Council took no action on the request from the former administration requesting a retroactive approval of City Authority Board member meeting compensation. 30. At the Altoona City Authority's February 18, 1994, meeting, discussion and action took place regarding restructuring the meeting pay received by City Authority Board members. a. Mr. Lawruk motioned to formalize the job descriptions as distributed by the Chairman in accordance with the By- Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 10 Laws of the Altoona City Authority providing a legal basis for the fees established in 1981 when the Authority became a fully operating Authority. Motion was seconded by Mr. Geis and carried 4 -1, with Mr. Wilkin opposing. 31. Attached to the Authority's February 18, 1994, meeting minutes, is the following "Clarification of Board meeting minutes February 18, 1994. In order to clarify the Resolution adopted by the Board during its February 18, 1994, meeting concerning the payment of officers compensation, the following shall be incorporated into the Minutes dated February 18, 1994. 1.) The following compensation shall be received: A. Members of the Board shall receive Twenty Dollars ($20.00) per month for their services as Board Members as approved by City Council. B. The Officers of the Authority shall receive Eighty Dollars ($80.00) per month for the services which they render as an Officer. 2). Recognizing that the Board Members may from time to time be required to attend Special meetings concerning Authority business, the fee of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per meeting shall be paid to those Board Members required to attend such meetings. 3). Any out -of- pocket costs that are incurred by any Board Member, shall be documented and presented to the Authority. Once determined by Altoona City Authority Staff to be incurred for the benefit of the Altoona City Authority, costs shall be promptly reimbursed. 4). Any Board Member may at their discretion waive the payment of any or all of the compensation listed above." 32. City Authority Solicitor David Halpern provided the following opinion to City Solicitor N. John Casanave, dated July 1, 1994, on City Authority Board member compensation: "In response to your inquiry of June 16, 1994, be advised that when I was presented with the issue concerning the compensation of the members of the Altoona City Authority I did conclude, after research, that the manner in which the compensation was increased from $20.00 to $100.00 per month in 1981 was technically incorrect. I utilized the term "technically" assuming that it was the intention of all concerned, including Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 11 City Council, to increase the compensation of Authority Board Members to take into account the additional duties and responsibilities that would be naturally incident to their obligations as members of the Board an operating authority with the expanded system as opposed to that required of members of a funding authority. I have made no independent investigation relative to this added compensation, but have been presented with statements which would indicate that it may have been the intention of City Council at the time to increase the compensation of the Board members and the error lay in the manner in which the increase was accomplished. Either City Council should have increased the Board Members stipend to $100.00 per meeting or the Resolution passed in 1981 by the Authority Board should have reflected that the additional compensation was for duties as officers of the Authority as opposed to compensation for attendance at meetings. Not being involved, I do not know which method, if any, the parties intended to utilize accomplish the increase. When the issue was presented to me by the Authority's Chairman in December of 1993, after research, I came to the conclusion that the only manner in which this matter could be properly assessed and resolved would be to submit the same to the State Ethics Commission for a determination. However, prior to obtaining the Board's approval to request that opinion, I learned that, in fact, the Commission had initiated an investigation of this matter which, to the best of my knowledge, is ongoing as of the date of this letter. It was my opinion at the time, and is still my opinion, that there is only two ways in which this matter can be reasonably and properly resolved. First, await the results of the Commission's investigation or, in the alternative, for City Council to determine, based upon the evidence before it or that which it may wish to elicit, that the 1981 increase was intended and to confirm that action in a proper manner, retroactively. I am not, however, opining that the latter course would be proper. If that was Council's desire, I am sure you would advise them accordingly. As to the question related to the actions taken by the Authority in 1994, I did advise the Board that it had the power to set the duties and compensation of its officers under the provisions of the Municipal Authorities Act of 1945 so long as, in my opinion, the duties for which that compensation was rendered was not for duties generally contemplated as within the scope of Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 12 their duties as Board Members. It was evident to me that the officers of the Authority are required to expend considerable time on Authority business between Board meetings to maintain and accomplish the business of the Authority. Hopefully, the above addresses any questions City Council may have concerning the opinions which I have rendered to the Authority on this issue." 33. At the October 24, 1994, Authority meeting salaries for officers was set as follows: Chairman: Vice Chairman: Secretary: Treasurer: Assistant Secretary/ Treasurer $225 /month, $125 /month, $175 /month, $100 /month, $ 75 /month, $20.00 per meeting Present: Fiore, Geis, Lawruk, Covino, Wilkin $20.00 per meeting $20.00 per meeting $20.00 per meeting $20.00 per meeting Vote: 4 to 1. Wilkin votes no stating he won't accept compensation. 34. Job descriptions for the Board of Directors were adopted by the Authority on October 24, 1994, for the positions of Chairman, Vice- Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary. 35. From July, 1989, through December, 1993, Lawruk was compensated as follows: 38 regular meetings @ $100.00 per meeting 3 special meetings OD $100.00 per meeting 24 special meetings /work sessions $50.00 per meeting TOTAL $3,800.00 $ 300.00 $1,200.00 $5,300.00 36. The ,compensation received by Lawruk in the form of meeting pay was $4,000.00 in excess than what was authorized by Altoona City Council. a. Lawruk was authorized to receive $20.00 per meeting for 65 meetings for a total of $1,300.00. 37. Lawruk was not a member of the Authority at the time when the meeting compensation was increased to $100.00 per meeting. a. Lawruk believed he was entitled to such compensation. Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 13 b. Lawruk was not advised that increases in compensation required City Council Approval. c. Lawruk relied on the advice of the authority solicitor when receiving compensation. III. DISCUSSION: As a member of the Altoona City Authority, Blair County, Maurice Lawruk, hereinafter Lawruk, 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 in the allegations. The issue in this case is whether Lawruk violated Section 3 (a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the allegation that he accepted compensation for attending meetings without the approval of the appointing authority. Factually, Lawruk has served as a member of the Altoona City Authority (ACA) since January, 1987. The ACA is made up of a five member board appointed by the Altoona City Council (Council) to provide sewer and water services for the City of Altoona and neighboring municipalities. The by -laws of the ACA provide for the officer positions of Chairman, Vice- Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and officers who may be selected by the ACA board. During his Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 14 tenure on the ACA, Lawruk held officer positions including Assistant Secretary and Vice Chairman As to the receipt of compensation by members of the ACA, the by -laws provide that members shall receive a salary determined by Council which salary may not be increased or diminished during the term for which the members are appointed. By Resolution No. 7445 adopted on October 10, 1950, Council set compensation for the ACA board members at $20.00 a meeting which was the only compensation ever approved. In a special executive session of the ACA on March 17, 1981, a recommendation was made to have the members compensated at a $100.00 per meeting with the Authority Secretary compensated at $200.00 per month and attendance at committee meetings compensated at $50.00 per meeting. The foregoing schedule of compensation was approved at a regular meeting of the ACA on March 27, 1981. At that time no salaries were set by the Authority for the officer positions of Chairman, Vice - Chairman, Treasurer, Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer. The board members of the ACA were compensated based upon the salary schedule approved on March 17, 1981. In particular, ACA members received $100.00 for regular meetings, $50.00 for special meetings or work sessions and in the years 1992 and 1993, $100.00 for some special meetings. In October, 1993, the amount of compensation received by ACA board members was questioned by Council. After the ACA Executive Director advised the Council Solicitor that ACA board members were paid $100.00 for a regular board meetings and $50.00 for work sessions, the City Manager requested a written opinion from the Solicitor as to the legality of the receipt of such compensation by the ACA board members. In a written opinion dated December 21, 1993, the Solicitor advised that the ACA board did not have the power to raise their salaries for attending meetings because only Council had the authority to take such action. The Solicitor concluded that the only valid compensation for the ACA board members was $20.00 per meeting as established by the Council as the governing body. Former Council members and the Mayor wrote the Council seeking an increase for the ACA board members to be applied retroactively. However, Council took no such action. At an ACA meeting on February 18, 1994, action was taken to restructure the meeting pay for the ACA members. In a "Clarification" which was attached to the meeting minutes, compensation was provided for the ACA board members to receive $20.00 a month as board members and $80.00 as officers for services rendered. In addition, special meetings of the ACA would be compensated at $50.00 per meeting together with any out of pocket expenses. Thereafter, the ACA Solicitor provided his analysis and opinion to the Council Solicitor dated July 1, 1994, on the subject of the ACA board members compensation. The ACA Solicitor concluded and so advised the ACA board that it had the power to set the Lawruk, 94- 002 -C2 Page 15 compensation for officers under the Municipality Authorities Act as long as the duties for which the compensation was rendered were as officers and not as board members. At the October 24, 1994 ACA meeting, salaries were set for officers in amounts as delineated in Fact Finding 33. As to Lawruk, he was not a member of the ACA at the time that the compensation was increased to $100.00. In addition, Lawruk believed that he was entitled to the compensation and that increases in compensation did not require Council approval. Lastly, Lawruk relied upon the advice of the ACA Solicitor when receiving such compensation. In applying the provision of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to the instant matter, we find no violation as to the receipt by Lawruk of the compensation for attending the ACA meetings. In order to establish a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, we must show as to a public official that there was a use of authority of office which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to himself. Latch, Order 823. In this case, we note that the action taken by the ACA board members to increase their compensation to $100.00 was taken at a time when Lawruk was not on the board. Without the requisite use of authority of office, which in this case is lacking on the part of Lawruk, we find that no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law. In this regard, we also note that Lawruk relied on the ACA Solicitor and was never advised that his receipt of compensation was in excess of the amount approved by the City of Altoona. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Maurice Lawruk as a member of the Altoona City Authority is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Lawruk did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the receipt of compensation for attending meetings without the approval of the governing body in that he was not a member of the Authority when such compensation was increased. In Re: Maurice Lawruk File Docket: 94- 002 -C2 Date Decided: 05/04/95 Date Mailed: 05/16/95 ORDER NO. 96 1. Maurice Lawruk as a member of the Altoona City Authority, did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the receipt of compensation for attending meetings without the approval of the governing body in that he was not a member of the Authority when such compensation was increased. BY THE COMMISSION, ottisAJ6 DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR