HomeMy WebLinkAbout799 VerszylaIn re: Carolyn Verszyla
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
: File Docket: 87 -016 -C
: Date Decided: May 23, 199k
: Date Mailed: June 10. 1991
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
Daneen E. Reese
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a
possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 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 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 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, however, 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 §2.38.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a) during the fifteen
day period and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is
waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or
circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude
discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is
guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S. 409(e).
ADJUDICATION
I. ,AL,LEGATION:
That you, a Leet Township Commissioner, violated Section 3(a) of
the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public
• official's use of office or confidential information gained
through that office to obtain financial gain when you recommended
that the township purchase insurance from a company that employed
you, and that you later received commissions as a result of the
township's purchase of this insurance policy; and that you
violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by failing to file
Statements of Financial Interests in 1980 through 1986 and in
1988:
II. FINDINGS:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public employee
shall use his public office or any confidential
information received through his holding public
office to obtain financial gain other than
compensation provided by law for himself, a member
of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. §403(a).
Section 4. Statement of Financial Interests
required to be filed.
(a) Each public employee employed by the
Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the
department, agency or bureau in which he is
employed no later than May 1, of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he
leaves such a position. Any other public employee
shall file a statement of financial interests with
the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position.
65 P.S. §404(a).
1. Carolyn Verszyla served as a Leet Township Commissioner from
1980 through 1987. Verszyla was elected to a new term which
began January 1990.
2. At the Leet Township Commissioner's reorganization
meetings, Verszyla was appointed to serve on various
committees:
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 2
a. January 7, 1980 - Chairman of the Health and
Sanitation Committee, Vice Chairman of the Public
Safety Committee.
b. January 4, 1982 - Vice Chairman of the Board of
Commissioners, Chairman of the Streets Committee,
Co- Chairman of the Health and Sanitation
Committee.
c. January 2, 1984 - Vice Chairman of the Board of
Commissioners, Chairman of the Streets Committee,
Co- Chairman of the Health and Sanitation
Committee.
3. The Leet Township Commissioners took action at township
meetings in regard to the adoption of Prudential Insurance
as the township health insurance carrier. Carolyn Verszyla
participated in the township's decision to secure the plan.
a. May 12, 1980 - Verszyla gathered information in
regard to police pension to be discussed at the
meeting on May 19.
Stephansky made a motion, seconded by Flindt, to
study the possibility of a pension plan for the
police. All in favor. Motion carried. Verszyla
will bring information to the meeting on May 19.
Present: Flindt, Ayres, Bradel, Stephansky,
Verszyla.
b. July 14, 1980 - A discussion was held in regard to
the police pension fund. Verszyla will contact
insurance companies. Present: Verszyla, Ayres,
Stephansky, Bradel. Absent: Flindt.
c. February 2, 1981 - Israel reported sending in the
form for election certification. A letter was
sent to Prudential Insurance with regard to the
medical plan for the police. Present: Verszyla,
Ayres, Bradel, Stephansky. Absent: Flindt.
d. March 9, 1981 - Verszyla reported that Graham was
accepted for the life insurance. He decided to
accept the life and disability insurance.
Present: Verszyla, Ayres and Bradel. Absent:
Stephansky and Flindt.
e. November 9, 1981 - Representatives of Marsh -
McKlennan Insurance attended a meeting by the
Quaker Valley Council of Governments, comprised of
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 3
representatives from fourteen townships, with
regard to pulling insurance together.
Verszyla reported having a proposal for insurance
for the fire department equal to what they have
now at a savings of $2,000. Verszyla made a
motion to adopt police agreements, several
questions arose. This was tabled until the
meeting could be held with the police. The police
committee will meet with the police on Monday,
November 17, 1981, at 7 p.m. Present: Verszyla,
Flindt, Ayres, Bradel and Stephansky.
4. Leet Township has entered into labor contracts with the
police department which have included life and health
insurance coverages. The board of supervisors have taken
action at public meetings regarding these contracts and
coverages as follows.
a. December 14, 1981 - Verszyla made a motion,
seconded by Bradel, to accept a two -year contract
for the patrolman as discussed at the previous
meetings. Stephansky and Flindt opposed. Ayres
accepted. Motion carried. Present: Verszyla,
Flindt, Ayres, Bradel and Stephansky.
b. December 28, 1981 - Verszyla explained that she
gathered reports from all surrounding areas in the
Quaker Valley Area in Allegheny to compare wages
and found Leet Township police among the lowest
paid. She also explained that they did not have
any benefits or social security, even the
insurance was found to be inadequate.
Stephansky questioned the police contracts,
stating that he did not approve them at the last
meeting because he did not know what was in them.
He felt he couldn't vote for something he could
not see.
Israel explained that if the majority of the board
felt they had a meeting of the minds in regard to
the discussion and decision on contracts, it would
be considered legally passed.
Stephansky also disagreed on the two -year
contract. He feels the increase of 8% and 100%
medical insurance for 1983 may prove in excess.
Members of the police department agreed to a one-
Mss. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 4
year contract. Present: Ayres, Bradel, Flindt,
Stephansky and Verszyla.
c. December 12, 1982 - Flindt made a motion, seconded
by Verszyla, to accept the police contracts as
amended. All in favor. Motion carried. Present:
Verszyla, Bradel, Flindt, and Cohlios. Absent:
Sarkis.
d. November 12, 1984 - Trovato made a motion,
seconded by Macurak, to accept the police chief
contract for 1985 as submitted. All in favor.
Motion carried.
Trovato made a motion, seconded by Macurak, to
accept patrolmen and assistant chief contract for
1985. Subject to addition. The Commissioners
have the right to appoint the chief. All in
favor. Motion carried.
Macurak made a motion, seconded by Trovato to
accept the contract with the secretary for 1985.
All in favor. Motion carried. Present: Macurak,
Trovato and Verszyla. Absent: Bradel.
e. November
seconded
for 1986
Present:
Bradel.
(
11, 1985 - Macurak made a motion,
by Soster, to accept the police contracts
. All in favor. Motion carried.
Soster, Macurak, Trovato, Verszyla and
The Township agreed to pay 100 percent
of the premiums for the police health
and life insurance and raised the
deductible on such policies which
resulted in a lower premium outlay by
the Township and a reduced commission to
Verszyla from Prudential.
f. August 11, 1986 - Trovato gave the police report
for July as submitted. Trovato announced that the
police have submitted their 1987 proposal. A
meeting will be set for negotiations. Present:
Bradel, Macurak, Stephansky, Trovato and Verszyla.
(1) As to the negotiation sessions
pertaining to the 1987 police contract,
Verszyla had been removed on or about
September 26, 1986 as the issuing agent
for Prudential.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 5
g. December 30, 1986 - Motion made by Trovato,
seconded by Macurak, to accept the police
contracts for 1987. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Motion by Macurak, seconded by Bradel, to appoint
Verszyla as delegate and Trovato as alternate to
represent Leet Township in the Quaker Valley
Council of Governments. Present: Bradel,
Macurak and Verszyla. Absent: Stephansky.
h. April 13, 1987 - A motion was made by Trovato to
accept the employee agreement for Anna Lee Oswald,
Assistant Secretary, for the calendar year 1987.
A motion was seconded by Bradel. A vote was as
follows: In favor - Trovato and Bradel. Opposed
- Macurak and Stephansky. The tie was broken by
a vote from Verszyla in favor. Motion carried.
There was a short discussion on the changeover of
medical coverage from Prudential to Blue
Cross /Blue Shield. Macurak told the board that
when Braden Blosser is accepted onto the
Prudential policy, he would like to discuss it
further. Bradel requested a workshop to be
scheduled at that time. Present: Verszyla,
Bradel, Stephansky, Trovato and Macurak.
5. The Leet Township health insurance plan was carried by
Prudential Indemnity Life Insurance Company, 2500 Dekalb
Pike, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
a. A master application for the Leet Township
Insurance Policy, No. D- 249811C, was executed on
November 10, 1980 by Board President, John Ayres,
and Carolyn Verszyla.
b. Carolyn Verszyla is listed as agent.
c. The applicant is listed as the Leet Township
Police.
d. The desired effective date of the new business was
listed as January 1, 1981.
e. The amount of payment collected was $334.41.
f. Carolyn Verszyla was assigned as writing agent.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 6
6. Carolyn Verszyla was employed by Prudential Insurance
Company from January 13, 1975 to November 9, 1987 as a sales
representative (agent).
a. Her agent's agreement was 879216.
b. She was assigned to the Beaver Falls District
originally by Prudential and was subsequently
reassigned to the North Hills District.
c. The North Hills District included Leet Township.
7. Prudential master application for the Leet Township Police
Department Employee Benefits Program Plan No. E- 249811C
lists Carolyn Verszyla as the writing representative, agent
no. 879216.
a. The application covered the Leet Township Police
Department and was signed by John Ayres,
President of Leet Township Board of Supervisors,
on November 10, 1980.
b. The application was witnessed by Carolyn Verszyla
as company representative.
c. The effective date was January 1, 1981.
d. Individuals covered were Cross, Graham, Morrow,
Pavlakovich and Poninski.
e. The certification and recommendation of writing
representative signed by C. Verszyla and dated
November 10, 1980 attests that (a) I have
personally seen an officer or authorized
representative of the applicant - employer; (b)
asked each of the questions and have verified with
the applicant - employer the plan or plan change of
insurance requested; (c) have truly and accurately
recorded the information supplies by the
applicant- employer who signed in my presence.
f. 100% of commissions are to go to the writing
representative.
g•
A change was submitted signed by Gary Bradel and
witnessed by C. Verszyla and dated December 13,
1982.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 7
(1) The change increased the waiting period
from one month to three months and
changed major medical coverage, and the
employee contribution percentage changed
from 75% to 50% with the deductible
being increased which resulted in a
lower commission to Verszyla.
(2) The certification and recommendation of
writing representative was signed by
C. Verszyla and dated December 13, 1982.
(3) The effective date of the coverage was
January 1, 1983.
8. Each individual applicant signed enrollment forms to be
covered by the policy. C. Verszyla is listed as witness on
the enrollment forms as follows:
a. November 10, 1980 - Edward Cross, David
Pavlakovich, James Graham, Allen Morrow and
Poninski.
b. February 2, 1981 - James Graham
c. July 11, 1981 - Edward Cross
d. September 11, 1981 - Edward Cross
e. July 1, 1983 - John Burlett
f. December 30, 1985 - Anna Oswald, Richard Rock
9. Additions and deletions were made to the initial policy from
January 1981 through July 1986. Carolyn Verszyla was the
agent who made these changes to the policy.
a. May 1, 1981 - James Graham added to the policy.
b. July 1, 1981 - Allen Morrow was discontinued.
c. July 1, 1983 - John Burlett added to the policy.
d. July 1, 1985 - John Burlett deleted from the
policy.
e. February 1, 1986 - Richard Rock added to the
policy.
f. April 1, 1986 - Anna Oswald added to the policy.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 8
g July 1, 1986 - Oswald's health insurance (only)
cancelled.
10. Carolyn Verszyla participated in the additions of Leet
Township employees Rock and Anna Oswald.
a. Health statement for Richard Rock dated December
30, 1985 witnessed by C. Verszyla.
b. Letter of January 14,
Rock's addition.
c. Letter of February 21,
Anna Oswald's addition
1986 notified C. Verszyla of
1986 notified Verszyla of
11. Prudential Insurance Company billed Leet Township on a
monthly basis for premiums due for various insured
employees. These monthly statements included the name of
the servicing agent.
a. Monthly premium statements from January 1981
through and including October 1986 list Carolyn
Verszyla as agent.
b. Monthly premium statements from November 1986
through December 1988 list Horan as agent.
c. Statements dated February 1, 1981 through
October 1, 1981 were signed by Leet Township
Board President, Gary Bradel.
d. Statement dated December 1, 1981 was signed by
councilman and Finance Chairman, Walter Flindt.
e. Statements dated March 1982 and July 1982 were
signed by Carolyn Verszyla.
f. Other statements in 1981 and 1982 were signed by
Anna Schatz, Leet Township Treasurer.
12. When paying bills, Leet Township requires three signatures
on checks. The signatures included any Commissioner,
Secretary and Treasurer.
13. In 1982, Carolyn Verszyla, as a Leet Township Commissioner,
signed three checks which were sent to Prudential Insurance
as payment for insurance premiums for the Leet Township
Police.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 9
a. January 15, 1982, check no. 5621, in an amount of
$762.93.
b. February 16, 1982, check no. 5694, in an amount of
$762.93. This was a replacement check for no.
5621 because no. 5621 only had two of the three
required signatures.
c. March 17, 1982, check no. 5714, in an amount of
$429.51.
d. These checks were also endorsed by Secretary,
Theresa Sokoski, and Treasurer, Anna Schatz.
14. Carolyn Verszyla signed Leet Township checks in 1983 for
payments made to Prudential Insurance Company for the
township police policies.
a. Date Check # Amount
01/05/83 6216 $302.63
03/16/83 6270 302.63
03/31/83 6279 302.63
04/30/83 6348 302.63
05/31/83 6407 302.63
07/04/83 6447 437.63
07/30/83 6517 383.65
09/27/83 6608 383.65
10/31/83 6664 383.65
12/30/83 6754 414.34
b. These checks were also endorsed by Secretary,
Theresa Sokoski, and Treasurer, Anna Schatz.
15. Carolyn Verszyla signed Leet Township checks in 1984, 1985
and 1986 for payments made to Prudential Insurance Company
for township insurance policies:
a. 1984
Dated Check # Amount
01/31/84 6816 $414.34
09/30/84 7310 414.25
11/30/84 7364 414.25
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 10
b. 1985
Dated Check # Amount
01/31/85 7496 $313.46
02/28/85 7510 313.46
04/16/85 7664 433.96
04/29/85 7694 373.71
06/03/85 7763 773.71
12/09/85 8153 457.54
c. 1986
Dated Check # Amount
01/31/86 8265 $1,494.72
03/14/86 8361 260.95
04/15/86 8440 1,547.32
05/15/86 8491 947.35
06/10/86 8518 947.35
07/15/86 8612 1,001.45
d. In 1984 and 1985, these checks were also endorsed
by Secretary, Theresa Sokoski, and Treasurer, Anna
Schatz. In 1986, the checks were also signed by
Secretary, Anna Lee Oswald, and Treasurer, Anna
Schatz.
16. A request for participation in an employee benefits program
insurance trust was submitted to Prudential on November 10
1980 and signed by John Ayres, President of Leet Township
Board of Commissioners, and witnessed by Carolyn Verszyla.
a. A similar request was signed by Gary Bradel,
Board President on December 13, 1982 and
witnessed by Carolyn Verszyla. This request noted
changes in benefits.
17. By letter dated January 9, 1981, Prudential's manager of the
Small Group Administration Office notified the Leet Township
Police Department that it was necessary to decline their
request for coverage.
a. The letter identified the plan number as 249811C
and the agent as Verszyla.
18. By letter dated January 14, 1981, Stephen Israel, Leet
Township Solicitor, advised Prudential Insurance that Leet
Township was authorized to contract for insurance benefits
for township officers.
Pis. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 11
a. The letter advised that the application for
benefits was attached.
b. The township was the employer and would be paying
the monthly premium.
19. Prudential memo dated January 16, 1981 to Joe Stewart, EBP
Office from Alice MacMurdo, North Hills Office, advises that
correspondence from Stephen Israel is enclosed regarding the
Leet Township police plan.
20. By letter dated January 30, 1981, Prudential notified Leet
Township that the insurance plan for the police department
was approved under Prudential's Employee Benefit Program.
a. The plan number was identified as 249811C and the
agent as Verszyla.
21. By the letter dated January 30, 1981, the manager of
Prudential Small Group Administration Office notified Leet
Township that insurance plan ( #249811C) for the township
police had been approved under Prudential's Employee
Benefits program.
a. The agent listed is Verszyla.
22. By letter dated February 16, 1982, Teri Carnasali of
Prudential's Small Group Administration Office returned a
check in an amount of $762.93 to the Leet Township
Department.
a. The check was being returned because a signature
was missing.
b. The check returned was no. 5621 and contained the
signatures of Carolyn Verszyla and Theresa
Sokoski.
c. The check represented payments for December 1981
and January 1982.
23. Prudential Insurance Company employee benefits program case
master record for Leet Township, effective January 1, 1983,
listed Carolyn Verszyla as first service representative.
a. Individuals covered by the policy were Cross,
Graham, Pavlakovich and Poninski.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 12
24. Prudential memo dated January 13, 1983 noted that Carolyn
Verszyla had the premium check for the Leet Township plan
but that she was on disability. The check was to be
deposited as soon as her sales manager was able to pick it
up.
25. By letter dated February 21, 1986, Prudential notified
Carolyn Verszyla, as sales representative, that Anna Oswald
had been added to the Leet Township policy.
26. Brenda Oliver, Administrative Specialist, Prudential Small
Group Administration, notified Leet Township by letter dated
June 20, 1986 of Anna Oswald's removal from health coverage.
Carolyn Verszyla was listed as agent.
27. By handwritten memo dated September 26, 1986, Carolyn
Verszyla informed Prudential:
a. Please be advised that effective this date, I am
transferring EBP case no. 450599D - Leet Township
Police.
b. Transfer from Servicing Agent
contract number 879216.
c. Transfer to Agent, J. Horan,
number 562918.
Verszyla, agency 18,
agency M4, contract
d. I am an elected official, and there is concern
this could be a conflict of interest; signed,
Sincerely, Carolyn Verszyla.
28. By letter dated November 28, 1988, Anna Oswald notified
Prudential's EBP Trust Department that effective November 1,
1988, Leet Township concerted their health insurance
coverage to another company. The township wished to
continue it's employee life, AD &D and weekly disability
income coverages with Prudential.
29. Prudential Insurance Company's Manual of Instructions for
managers, sales managers, section no. 43, provides:
a. "The sales manager should sign, at the time and on
the date, and in the proper place, each new
application for new business written while
accompanying an agent where the application is
fully completed (face of application supplementary
information and part 2 where required) and signed
by the applicants in the sales manager's presence.
Under no circumstances should the sales manger
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 13
sign the application unless it was fully completed
and signed by the applicant in the sales manger's
presence. The sales manger should sign such
applications regardless of the agents staff
affiliation. The agent, but not the agency
applicant, who is present when the application is
written, should also sign."
30. Larry Maseth was a Sales Manager with Prudential Insurance
company working out of the North Hills District Office.
a. He was Carolyn Verszyla's supervisor at the time
the Leet Township insurance plan was initiated.
b. As an agent, Verszyla was responsible for selling
and servicing Prudential products. She was given
a territory which included Sewickley area,
including Leet Township and Ohio Township,
although she could travel anywhere in the state.
c. He was aware that Verszyla was a Commissioner with
Leet Township, although he does not recall where
he first heard this.
d. A question arose regarding whether Prudential
would have a conflict with Verszyla's position as
Commissioner since Prudential agents were not
allowed to hold second jobs. Verszyla stated that
it was not a job, but a type of public service.
e. He did not actively solicit the Leet group
hospitalization insurance plan. He did write the
group policy.
f. In 1986, Verszyla asked him to write a letter
stating that they had written that plan because
some guy was trying to get her in regards to the
insurance.
g. The master application is a request for coverage
and specific applications and coverage and what
the cost would be. The check to Prudential, from
the township, was the request by the township to
Prudential to accept an application for coverage.
h. Leet Township, Allegheny County was within the
geographical location assigned to his office.
i. An Employee Benefits Program was placed for Leet
Township.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 14
(1) The program included hospitalization and
possibly disability income.
(2) Verszyla approached him and asked him to
go with her regarding a policy for Leet
Township.
(3) He had no prior dealings with Leet
Township in his capacity of sales agent
for Prudential.
(4) When he visited the township, he met
with Chief Graham and others to write a
contract for a health plan for Leet
Township through Prudential.
(5) The program is considered new business.
(6) He received a premium check which made
the coverage effective.
(7) The program was the easiest group sale
without any active solicitation on his
part.
(8) Verszyla played an active role in
implementing the policy.
Regarding his letter of October 3rd (Fact Finding
No. 34) and Verszyla's letter of October 10th,
1986 (Fact Finding No. 33), his activity regarding
health coverage for the township entailed his
explaining benefits and assisting in filling out
the application.
(1) He did not actively generate Leet
Township as a client.
(2) He did not service the Leet Township
policy.
(3) Verszyla brought the policy to him which
was assigned to her upon issuance.
(4) There was no transfer of the policy from
him to Verszyla.
(5) He did not propose the plan to the Leet
Township Commissioners.
Xs. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 15
(6) The statement of Verszyla that the Board
was aware that Verszyla was a Prudential
employee who would derive no
compensation as a result of the contact
was untrue.
(7) The statement of Verszyla that he
returned to personal production and
assigned the Leet Township group plan to
Verszyla is untrue.
k. As a sales manager, he would receive an override
on any new insurance that any agent brought in.
31. Stephen Israel served as solicitor for Leet Township for
over ten years.
a. He believed the Prudential plan was chosen by the
Commissioners based on everyone's knowing that
Verszyla was employed at Prudential in sales. He
does not recall any vote or the event occurring or
discussions about choosing Prudential as the
insurance company for the township.
b. He did not recall any discussions about Verszyla's
employment with Prudential. He does not recall
Verszyla ever stating her employment status.
c. He did not know that Verszyla received full
commissions for the plan with Leet Township.
Verszyla supplied all information to him in regard
to the situation, and he had no idea why Verszyla
signed the contract between Prudential and Leet
Township.
d. He never saw the master application for the health
plan with Prudential nor was he ever asked about
it. The Commissioners would do their own
research, go through files, etc., but he was never
shown the files on this.
e. He does not recall Verszyla stating her position
as service representative, or abstaining for any
reason on any votes.
f. In 1987, the Commissioners started actively
looking for a new company for the health insurance
policy after Verszyla was removed as agent on the
Leet Township policy.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 16
There were discussions during the meeting about
this, and Verszyla cautioned the Township Board
about switching health insurance due to the
problems with pre - existing medical conditions.
h. When it was found that board member, Carolyn
Verszyla, was acting as service representative for
the township hospitalization plan, it was his idea
to solicit advice from the State Ethics
Commission.
g-
i. He is positive that no one questioned him on
possible conflicts of interests back in 1980.
Judging by the fact that this issue was not
brought to him sooner, it was probably not known.
Prior to 1986, he probably was not aware that
Verszyla was receiving commissions as to the
township policy.
32. By letter dated October 15, 1986, Leet Township Solicitor,
Stephen Israel, requested an advice from the State Ethics
Commission regarding Carolyn Verszyla's participation in
hospitalization plan:
a. The Board of Commissioners has asked me to write
to you for an opinion regarding a matter that has
recently arisen. One of five members of the Board
of Commissioners in Leet Township, a first class
township, is Carolyn Verszyla, who is also an
employee of Prudential Insurance Company.
Ms. Verszyla also occupied that position in
approximately 1980 when a Hospitalization Group
Insurance Plan was entered into between Prudential
and Leet Township. Ms. Verszyla made it clear at
the time, and it was known by all of the
Commissioners, that she was an employee of
Prudential. However, the salesman for Prudential
at the time was not Ms. Verszyla but was Larry
Maseth. It is my understanding that Ms. Verszyla
voted on the contract between Prudential and Leet
Township, but that she received no commission for
the sale.
J
b. At a subsequent time, Larry Maseth was transferred
by Prudential Insurance Company to another section
or division and ceased servicing the
hospitalization plan with Leet Township. However,
he did transfer or assign the position of
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 17
servicing representative to Carolyn Verszyla. She
continued to be the servicing representative for
several years, thereafter, and I believe that her
name did appear on the various invoices that were
sent to Leet Township as a servicing
representative. Ms. Verszyla informs me that she
received a commission for acting as servicing
representative, and the commission was $38.38 per
month. That amount was received from Prudential
Insurance Company and not from Leet Township.
This situation only recently became known to the
Board of Commissioners, and this was discussed
with Ms. Verszyla. We understand that she has
removed herself as servicing representative on
this hospitalization group plan, and someone else
now occupies that position for Prudential.
c. A response was received from the Commission which
was presented to the Board.
(1) The Board was under the impression that
Verszyla was no longer representing
Prudential as to the township policy and
took no action.
d. The advice request in 1986 related to events that
occurred in 1980.
33. Israel attached a letter from Carolyn Verszyla to his
request. That letter was dated October 10, 1986 and
outlined the following:
a. I, Carolyn Verszyla, an employee of the
Prudential Insurance Company and not an
independent agent, was assigned as Servicing
Agent for a four man hospitalization group in Leet
Township. In November 1980, the plan had been
proposed and written by Mr. Larry Maseth, Agent
and Sales Manager for Prudential. At that time,
there were two additional proposals presented by
Blue Cross, Metropolitan and Prudential.
b. The Board of Commissioners unanimously approved
the Prudential package and Verszyla's vote was not
a deciding vote. The Board of Commissioners was
aware at that time, that I am an employee of
Prudential and that I would not derive any
compensation as a result of this contract.
Mr. Larry Maseth returned to personal production
and as a result assigned the Leet Township group
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 18
plan to Verszyla for service. Verszyla has no
authority to determine a bias for Leet or
Prudential in the processing of any health claim.
She merely submits the paperwork. She has never
received one penny of taxpayer money or been
compensated by Leet Township in any way. Any
monies for servicing were paid by Prudential. I
accepted the responsibility of servicing, because
I felt that I was in the position to assist Leet
Township employees and members of their families
in filing claims.
c. I again repeat, I am an employee of the Prudential
Insurance Company and not an independent agent
whose agency would benefit.
(1) I did not propose or secure the plan.
(2) I did not receive taxpayer money.
(3) I have no input to the payment of any
claims.
34. Verszyla's letter had attached a handwritten memo dated
October 3, 1986 from Larry Maseth which stated Maseth was a
Sales Manager with Prudential and originally presented and
secured the health coverage for the Leet Township Police
Department. Maseth's letter indicated that he assigned it
to one of his agents as servicing representative.
a. Maseth wrote this letter upon request of Carolyn
Verszyla.
35. Cynthia Canfield is currently employed by Prudential
Insurance as a supervisor of the payroll for district
agencies.
a. Her department, located in Fort Washington,
Pennsylvania is responsible for processing all of
the payroll for district agents and some of the
commission authorization.
(1) The payroll for the district agents
assigned to the Central Atlantic
marketing area which includes Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania is handled by her
department.
Ids. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 19
b. As payroll supervisor, Canfield has administrative
responsibilities for staff, the overseeing of
payroll processing and the handling of technical
concerns.
c. The sale of an insurance policy triggers
compensation for an agent.
g.
(1) She is responsible for the handling of
all department documents including
payroll.
(1) Commissions are authorized and records
are kept for each authorization.
(2) The commissions are reflected in agents'
weekly transaction statements.
(3) Documents regarding the payment of
commissions to agents are kept in the
ordinary course of business.
(a) Canfield has access to and can
identify such documents.
d. The documents for the Leet Township policy reflect
Verszyla as the insurance agent.
e. Carolyn Verszyla as a district agent had her
payroll handled by Canfield's department.
f. District agents are paid weekly computed on the
basis of commissions from the business they have
sold.
(1) A starting agent will receive a salary
for the first thirteen weeks.
(2) During the first thirteen weeks for a
new agent, the average of commissions
generated in that period will be the
basis for their compensation in the
following thirteen week period.
Annual records are kept by Prudential as to the
payments made to district agents.
(1) The district agents receive weekly
commission transaction statements.
Xs. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 20
h. As to EBP (Employee Benefit Program) the records
would reflect all commissions generated for a
particular case, whether positive or negative.
i. The Leet Township policy has a number 249811 for
1981, 1982.
•
p.
q.
Commissions from new business arise from the first
year of a policy.
(1) Commissions from subsequent years would
be from a renewal.
(2) As to a group policy, new enrollments
would be new business.
k. The Prudential identification number for Verszyla
is 879216.
1. Weekly statements are received by agents as to the
policies generating commissions which is generated
by Canfield's department.
(1) The weekly statements specifically
identify commissions paid for particular
policies.
m. The Leet Township policy for 1983 has a Prudential
number of 40683D.
n. In 1984, Prudential's number for the Leet Township
policy was E 450599 D.
o. The Leet Township policy number in 1985 by
Prudential was E 450599.
Prudential only has the weekly transactional
statements for 1985 from January 7th to September
30th.
The annual reports and weekly transactional
statements are prepared separate from one another.
r. The annual report independently identifies the
commissions authorized for an agent with the
weekly transactional statement serving as
additional confirmation.
s. The Leet Township policy number by Prudential for
1985 is E 450599 D.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 21
t. In 1986, the change in the agent identification
number as to the Leet Township policy to 562918
indicates at that point Verszyla no longer
received commissions as to that policy.
u. Canfield calculated the commissions authorized for
Verszyla as to the Leet Township policy.
(1) Verszyla received total commissions as
to the Leet Township policy in the
amount of $3,604.44 broken down as
follows on a yearly basis:
(2) The commissions covered the period from
January 1981, until the point in time in
1986 when Verszyla was removed as agent
for Leet Township.
v. Neither would there be a sharing nor would more
than one agent receive part of the initial
commission when a policy was placed.
w. EBP policies of Prudential are administered in the
Jacksonville, Florida office.
x. The weekly transactional statements from October
1, 1985 through 1986 cannot be located as to the
off -site retention for such documents.
The addition of a new person on a policy would be
forwarded from the Jacksonville office and that
activity generated a commission.
z. Canfield has a special authorization or code to
access documents which cannot be accessed from a
different department or division.
•
1981 - $ 724.32
1982 - $ 423.56
1983 - $ 539.28
1984 - $ 376.02
1985 - $ 463.89
1986 - $1,077.37
36. Gary Bradel is Chairman of the Board of Leet Township.
a. Prior to 1980, Leet Township did not provide any
type of hospitalization or medical insurance for
its employees.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 22
(1) The benefits would be primarily for the
police department.
(2) He chaired the Police Committee at that
time.
(3) Although he was supposed to participate
in negotiating police benefits, he was
busy and Verszyla as Committee Vice
Chair played the role in police benefit
negotiations.
b. The Township Commissioners asked Verszyla to
review different companies because insurance was
her field.
c. The township obtained benefits from Prudential.
(1) The Commissioners knew at that time that
Verszyla was an insurance agent and that
she was employed by Prudential.
(2) He did not know that Verszyla received a
commission as a result of a sale of the
policy.
d. The Township Commissioners became aware that
Verszyla received a commission as to the Leet
Township contract when the Commission reviewed
providers to look into cheaper rates.
e. When the township considered coverage, Prudential
was one of three companies that made
presentations.
f. Stephansky, a member of the Finance Committee,
raised the matter of Verszyla receiving commission
as to the township policy.
g. He has not filed Statements of Financial Interests
until recently.
(1) Originally, he only filed when he was
running for re- election.
h. Verszyla took the job of a Commissioner seriously
and worked very hard.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 23
i. The solicitor told the commissioners in 1980 of
the filing requirement as to the Statements of
Financial Interests under the Ethics Act.
As to the Leet Township policy, he assumed that an
agent, other than Verszyla, would be getting the
Commission.
37. John Macurak was a Leet Township Commissioner from 1983
until 1989.
a. He holds a B.S. Degree in accounting and a
Master's Degree in public administration.
b. He is currently employed as an auditor by the
Department of Public Welfare.
c. When he took office in 1983, he was unaware that
Verszyla had any interest in the Leet Township
contract.
d. After the township secretary mentioned the low
rates for her husband who was insured by Blue
Cross /Blue Shield, a review indicated that
coverage by Blue Cross /Blue Shield would be
cheaper than with Prudential.
e. He directed the township secretary to contact Blue
Cross /Blue Shield to get a schedule of rates so
that comparison could be made.
f. In reviewing the Prudential statements, Verszyla's
name was noticed.
(1) He approached Verszyla to learn if she
was the representative for Prudential.
(2) Verszyla informed him that she was the
service representative of Prudential and
that she was not receiving compensation.
(3) The above activity occurred sometime in
1988.
g. He prepared a compilation of different rates
between Prudential and Blue Cross /Blue Shield as
to medical insurance, disability income plan,
weekly disability income plan and life insurance.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 24
(1) Using Blue Cross /Blue Shield for the
same coverage would save the township
$2,809.56 per year.
(2) The Board considered changing insurance
carriers.
(3) Verszyla expressed reluctance about
changing insurance companies because
some people had pre - existing conditions.
h. After Blue Cross /Blue Shield gave certain
assurances, the Board changed from Prudential to
Blue Cross /Blue Shield.
i. In a Board meeting, Verszyla was confronted by the
Board members and asked whether she was receiving
compensation as to the Prudential contract.
(1) When asked the first several times,
Verszyla did not respond to the question
of whether she was getting compensation
from Prudential as to the township
policy.
(2) Verszyla subsequently admitted that she
was receiving compensation and left the
meeting.
He was aware in 1983 when he became a commissioner
that he was required to file Statements of
Financial Interests.
(1) Three or four Statements were filed at
the same time when the township
secretary brought the filing
requirements to the attention of the
Board.
(2) There were probably other Commissioners
who also filed for past years.
38. John J. Stephansky was a Leet Township Commissioner in the
two year period 1980, 1981 and in the four year period form
1986 through the end of 1989.
a. The township police through bargaining obtained
insurance benefits from the township.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 25
(1) Verszyla was instrumental in getting the
program for the police officers.
(2) Verszyla was a proponent for
hospitalization /medical coverage for the
police.
(3) Verszyla was requested to review the
available carriers due to her insurance
expertise.
(4) Verszyla recommended Prudential as the
company to provide the coverage for the
township.
b. Following a workshop meeting where the secretary
complained about not personally having benefits,
Verszyla raised questions about the township
policies in total.
(1) Verszyla instructed the secretary to
obtain the policies so that she,
Verszyla, could review them and see what
policies the township had.
(2) The solicitor advised Verszyla not to
get involved in those policies because
she was an insurance agent.
c. At some point, costs for Prudential coverage were
compared to Blue Cross /Blue Shield with the latter
being less expensive.
d. In 1980, when the township entered into the
contract with Prudential, he was unaware that
Verszyla had any financial interest in the
contract.
e. One township employee asked him to look into Blue
Cross coverage for her.
(1) She had Blue Cross coverage while
working for a former employer.
(2) Prudential was not as good as Blue Cross
which had a much better plan.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 26
(3) That employee was under a different
township bargaining agreement than the
other employees who did not go onto Blue
Cross at that time.
39. Ed Cross is the Assistant Police Chief of Leet Township.
a. As part of the negotiations for the police
officers, medical /hospitalization benefits were
requested and finally received in 1981.
b. Insurance coverage was provided by a contract with
Prudential.
(1) Five or six officers filled out
applications for coverage.
(2) Verszyla and another Prudential
representative were present when the
officers applied.
c. Coverage was changed to Blue Cross /Blue Shield in
1988 or 1989.
d. Blue Cross /Blue Shield had better maternity
benefits then Prudential.
(1) He personally paid approximately
$2,200.00 in medical expenses relative
to the birth of his son when he was
under the Prudential contract.
(2) Blue Cross /Blue Shield would have
covered the medical expenses as to the
birth 100 %.
40. Annalee Oswald is the Leet Township Secretary.
a. She was appointed in 1986 following the death of
the prior secretary, Theresa Sokoski.
b. She is the official Custodian of Records of Leet
Township with duties and responsibilities of
attending meetings; keeping the minutes and
official township records.
c. A review of the township's records reflect that no
official action was taken by the Board as to the
acquisition of hospitalization and medical
insurance with Prudential.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 27
d. When she started with Leet Township, she was under
Prudential coverage.
(1) She asked the commissioners to switch
coverage to Blue Cross /Blue Shield
because her husband was ill, and she
wanted herself and her family covered by
Blue Cross /Blue Shield.
e. She knew Verszyla worked for Prudential but not
that Verszyla was receiving commissions.
f. Macurak requested her to look into the cost of
individual coverage for herself.
g. When her Prudential coverage was cancelled,
correspondence was received from the company
identifying Verszyla as the agent.
(1) She showed the document to Macurak.
(2) It did not seem right to her that
Verszyla should be the agent.
h. She presented Macurak with a comparison of Blue
Cross /Blue Shield coverage versus Prudential
coverage.
41. Mary Albert is an Investigator, for the State Ethics
Commission.
a. The notice of investigation letter was sent in
March 1987.
b. The investigation was commenced in November 1988.
c. Interviews in the case were conducted in 1989 and
1990.
d. In 1988, the Ethics Commission only had three
investigators for the entire state.
(1) Each investigator had a backlog of 60
to 70 cases.
(2) The oldest cases were worked first
generally.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 28
(3)
An investigator worked multiple ca.spq
simultaneously.
42. The files of the State Ethics Commission reflect, the
following as to Statements of Financial Interests filed by
Carolyn Verszyla:
a. An undated form reflecting Verszyla'"s status as a
candidate with Prudential and Mashuda Corporations
as sources of income with "None" entered in all
other categories.
b. The 1982 calendar year from March 3, 1983 listing
Prudential as a source of income with "None"
entered in all other categories.
c. The 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 11437
calendar years from all dated January 26, 1989,
each listing Prudential and Leet Township as ;
sources of income with no other disclosure ;in the
other categories.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Commissioner for Leet Township, Carolyn Verszyla,
hereinafter Verszyla, is a public official as that term is defined
in the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 402; 51 Pa. Code 1.1. As such, her
conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the
restrictions therein are applicable to her.
Initially, it is noted that Section 5 of Act 9 € .Junie 26,
1989 provides, in part, as follows: -
"This amendatory act shall not a 1 to v ib atibns�
" ry PP X. , ' . , .y
committed prior to the effective date s „f this act,, , aid
sir.. causes of action initiated for such vi6iatj.ons shall be
d governed by the prior law, which is cpntirued in Wect for
that purpose as if this act were not jn ' °fb ' e . For .the
purposes of this section, a violati was coj it a prior to
the effective date of this act if , any = eleme "o 1 -0 :the
violation occurred prior thereto: 'r. , t
Since the occurrences in this cage
effective date of ,Act 9 (June 26, ),,
provisions of Act 170 of October 4 , 97
whether the Ethics Act was violated.
trpz}Ap h reci r , to the
Ehe
' 8143 to dektermine
Ms. Carolyn „Vers'zy a
Page 29
The two allegations = be orb 'us'' ± a "iiirolated
Section 3(a) of the Et1 cs.:Act' wherroshe i ce eo ' om .i ` ssions on
insurance that she s obtaiifedt f or the township from an insurance
company with which she was associated and secondly, whether she
violated Sectic)n 4(`a') df tithe Ethios
Statements o €7 Financial Interest (P'rS )°rfoft tlre•- ge ars
1980 through-1986 and fem 1988. ' Y
'pn L C”! A."
Verszyla argues ,thaV the case 'sh'oul4 -fie "dismiss" =tased•
claims of laches, of limitationiV f4flure to canply with
the time deadlines as tor'-'the-investigatory process under Act 9 of
1989, and selective prosecution as to the Statement of Financial
Interests a.l-:].ega't t - •, .n „vot e c .,
t- ' ; 4 �' z �� r" .•. 'r't
- 3ftiihall consider the various arguments for dismissal
seriatim. As to laches, the application of that doctrine against
a Commonweeal taage rretgti s` j a st onger- tioNal t' i n against' an -,
individual. a A4e nbe cF' 'vas ' State Board of tElat nal6±Tbri of
Accountants; $5 Q9. Ba. r 501 A. 2d ' 239' '09 )i 'taches requ Tres ;` `
not only inexcutaideValerray in instituting' the f action but also
prejudice to -the : dErfendaritT.restilting front such 'delay . ° ` Lbveriich v .
Warner Co., 118 F...2 11,;9"0, (1940) , cert denied 313 U.S. 577 (1940) .
Unless it is shown that the delay has inflicted injury upon the
defendant,' :laches - doe of f7 e. Biarico �f..ptf11o,- 195 Pa ; Super•.
623, 171 A.2d 620 (19 *, =• See - artcs ` \rnePts' w: , Common iealth' State
Borough of Medicine, min 7 - - Pa. Commvf: "-Ct *
t`
9
, 561 A.2d 362 (3.s9 9)
In this case, Vers r1 a-s ihtificd on 3/18/8" ''Mid 5/4/911
that an investigation cancernir thefabb"ve issues was being
commenced. The investigation Vas't.bmpieted, and a Pindings Repor "t;
(Investigative Complaint) y' wasi? i?'sii d off - September 21 19 9 0 fir." ,
above operative dates do not ah • inordinate aindunt of� tinie
for the "Investigative Division'-to conduct an investigation a iii, '
issue a Findings Report, espeoia11y since this Commt sibh
six month sunset wind down .Vithin 'that period of tinidr.
addition, it is noted that four extensions to file an antWei tb
the Findings Report were requested'and granted as well a -a`
continuance. We reject the laches argument because; = abased upon
the factual circumstances of this case, there is no showing of
inexcusable delay coupled with prejuice to Verszyla"-)-,
Although a statue of limitations atgument is not explicitly
made, it is suggested that the case be dismissed due to the length
of time that has passed `from the: commencement 'of the investigation
to the hearing process: Since' Act 170 of 197`8 does not fiave-h
statue of limitationst.as- to• the disposition of investigatof i'" --
matters, we are gu ded bey- 42` Pa i"C.S.A. 55 52(c) ' which pYc 'ides
a' • /., _s, at 7u
Ms.: Carolyn Verszyla
Page 30
(c) Exceptions - If the period prescribed in subsection (a)
or subsection (b) has expired, _a may
nevertheless be commenced for:
(2) Any offense committed by a public officer or
employee in the course of or in connection with his
office or employment at any time when the defendant is
in public office or employment or within five years
thereafter, but in no case shall this paragraph extend
the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more
than eight years.
Since the investigation is within the above quoted time
limitations of the Judicial Code, we 'reject the second basis for
dismissal.
The final basis for dismissal is that the Investigative
Division failed to comply with the statutory limitations of Act 9
of 1989. As noted above, since the - events -in -this case transpired
before the enactment of Act 9 on June 26, 1989, Act 170 of 1978
controls which has no time limitations as to the length of the
investigatory process.
Separate and apart from motions to dismiss as to the-Section
3(a) allegation, Verszyla also argues that the allegation as to
Section 4(a), regarding the FIS filing requirements, should also
be dismissed on a theory that such constitutes a-selective
prosecution. We reject the foregoing argument for two reasons.
First, the Commission is required to investigate those complaints
wherein there is reasonable cause to believe that a public
official /employee or candidate has violated the provisions of the
Ethics Law. In this case, probable cause did exist. Secondly, if
we were to accept the theory of selective prosecution, that would
mean that this Commission could not investigate any cases or issue
orders since it is fundamental that in the framework of criminal,
civil or administrative law, as with the Ethics Law, infractions
of the law occur whereby some cases go unnoticed or undetected
while others are brought to the attention of the appropriate
authorities who have the responsibility of enforcing the law.
Having disposed of the various motions to discuss, we must
now apply the provisions of the Ethics Act to the fact in order to
determine whether any violation(s) occurred.
Under Section 3(a), quoted above, this Commission has
determined that use of office by a public official to obtain a
financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or
a business with which he is associated which is not provided for
in law transgresses the above provision of law. Thus, use of
office by a public official to obtain a financial gain which is
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 31
not authorized as part of his compensation' s prohibited
Section 3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa.
Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v. State Ethics
Commission, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536 (1987).
Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act - would prohibit a public
official /employee from using public office to'advante..his own
interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Ccsmmw. Ct.
19, 540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Likewise, a public /employee
may not use the status or position of public his own
personal' advantage; Huff, Opinion 84 -015..
Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that
each public employee - and each public official (Kremer. v. State
Ethics Commission, 56 Pa. Commw. 160, 424 A.2d 968 (1981)) must
file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar
year of the year in which he is employed or- serves and for the
year after he leaves such position.
Restating the above allegations, we must determine whether
Verszyla violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law regarding :her
activities as to the purchase of insurance by Leet Township from
Prudential Insurance of which Verszyla was an agent and also
whether she failed to timely file Statements of Financial
Interests for the calendar years 1980 through 1986: and 1988.
The facts of this case reflect that it was decided in Leet
Township in 1980 to provide the police force with a township paid
insurance plan. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that
Verszyla look into this matter, since she was an insurance agent
and had certain expertise in the area. Verszyla made the
determination to select Prudential as the insurance carrier for
the township at that time. Verszyla was an agent for Prudential
who received commissions in selling insurance policies. The
master application for the township was completed and the police
were brought in to fill out applications and a premium check was
issued to Prudential to start coverage.
When an employee of the township, in 1986, requested to
change her coverage from Prudential to Blue Cross and Blue Shield
due to an illness of her husband, an awareness developed that
Verszyla was receiving compensation from the Leet Township policy.
When the employee's coverage was deleted, a letter came from
Prudential reflecting the deletion of coverage for that individual
with an indication that Verszyla was the agent.
J
When questioned by the Board as to whether she was receiving
commissions as to the Leet Township policy, Verszyla acknowledged
that she was receiving compensation. Thereafter, Verszyla wrote
for an advisory request to this Commission concerning the
activities as to the Leet Township policy with Prudential.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 32
Subsequently, Verszyla removed herself as agent from the township
policies and-had those policies assigned to another agent who
would then receive those commissions.
In reviewing the record in this case, we find a clear
violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by Verszyla. In
particular, there has been a use of office by Verszyla which
resulted in a financial gain to her which is other than
compensation provided for by law. The use of office is clear
because Prudential was selected for the Leet Township insurance
contract not by action of the Board but by Verszyla individually.
Secondly, the commissions that she received through the years were
clearly . a financial gain to her. Lastly, the financial gain
consisting of the commissions is other than compensation provided
for by law, because there is no provision in the first class
township code which would allow a township commissioner to place
an insurance contract with the insurance company that she is
affiliated with in order to generate commissions to herself.
Turning to the matter of FIS's, the record reflects one
undated form which lists Prudential and another corporation as a,
source of income with none entered in all other categories. As to
the 1982 calendar year form, Prudential is listed as a source of
income with all other categories listed as none. The 1982
calendar year form was filed timely on March 3,1983. As to the
1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987fprms, all were dated
January 26, 1989 listing Prudential and Leet Township as sources
of income with no disclosure in any other categories.
In applying the provisions of Section 4(a) of Act 170 of
1978 as to the filings of the FIS's by Verszyla, we find a
violation for the failure to timely file the forms for the 1980,
1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 years. We find no violation for
the 1988 year since Verszyla was not on the Leet Township Board at
that time. As to the 1982 calendar year, the form was timely
filed, and hence there is no violation of Section 4(a) as to
timeliness. However, as to the 1982 Statement of Financial
Interests, we note that only Prudential was listed as a source of
income. If Verszyla did receive $500.00 or more of income from
Leet Township in that year, she is required to file an amended FIS
for that year listing Leet Township as a source of income.
Verszyla, as a Leet Township Commissioner, is also advised
that in her public office, she must insure in the future that no
conflicts arise as to any private or business interests which she
may have.
Ms. Carolyn Verszyla
Page 33
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Carolyn Verszyla, as a Leet :Township'Commissioner, is a
public' official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. The provisions of Act 170 of 1578 have application to the
factual occurrences in this case.
3. Verszyla violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she
placed the Leet Township insurance policy with Prudential
Insurance, a business with which she was associated, and
derived commissions from the policy which was a financial
gain other than compensation provided for by law.
4. Verszyla violated Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act when she
failed to timely file her Statements of Financial Interests
for 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 calendar years.
5. Verszyla did not violate Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act
regarding the filing of the 1982 calendar year Statement of
Financial Interests which was filed on March 3, 1983.
6. Verszyla did not violate Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act when
she failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for
the 1988 calendar year since she was not on the Leet
Township Board at that time.
In re: Carolyn Verszyla
: File Docket: 87 -016 -C
: Date Decided: Mav 23, 1991
: Date Mailed: June 10, 1991
ORDER No. 799
1. The motions to dismiss the investigative complaint are
denied.
2. Carolyn Verszyla violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act
when she placed the Leet Township insurance policy with
Prudential Insurance, a business with which she was
associated, and derived commissions from the policy which
was a financial gain other than compensation provided for by
law.
3. Carolyn Verszyla violated Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act
when she failed to timely file Statements of Financial
Interests for 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986
calendar years.
4. Verszyla did not violate Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act when
she failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for
the 1988 calendar year since she was not on the Leet
Township Board at that time.
5. Verszyla did not violate Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act
regarding the filing of the 1982 calendar year Statement of
Financial Interests which was filed on March 3, 1983.
6. Within 30 days of issuance of this order, Verszyla is
directed to file an amended Statement of Financial Interests
for the 1982 calendar year, if she received income from Leet
Township in excess of $500.00 or more.
7. Verszyla is directed in the future to avoid any conflicts
between her public office and any private or business
interests that she would have.
BY TH COMMISSION
H'LENA G. HUGHES, CHAIR
Commissioner Robert W. Brown did not participate in this matter,
because he acted as single presiding officer and recused himself
pursuant to 51 Pa. Code §2.34(d).
Commissioner Dennis C. Harrington dissents as to the denial of
the motion to dismiss as to laches.