Loading...
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