Loading...
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.