Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout740 SieminskiMr. Charles L. Sieminski c/o Anthony J. Lupas, Jr. Attorney at Law 65 W. Jackson Street Wilkes- Barre, PA 18702 Re: Charles Sieminski, 88 -016 -C Dear Mr. Sieminski: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 740 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair W. Thomas Andrews G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley Date Decided: February 22, 1990 Date Mailed: March 6, 1990 The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 65 P.S. 401 et. seq. You were notified in writing as to the commencement of the investigation and as to the specific allegation(s). The investigation has now been completed and a Findings Report was issued to you which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division of the State Ethics Commission. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is now completed. This Order of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual allegations, findings, discussion and conclusion as follows: I. Allegation: That you, a member of the Crestwood School Board and the Luzerne Intermediate Unit Board of Directors, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act, (Act 170 of 1978), when you participated in the hiring of your wife as a nurse for the Luzerne Intermediate Unit: 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 Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 2 A. Findings: 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). 1. You served as an appointed member of the Luzerne Intermediate Unit (LIU) as a representative of the Crestwood School District. a. You have served in this position since January 1980. 2. LIU is comprised of twelve participating schools districts of Luzerne and Wyoming Counties as well as the White Haven School and Hospital. a. LIU is established pursuant to ACT 102, May 4, 1970, 24 P.S. Section 9 -951 et seq. b. The LIU which is officially known as intermediate unit #18 is specifically designated as such pursuant to section 9.952 of the above referenced law. c. The intermediate unit law provides that such unit shall be part of the public school system of the Commonwealth. d. Intermediate Unit Board of Directors are comprised of representatives of the school boards of the participating districts. 3. Minutes of the August 25, 1982 LIU meeting indicate that board member Tough made a motion, that was seconded by board member Tomasura, to appoint Barbara Sieminski, 3 Edward Street, Mountaintop, Pa., to the position of substitute registered nurse at the rate of $40.00 a day. The minutes indicate there was a roll call vote and all members voted "yes" for the appointment, including Mr. Sieminski. 4. You did not recall voting in the affirmative for your wife at the August 26, 1982 meeting, or any other meeting of the LIU. a. You would not have knowingly or intentionally voted in the affirmative for your wife. b. The vote of the August 25, 1982 meeting would have been 11 to 0 without any vote by you due to a need for Substitute Nurses. 5. The minutes of the September 28, 1983 LIU meeting indicate that Charles Sieminski was present at the meeting. The minutes also indicate that Mr. Butera made a motion, that was seconded by Mr. Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 3 Roman, to appoint Barbara Joan Sieminski, 3 Edward Street, Mountaintop, Pa., to the position of School Nurse, effective September 29, 1983, at the annual salary of $13,670. The motion was passed by 12 members of the Board with Mr. Sieminski abstaining. 6. You also did not participate in the appointment of your wife on the Special Education Professional Substitute list at the August 24, 1983 Luzerne Intermediate Unit meeting. She was approved by an 11 to 0 vote. 7. Barbara Sieminski is your wife. 8. Records of the LIU indicate that Barbara Jane Sieminski, 3 Edward Street, Mountaintop, Pennsylvania, was paid $7,890 for the 1982 -83 and 1983 -84 school years. a. The above information is contained on W -2 Wage and Tax Statement for the above referenced years. 9. You provided the following information in relation to the instant situation. a. You serve as an appointed member to the LIU representing the Crestwood School District. b. You served in this position since 1980. c. Your wife was thereafter hired to a permanent position with the school district. d. The Position was advertised and your wife applied. e. She was interviewed by the Intermediate Unit's Administrative Department. f. Your wife was certified and the only applicant with a B.S. Degree. g. You are not sure if you voted to approve her hiring to the substitute position. h. You did abstain in 1983 when she was hired to the permanent position. i. You did not approach anyone on the Board in behalf of your wife or attempt to obtain the job for her. j. If you voted for the approval of hiring your wife it was because you did not realize that she was the one being Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 4 hired. The agenda usually contains about 100 items in a meeting and the board goes through them quickly without debate. 10. If called to testify, you would provide as follows: a. From 1970 to the early 1980's, the LIU had three (3) full time Nurses with BS Degrees, servicing the LIU and they were supported by approximately eight (8) additional substitute nurses. One of the three full -time nurses, Mary Cullins, sustained a heart attack in 1977 while on the job and with the exception of a short period of time in 1978 when she tried to go back to work, she was declared totally disabled and she is still on Workmen's Compensation, to the best of your knowledge, as of the present time. b. From 1978 to 1982, the remaining 2 full -time nurses with BS degrees, along with 4 to 8 supporting substitutes were providing services to the needs of the children in the LIU. The motion in August, 1982 merely added 2 more parties to the substitute list to serve with the other 5 to 6 who were providing substitute services to the LIU and these additional parties were put on because of a substantial turn over and the difficulty in getting Nurses as substitutes at $40 per day. c. Your wife was not hired as a temporary employee, but as one of the substitutes to fill in when needed, along with other substitutes, in order to take care of the needs of the Special Ed students throughout the Intermediate Unit, which was due not only to the sickness of Mary Cullins but, also, due to the demand and needs of the students which could not be handled by 3 full -time nurses, let alone the remaining full -time nurses, as is evidenced by the fact that there are 8 full -time nurses with BS Degrees servicing LIU #18 since 1987. d. Mrs. Cullin was not employed, other than being on Workmen's Compensation, from 1978 to 1982, and your wife was not hired as substitute for her or to fill her position, since her duties were being taken care of for almost 4 years by substitute fill -ins prior to your wife and another party being placed on the substitute list in August, 1982. e. Your wife filled in as a substitute, not in one particular area, but throughout the entire LIU as the needs of the children required, along with the other substitute nurses who were available since, as indicated above, it was difficult to acquire substitute nurses. Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 5 B. Discussion: As a member of the Crestwood School Board and Luzerne Intermediate Unit Board of Directors, you are a "public official" as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. 402. As such, you are subject to the provisions of that law and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. 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. In determining whether you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the hiring of your wife as a nurse for the Luzerne Intermediate Unit (LIU), we note that the (LIU) minutes of the August 25, 1982 reflect that a motion was made to hire your wife to the position of substitute registered nurse and you voted to hire your Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 6 wife to that position. Since the vote was a unanimous decision of the eleven voting members at that meeting, you were not the "swing" vote. In the following year during a September 28, 1983 meeting of LIU, the minutes reflect that you abstained in voting for a motion to hire your wife to the position of school nurse. Similarly, you did not participate in a August 24, 1983 LIU meeting that appointed your wife to the Special Education Professional Substitute List. The record in this case reflects that between 1970 and the early 1980's, the LIU had three full -time nurses with B.S. degrees but one nurse sustained a heart attack and became permanently disabled. Thereafter, from 1978 to 1982, the LIU functioned with two full -time nurses along with four to eight supporting substitutes. The action in 1982 to add your wife as a substitute merely added her and another party to the substitute list of five or six substitutes who were currently providing those services. In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above to the instant matter, we do find that you voted in favor of your wife's appointment in 1982 as a substitute registered nurse. Such action did result in a financial gain to your wife who is a member of your immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. However, given the circumstances of this case and the fact that on two subsequent votes you abstained regarding the appointment of your wife to the position of school nurse and a special education professional substitute, we find a technical violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and will take no further action in this matter. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a member of the Crestwood School Board and Luzerne Intermediate Unit Board of Directors, you are 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 you cast a non - deciding vote as to the appointment of your wife as substitute registered nurse to the Luzerne Intermediate Unit on August 25, 1982. 3. Based upon the totality of the circumstances of this case, we will take no further action. This Order is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, you may request reconsideration which will defer public release of this Order pending action on your request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this Order. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within Mr. Charles L. Sieminski Page 7 fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of your 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, including yourself, unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude you from discussing this case with your attorney at law. Any person who violates confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commissio C.14(/A elena G. Hughes Chair