HomeMy WebLinkAbout759 AngleIn re: Ronald Angle
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
• • File Docket: 87- 136 -C; 87 -15, -C
Date Decided: August 16. 1990
Date Mailed: August 24, 1990
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
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 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, a hearing was held on June 15, 16, 1990 and as addressed in
further detail below, a stipulation of facts concerning one of the
four changes was submitted. 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 11 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, _,__discussi11g , 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).
I. 4 .11eaation: That you, a
Township, Northampton County,
provisions of the Ethics Act (Act
ADJUDICATION
Supervisor for Upper Mount Bethel
violated the below referenced
170 of 1978), when you allegedly:
A. Collected fees for driveway inspections which were
performed by a township employee.
B. Utilized township employees to repair your personal
vehicles.
C. Used your public office to purchase and later sell real
estate located on Route 512.
D. Voted for a zoning change for a property owned by Bethel
Heights Associates, lobbied the planning commission on
behalf of this entity and, subsequently, purchased this
property at a cost below market value.
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. S403(a).
(b) No person shall offer or give to a
public official or public employee or candidate
for public office or a member of his immediate
family or a business with which he is associated,
and no public official or public employee or
candidate for public office shall solicit or
accept, anything of value, including a gift,
loan, political contribution, reward, or promise
of future employment based on any understanding
that the vote, official action, or judgment of
the public official or public employee or
candidate for public office would be influenced
thereby. 65 P.S. §403(b).
During the hearing on the matter, allegations A, B, an D were
voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution and a Stipulation of facts
concerning allegation "C" was prepared which appears herein as the
findings of this adjudication.
II. Findings:
The following findings relate to allegation C above.
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 2
1. Ronald Angle serves as a Township Supervisor in Upper Mount
Bethel Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
a. He has served in this position from January, 1986 to the
present.
b. He also served as Upper Mount Bethel Township Road
Superintendent.
2. Robert McCabe learned about a parcel of property located on Route
512 off of Route 611 in Upper Mount Bethel Township during 1986.
a. He learned that the property owner was Gary Thomas and
that he wanted to sell this land which consisted of
approximately 10 acres.
b. The asking price was $100,000.
c. McCabe was interested in acquiring the land and contacted a
developer, Saul Werner, to discuss financial backing for
McCabe.
d. McCabe entered into an agreement of sale for the property in
October of 1986 and then contacted the township in order to
see what was necessary to initiate the project of developing
a shopping mall on this property. He contacted the
township; he was referred to Township Supervisor Ronald
Angle; and thereafter met with Mr. Angle. This meeting took
place on November 6, 1986.
e. Towards the end of December, 1986, McCabe was unable to
implement financing through Mr. Werner. He then attempted
to obtain financing on his own, however, upon applying for .
financing, he advised the bank that he had a federal
conviction and was denied the loan.
f. Mr. Angle provided financing for the acquisition of this
property and, as a result, he became the owner thereof.
3. Glen George, in December of. 1987 went to the township building in
- U r- "Mount Bethel Township and met with Ronald Angle.
a. He was interested in developing a shopping center on a
parcel of ground on Route 611. George had an option to buy
that property and was originally under the impression that
it was zoned commercial.
b. He later found out that the property was zoned residential
and industrial.
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 3
c. He knew that Mr. Angle was Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors and wanted to discuss the possibility of having
that property rezoned.
d. During that meeting, Mr. Angle advised him that he did not
think an application to rezone the property would be
approved by the appropriate township official.
e. During this same time, Mr. Angle advised him that he owned
property on which another developer had planned to build a
shopping center. Mr. Angle advised him that the developer
had problems and that although he now owned the property, he
wasn't interested in developing it.
f. Mr. Angle advised him that he was willing to sell him this
property.
Mr. Angle advised him that this property had been rezoned so
as to allow for a shopping center in 1986.
h. George thereafter signed an option to buy Angle's property
at a purchase price of $130,000, with a monthly option fee
of $500 and Mr. Angle obtaining 5% interest in the completed
mall.
4. Records of L & G Investment Enterprises, of which Glen George is a
principle, indicate that in accordance with the agreement monthly
option payment checks in an amount of $500 were forwarded to Ronald
Angle at the following address: Sand Pit Road, Box 2011, R.D. #2,
Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania. This is the address of the township
building.
5. Mr. Angle discontinued the receipt of such materials at the
building on his own initiative.
6. Mr. Angle was the owner of a parcel of land located on Route 512,
one mile West of Route 611 in Upper Mount Bethel Township.
The land consists of approximately 8 -10 acres.
The land was originally owned by Gary - Thomas who had the
property for sale for $100,000.
7. An agreement of sale was originally entered into between Thomas,
and Robert McCabe. in October of 1986.
a. McCabe was seeking to build a shopping mall on this
property.
8. The land was originally zoned for two different uses.
g.
a .
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 4
a. Half of the property was zoned village center which would
permit construction of a shopping mall.
b. The second half of the land was zoned agriculture and a
variance would be needed in order to complete the project.
c. An application was, thereafter, made to the Upper Mount
Bethel Township zoning hearing board for purposes of
obtaining a variance.
9. Hearing on the application was conducted on December 23, 1986 and
the following testimony occurred during that hearing:
a. Robert McCabe identified himself as the contract owner of
the 10 3/4 acres known as Block 4 Lot 26 in Upper Mount
Bethel Township. He further indicated that the application
pending before the board was for a variance on this property
which was zoned in a split manner. He proceeded to provide
information regarding benefits to be obtained through this
project.
b. Mr. Angle was present at this hearing and offered a
statement in support of granting the zoning variance.
c. All participants in the hearing except one, supported the
variance request.
10. The township zoning hearing board, during the proceedings, voted
on the issue of whether to grant Mr. McCabe's application and by a
unanimous decision of the two members voting, the classification was
rezoned to village center completely.
11. Ronald Angle is not a member of the Zoning Hearing Board and has
no voting authority.
12. Minutes of the Upper Mount Bethel Township Board of Supervisors
for January 13, 1987 indicated the following in relation to the
instant situation:
• Mr. Groeneveld brought up the shopping center and rumors he
had heard. He questioned whether the Township Solicitor was
involved in the transactions of the shopping center. Mr.
Angie stated no and then gave an explanation about the
shopping center. He explained about Mr. McCabe and his
financial partner, Mr. Sal Werner. He also stated that Mr.
Ray DeRaymond, Esquire, was now the person who was handling
all the mall activities. Mr. Angle purchased the land to
keep the mall alive, it was in the best interest of the
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 5
township. Mr. Blake stated that as long as Mr. Angle owns
the land, he cannot vote on anything regarding the mall.
13. Mr. Angle did not vote on anything regarding the mall from the
time he acquired an ownership interest in it.
III. Discussion: As a township supervisor in Upper Mount Bethel
Township, Ronald Angle in official
Ethics LawjeC65tP.S the
Section
of the Public Official and Employees
et. seq.
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. The Ethics Law provides as follows:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(a) No public official or public employee
shall engage in conduct that constitutes a
conflict of interest.
(b) No person shall offer or give to a
public official, public employee or nominee or
candidate for public office or a member of his
...
associated anything of monetary value, including
a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or
promise of future employment based on the
offeror's or donor's understanding that
official action or judgment
official or public employee or nominee or
candidate for public office would be influenced
thereby.
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 6
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.
The focus of our inquiry in the instant matter must revolve
around the application of Sections 3(a) and 3(b), (supra), of the
Ethics Law in light of the facts as outlined herein.
Ronald Angle clearly assisted Robert McCabe in obtaining the
requested zoning change for the property on Route 512. This change
would reclassify that property from Village Center /Agriculture to a
uniform classification of Village Center. McCabe wanted to obtain
this reclassification to effectuate the development of a shopping
mall. Mr. Angle offered a statement to the township zoning hearing
board on December 23, 1986 in support of this request. At that time
the request was granted. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McCabe was unable to
obtain financing for the purchase of this property. Mr. Angle
provided this financing and became the owner thereof.
Based upon these factors we believe that there is insufficient
evidence to find either a violation of Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the
Ethics Law.
Specifically, while Mr. Angle did in fact participate in the
zoning Board hearing concerning McCabe's application for rezoning, by
his presentation of a statement, he was not a member of said board and
therefore had no authority to vote, or otherwise effect the outcome of
said board's decision. As such we do not believe that there was any
evidenced ` "of his public office as "a "township supervisor to obtain
a financial gain for himself. Similarly, although Mr. Angle did in
fact subsequently secure a direct financial interest in the property
there was no evidence that such was accomplished through the use of
his public position. Finally, we do not believe there is any evidence
to support a finding that Section 3(b) of the Ethics Law has been
violated under the considered factual scenario.
Turning now to the subsequent events involving the property on
Route 611; in December of 1987 Glen George approached Mr. Angle as a
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 7
township supervisor in order to discuss the possibility of securing a
zoning change on a parcel of land on which Mr. George had an option.
Mr. Angle advised Mr. George that he did not think that the
appropriate township officials would agree to rezone the parcel in
question, and thereafter informed him about the property on Route 611
that he owned. George had been interested in developing a mall and
was seeking the needed zoning change to accomplish this. The 511
property was zoned for this purpose as Mr. McCabe had previously
obtained such reclassification prior to Mr. Angle obtaining his
interest therein.
George thereafter entered into an option to purchase the property
owned by Mr. Angle. Although Mr. George may have sought out Mr. Angle
in his capacity as township supervisor when seeking information
regarding the zoning change we do not believe that Mr. Angle's
statements to Mr. George (that he did not believe that such would be
successful), standing alone, reach the requisite level to find a
violation of the Ethics Law. There was no evidence of pressure or of
an indication that Mr. Angle would use his position to block Mr.
George's attempts to get the other parcel of property rezoned.
As such we find no violation of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Law under the stated facts.
Although we have found no violation of the Ethics Law we find it
incumbent to comment about situations wherein a public official
engages in business transactions with individuals who have matters
pending with the official's governing body. The Ethics Law provides
as its stated purpose a declaration that public office is a public
trust and that any effort to realize a personal financial gain through
public office is a violation of that trust. The Law further provides
that people have a right to be assured that the financial interests of
holders of public office do not conflict with the public trust.
As a public official Mr. Angle must be cognizant of this
directive and must insure that his actions as a public official comply
with not only the letter but also the spirit of the law.
As such Mr. Angle should in all situations in which he has an
actual financial interest abstain from any. involvement
as a off c al in such`
mater - -
In this respect we note that our cautionary extends not only to
the actual vote on a matter as a public official but also to such
participation as a public official including but not limited to
discussions, lobbying or any attempt to influence a matter before the
township or any officer, employee or entity of the township.
We also point out that Mr. Angle's conduct in this respect would
be governed by the most recent Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989. This Law is
Mr. Ronald Angle
Page 8
substantively on point with Act 170 of 1978, the prior Law, but also
provides a general requirement for conflicts not specifically
addressed by Law:
Section 3. Restricted activitie$.
(j) Where voting conflicts are not
otherwise addressed by the Constitution of
Pennsylvania or by any law, rule, regulation,
order or ordinance, the following procedure shall
be employed. Any public official or public
employee, who in the discharge of his official
duties, would be required to vote on a matter that
would result in a conflict of interest shall
abstain from voting and, prior to the vote being
taken, publicly announce and disclose the nature
of his interest as a public record in a written
memorandum filed with the person responsible for
recording the minutes of the meeting at which the
vote is taken, provided that whenever a governing
body would be unable to take any action on a
matter before it because the number of members of
the body required to abstain from voting under the
provisions of this section makes the majority or
other legally required vote of approval
unattainable, then such members shall be permitted
to vote if disclosures are made as otherwise
provided herein. In the case of a three - member
governing body of a political subdivision, where
one member has abstained from voting as a result
of a conflict of interest, and the remaining two
members of the governing body have cast opposing
votes, the member who has abstained shall be
permitted to vote to break the tie vote if
disclosure is made as otherwise provided herein.
In any event Mr. Angle must continue to abide by all of the
requirements of the Ethics Law and also publicly disclose in a
memorandum as noted above all potential conflicts of interests.
--- IV: — Conclusions of Law:
1. Ronald Angle is a Township Supervisor in Upper Mount Bethel
Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania and is a public official
subject to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law.
2. There is insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Angle
violated either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Law.
Mr. Rohald Angle
Page 9
3. Mr. Angle must insure that his conduct as a Township Supervisor
is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the Ethics Law and as
such should not participate, or become involved to any extent as
previously outlined in any matter under consideration by, or for which
official action is to be taken by, the township or by any township
officer employee or entity. Such abstention must be noted publicly by
Mr. Angle prior to the action or consideration being taken and he must
further file with the person responsible for recording the official
minutes a written memorandum outlining the abstention and the reasons
therefor.
In re: Ronald Angle
3
: File Docket: 87-136; 87-15-C
: Date Decided: August 16, 1990
Date Mailed: August 24. 1990
ORDER No. 759
1. Ronald Angle is a Township Supervisor in Upper Mount Bethel
Township, Northampton County, Pennsylvania and is a public
official subject to the provisions of the Pennsylvania
Public Official and Employee Ethics Law.
2. There is insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Angle
violated either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Law.
3. Mr. Angle must insure that his conduct as a Township
Supervisor is consistent with both the letter and spirit of
the Ethics Law and as such should not participate, or become
involved to any extent as previously outlined in any matter
under consideration by, or for which official action is to
be taken by, the township or by any township officer
employee or entity. Such abstention must be noted publicly
by Mr. Angle prior to the action or consideration being
taken and he must further file with the person responsible
for recording the official minutes a written memorandum
outlining the abstention and the reasons therefor.
BY THE COMMISSION,
1
Commissioners Helena G. Hughes and Robert W. Brown did not participate
in the consideration of this matter.
/ HELENA G. HUGHES, CHAIR
l