Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout767 RobertsonIn re: John A. Robertson STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 88 -046 -C . Date Decided: October 4, 1990 Date Mailed: October 29. 1990 Before: Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley Daneen E. Reese The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 65 F.S. 401 et. seq. Written notice, of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. 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. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor for Charleston Township, Tioga County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), when you used your position to purchase a tractor from state surplus through the township. 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). II. FINDINGS: 1. You served as a Township Supervisor in Charleston Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania. a. You have served in this position from January 1979. b. You served as Chairman of the Township Board of Supervisors since January 1988. 2. The Pennsylvania Administrative Code, Section 510, provides in part as follows regarding state surplus road and bridge materials or equipment: Whenever any furnishings, or other personal property of this Commonwealth, shall be no longer of service to the Commonwealth, it shall be the duty of the department, board, or commission, in whose possession such property shall be or come, to put such property into the custody of the Department of Property and Supplies: Provided further, that any road or bridge materials or equipment that have been declared surplus or unserviceable by the Department of Highways shall be offered for sale to counties, cities, boroughs, incorporated towns, and townships at the best available price by the Department of Property and Supplies. Written notification of the availability of such material and equipment shall be given to all counties, Mr. John A. Robertson Page 4 11. Records of Charleston Township indicate that on April 1, 1987, you made a payment in the amount of $500.00 to the township as reimbursement for the tractor - mower. 12. On April, 4, 1987, you rented a truck and trailer from Benedict's at Whitneyville at a cost of $201.05 and proceeded to pickup the tractor -mower from the Department of General Services. a. You delivered the tractor to your farm. b. You purchased several parts from the above entity and serviced the tractor in order to make it operational. 13. You, thereafter, utilized the tractor on your farm. 14. In August 1987, a citizen voiced complaints about your use of the tractor. As a result, it was decided that you would return the tractor to the township. 15. On or about August 31, 1987, township employees secured the tractor and returned it to the township. a. The township, by way of check no. 918 issued from the general fund, paid you $500.00 for the tractor. 16. In January 1987, when the township supervisors decided to bid on surplus property, there was no interest to bid on the tractor - mower. a. Said bid was only placed at your request. 17. The township is currently using the tractor as a stone - raker. 18. You have provided the following information regarding the purchase of the tractor. a. The above purchase was the first time the township participated in buying state surplus property. b. You made a mistake in purchasing the tractor for yourself which you have admitted to the residents of the township at a regular public meeting. c. You took off a day from work to truck the tractor to your farm and obtain parts and expend labor for Mr. John A. Robertson Page 5 the repair which offsets farm. d. The title to the tractor the township so that you ownership. the personal use on your was not transferred from never had legal III. Discussion: As a supervisor for Charleston Township, John A. Robertson, hereinafter Robertson, is a public official as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted that Section 5 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act, and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 170 of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. 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 not authorized as part of his compensation is prohibited by 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 advance his own interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Likewise, a public official /employee may not use the status or position of public office for his own personal advantage; Huff, Opinion 84 -015. Mr. John A. Robertson Page 6 The allegation before us concerns whether Robertson used his position as a township supervisor to purchase a tractor from state surplus in the name of the township with his own funds for his own personal use on his farm. Factually Robertson served as a township supervisor since January of 1979 and as chairman of the board since January of 1988. In January of 1987 the township board received a list of state surplus property from the Department of General Services (DGS) pursuant to Section 510 of the Administrative Code which allows political subdivisions to purchase DGS surplus property provided the property would be limited to the use of the political subdivision. Robertson advised the board that he was desirous of purchasing the tractor for $500 and to that end requested that the township make an official bid for acquisition of the tractor; if the bid were successful, Robertson would then reimburse the township for the five hundred dollars and take possession of the tractor for his own personal use. The township submitted a bid on a tractor as well as several other pieces of equipment. When the bid was successful, the township forwarded checks to DGS for the purchase price which was followed by reimbursement made by Robertson to the township. Thereafter, Robertson rented a truck and trailer and obtained the tractor from DGS as well as certain other parts which were purchased to make the tractor operational. Robertson used the tractor on his farm for only a short period of time. After a citizen voiced a complaint about his use of the tractor, Robertson returned the tractor to the township and received reimbursement of the $500 that he had paid. In applying the above facts to the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, we find that Robertson did use public office to obtain the tractor in that he used his status as a supervisor to submit the bid in the name of the township for the tractor. He intended to purchase and utilize the tractor for his own personal use. The purchase of the tractor was a financial gain because the tractor had a certain value relative to the sale by DGS to a political subdivision; however, he used political office as a means of obtaining the tractor for his own personal use rather than the township. Lastly, the financial gain is other than compensation provided for by law because there is no provision in law which would allow Robertson to purchase the tractor for his own personal use. In fact, the Administrative Code specifically prohibits the use of this type of state surplus property for personal use. Accordingly, we find a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, and as such this matter will be referred to the Department of General Services for review and whatever action may be appropriate under the rules of the State Surplus Property Program. Mr. John A. Robertson Page 7 IV. Conclusions of Law: 1. As a supervisor for Charleston Township, John A. Robertson is a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Robertson used his position as township supervisor to purchase a tractor with his own funds from state surplus through the township for his own personal use. In re: John A. Robertson : File Docket: 88 -046 -C Date Decided: October 4, 1990 Date Mailed: October 29, 1990 ORDER No. 767 1. A violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when John A. Robertson as a supervisor for Charleston Township used his position as township supervisor to purchase a tractor with his own funds from state surplus through the township for his own personal use. 2. Accordingly, we find a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, and as such this matter will be referred to the Department of General Services for review and whatever action may be appropriate under the rules of the State Surplus Property Program. BY THE COMMISSION, / ' 1 ROBERT W. BROWN, VICE CHAIR