Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout796 FrankenfieldSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 In re: Lloyd Frankenfield : File Docket: 90- 021 -C2 : Date Decided: 5/24/91 : Date Mailed: 5/28/91 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 complaints regarding possible violations of the State Ethics Law, Act No. 170 of 1978 and Act No. 9 of 1989. 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 deemed waived. 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 52.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and Section 8(h) of Act 9 of 1989 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). 1. ALLEGATION: ADJUDICATION That you, a Supervisor in Williams Township, Northampton County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978) and (Act 9 of 1989). The nature of the alleged violations are as follows: II. FINDINGS: That you, a Supervisor for Williams Township, Northampton County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989), when you contracted with your brother to do work at the township building valued in excess of $500.00 without an open and public process: Section 3 - Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. That you violated the following provisions of Act 170 of 1978, when you failed to file Statements of Financial Interests in 1988, 1989 and 1990: 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. 5404(a). 1. Lloyd Frankenfield served as a Supervisor in Williams Township, Northampton County from 1964 to the present. a. Frankenfield was appointed roadmaster for the years 1988 and 1989 and worked part -time on township roads doing snow removal. b. Frankenfield was appointed Active Roadmaster for Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 3 1990 and worked full -time in that position. 2. In April of 1990, Williams Township entered into a contract with Ken Frankenfield, Plumbing Contractor, to install a hot water heater, pipes and faucets in the township maintenance garage. a. Ken Frankenfield is the brother of Williams Township Supervisor, Lloyd Frankenfield. b. The installation of the hot water heater, pipes nd faucets in the maintenance garage was not advertised. c. Ken Frankenfield was contracted to do the installation following a discussion with Supervisor, Jess Murray, and Road Foreman, Ralph Ealer. d. The contract was not approved at a formal meeting of the Board of Supervisors. e. The work was done due to an emergency situation. f. Frankenfield was in Florida at the time and was unaware of the contract until township checks were sent to him for his signature. 3. Williams Township records reflect that an invoice was received titled "Ken Frankenfield, Ken 253 -2362, Plumbing - Heating - General Contracting, 1695 Morgan Hill Road, Easton, PA 18042", made out to Williams Township Board of Supervisors, dated March 10, 1990, listing the following services: (1) 20 Gallon Electric Water Heater; Breaker and Wire; Manfield Hay. With Faucets; Supply Lines; Stops; 1 1/2 PVC; S Trap; 1 Frost Proof Faucet; 1./2" CPVC Water Lines and Fittings Material - $478.59 Labor 352.00 Total $830.59 4. Williams Township paid the Frankenfield invoice by Check Number 2777. a. The check was made payable to Ken Frankenfield in the amount of $830.59. Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 4 b. The check was dated March 21, 1991. c. The check was signed by Williams Township Supervisors, Joseph Fretz, Lloyd Frankenfield and Jess Murray. 5. At the April 19, 1990 meeting of the Williams Township Board of Supervisors, payment of the Ken Frankenfield invoice was approved. a. The official minutes indicate that Josiah Murray, Joseph Fretz and Lloyd Frankenfield were present. b. The minutes indicate that Fretz made a motion, seconded by Murray, to approve a list of paid invoices which were presented to the supervisors. c. The list of invoices contained a payment, in the amount of $830.58, on Check #2777, to Ken Frankenfield. 6. Williams Township records confirm that as of October 30, 1990, Lloyd Frankenfield had not filed Statements of Financial Interests for the 1987, 1988 and 1989 calendar years. 7. On December 10, 1990, the State Ethics Commission received Statements of Financial Interests for Lloyd W. Frankenfield, 25 Old Well Road, Easton, PA 18042 for the calendar years 1986 and 1988. They also received 2 statements for the calendar year 1990. a. The forms were all dated December 6, 1990. b. Sources of income on the statements for the years 1986 and 1988 and on one of the 1990 statements: — Frankenfield Brothers - Williams Township c. Source of income on the other statement for 1990: - Williams Township d. Office, Directorship or Employment in any business on the statements for the years 1986 and 1988 and on one of the 1990 statements: - Frankenfield Brothers Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 5 e. Office, Directorship or Employment in any business on the other statement for 1990: - None 8. Lloyd Frankenfield went into the plumbing, heating and general contracting business approximately 40 years ago. II DISCUSSION: a. Frankenfield's brother, Ken, joined him in the business approximately 30 years ago. b. They jointly owned the business until the end of December of 1989, when Lloyd Frankenfield retired and turned the business over entirely to his brother. c. The Frankenfield brothers did minor, emergency repair jobs for Williams Township for a number of years. d. Lloyd Frankenfield's brother, Ken, now operates the business by himself. e. Ken Frankenfield's business operates out of 1695 Morgan Hill Road. f. The listing of "Frankenfield Brothers" as a financial interest on the 1990 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests was in error since Frankenfield disassociated himself from that business in 1989. Initially, it is noted that of the two allegations in this case, one relates to Act 9 of 1989, and the second relates to Act 170 of 1978. Under both Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, Lloyd Frankenfield, hereinafter Frankenfield, as a supervisor in Williams Township, is a public official as that term is defined in both acts. Volpe, Order 579 -R; Dettra, Opinion 89 -021. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of both laws and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. As to Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, a conflict is defined as follows: Section 2. Definitions. Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 6 "Conflict or conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. This provision of law in part restricts a public official /employee from using the authority of office or confidential information for a private pecuniary benefit for himself, a member of his immediate family or business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 4(a) of the Act 170 of 1978 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. The allegations before us are whether Frankenfield violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the award of a contract to his brother to do work at the township building, and secondly, whether Frankenfield violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 regarding the failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1987 through 1989. Factually, Frankenfield has served as a supervisor in Williams Township from 1964 to the present. In April 1990, the township entered into a contract with Ken Frankenfield, the brother of Frankenfield, to install a hot water heater, pipes and faucets in the township maintenance garage. Bids for the contract were not advertised because the work had to be done due to an emergency situation. Supervisors Murray, Foreman and Ealer contracted with Ken Frankenfield to do the work. Frankenfield was not part of the process since he was in Florida at that time. After Ken Frankenfield performed the work, he submitted an invoice for $830.59 which was paid by a township check dated March 21, 1991 signed by Frankenfield and two other supervisors. At the April 19, 1990 meeting, when the payment of the Ken Frankenfield Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 7 invoice was approved, Fretz made a successful motion, seconded by Murray, to approve a list of invoices for payment. Although Frankenfield was present, the minutes do not reflect who voted to approve payment of the invoices. Turning to the matter of the Financial Interest Statements (FIS), the records of Williams Township reflect as of October 30, 1990 that Frankenfield did not file FIS's for the 1987 through 1989 calendar years. However, on December 10, 1990, this Commission received FIS's from Frankenfield for the calendar years 1986, 1988 and two forms for the 1990 calendar year. Both the 1986, 1988 and one of the 1990 FIS statements list "Frankenfield Brothers" as well as "Williams Township" as a source of income and also "Frankenfield Brothers" as an office, directorship or employment in any business. The record reflects that Frankenfield jointly owned the business with his brother, Ken, until 1989 when Frankenfield turned the business over to his brother and disassociated himself from the business. In applying the above facts to the allegation under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, we find a technical violation of that provision of law. There was a use of authority of Frankenfield in this case since he did sign the check in payment to his brother Ken for the services that were preformed under the contract. A private pecuniary benefit resulted since Ken Frankenfield was paid $830.59 under the contract. Lastly, Ken Frankenfield is a member of the immediate family of Frankenfield, since immediate family is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2. Definitions "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. 65 P.S. §402. However, because the only discernable action of Frankenfield in this case seems to be limited to his co- signing the township check with the two other supervisors in payment of the invoice submitted by his brother, we will take no further action as to this particular aspect of the case. Turning to the matter of the allegation of the failure to file FIS's for the calendar years 1987 through 1989, we find a technical violation of Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the failure to timely file for the 1988 calendar year. Since the 1988 calendar year FIS was filed on December 10, 1990, and there is no evidence to indicate any intent upon the part of Frankenfield to conceal any financial interest, we will take no further action as to the technical FIS violation for the 1988 year. As to the 1987 and 1989 calendar year FIS's, the record reflects that Frankenfield has not, to date, filed these two FIS's. Accordingly, we find a violation of Section 4(a) of Act Mr. Lloyd Frankenfield Page 8 170 of 1978 regarding Frankenfield's failure to file the 1987 and 1989 FIS's. Frankenfield is directed within 30 days of issuance of this order to file FIS's for the 1987 and 1989 calendar years. Finally, Frankenfield is advised that he as a township supervisor must ensure in the future that no conflicts arise as to himself, a member of his immediate family, or business with which he or a member of his immediate family, is associated. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Lloyd Frankenfield as a Williams Township Supervisor is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 occurred when Frankenfield co- signed a check in payment of a contract for services performed by his brother, a member of his immediate family. 3. A technical violation of Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 occurred when Frankenfield failed to timely file a Financial Interests Statement for the 1988 calendar year. 4. Frankenfield violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by failing to file Financial Interests Statements for the 1987 and 1989 calendar years. In re: : File Docket: 90- 021 -C2 : Date Decided: 5/24/91 : Date Mailed: 5/28/91 ORDER No. 796 1. Lloyd Frankenfield as a Williams Township Supervisor committed a technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he co- signed a check in payment of a contract for services performed by his brother, a member of his immediate family. 2. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we will take no further action as to the technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989. 3. A technical violation of Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 occurred when Frankenfield failed to timely file a Financial Interests Statement for the 1988 calendar year. 4. Frankenfield violated Section 4(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by failing to file Financial Interests Statements for the 1987 and 1989 calendar years. 5. Frankenfield is directed within 30 days of issuance of this order to file FIS's for the 1987 and 1989 calendar years. 6. Failure to comply with the provisions of Paragraph 5 will result in the referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority. BY THE COMMISSION, ELENA G. HUGHES, CHAIR