Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout744 RakowskyIn re: Stanley Rakowsky STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 30$ FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 : File Docket: 87 -109 -C : Date Decided: March 29. 1990 : Date Mailed: March 30, 1990 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley 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 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 52.38. 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). Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 2 ADJUDICATION I. Allegation That you, Superintendent of Clearfield Area Schools, violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act, (Act 170 of 1978), when you used school district vehicles, equipment and personnel for your personal benefit, and used a school district building as a garage and storage area for your personal vehicles. 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. 5403(a). A. Findings: 1. You served as the Superintendent of the Clearfield Area School District. a. You have served in this position from August of 1984 to the present. b. You served as. Acting Superintendent from March, 1984 until the time that you were appointed to that position on a full - time basis. c. Prior to that time, you served as principal of the Clearfield High School having been in that position since 1976. 2. The Clearfield Area School District has a Maintenance Department which is responsible for the operation of school district vehicles and the maintenance of school district properties. 3. John Buckley was the Supervisor of the Maintenance Department for the Clearfield Area School District. 4. As Superintendent of the Clearfield Area School District, you were the supervisor for over 400 employees thereof and were responsible for the day to day administration of the school district. a. As superintendent of maintenance, John Buckley was your subordinate. b. On various occasions, you had John Buckley performing Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 3 personal favors for you during his assigned working hours for the school district. 5. You utilized a Clearfield Area School District pick -up truck on June 13, 1987 for the purpose of hauling wood that you needed to build a porch at your house. a. On the morning of June 13, 1987 at 8:30 a.m., John Buckley proceeded to the Clearfield Area School District maintenance shop where he discovered that the pick -up truck was missing. b. Parked inside the shop, was a Mercedes Benz registered to you. c. The Mercedes was locked and blocking the exit of any other school district vehicles. d. The pick -up truck was returned to the maintenance shop sometime on June 13, 1987. e. The mileage difference between the time the truck was last utilized by a school district employee and the time it was returned to the maintenance shop was 307 miles. 6. By way of a Clearfield Area School District invoice, you were billed for the mileage incurred on the 1985 Chevrolet pick -up truck of the school district at a rate of .25 per mile for a total of 286 miles. a. The amount of the invoice was for $71.50 and you paid this amount to the school district. b. The invoice was dated July 9, 1987 and was for utilization of the school district's pick -up truck on June 12 and 13, 1987. c. Since the time you became Acting Superintendent of Clearfield Area School District in March of 1984, you used Clearfield Area School District building (storage shed) for garaging one of your personal vehicles on a permanent basis. 7. Fred Rougeux, District Director of Non - instructional Services for the school district offered you the utilization of his personal truck for the purposes of transporting the wood. a. You refused this offer. 8. The School District did not have an official policy or practice whereby school employees could utilize district vehicles for personal purposes. Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 4 9. Mr. Rougeux did not give you authorization to utilize the school district pick -up truck in July, 1987. a. Mr. Rougeux did not have the authority to authorize such utilization. 10. Mr. Rougeux accompanied you in your Jeep Wagoneer to State College, Pennsylvania where your Mercedes Benz was being repaired. a. You and Mr. Rougeux left near the end of the school day. b. After dropping you off, Mr. Rougeux returned to Clearfield in your Wagoneer. 11. By way of letter dated December 22, 1987, to the State Ethics Commission, Director of Investigations, you responded to the allegation that you used the school district facilities for the storage of one of your vehicles and to the allegation that you used school district vehicles for personal purposes as follows: a. You always had one of your personal vehicles parked on school district property. At times, the cars are parked outside though most times one of them is put in a district storage shed. b. You were not displacing any district vehicles or equipment by parking your cars there. c. Since early 1983, you have had a four -wheel drive vehicle in addition to your car. It is convenient to have both vehicles at the central office location since your travels throughout the district as well as elsewhere emanate from this point. d. Most days, your schedule finds you leaving your home early in the morning and not returning until late afternoon or evening. To have both vehicles at the central office affords you convenience, especially during inclement weather. e. You have been doing this essentially since you became Acting Superintendent in March of 1984. f. On June 12, 1987, you used a school district pick -up truck to transport wood for a porch that was being built at your home in Clearfield to a location 145 miles from there. g. Late in the afternoon on the 12th, you discussed your need for a vehicle with District Director of Non - instructional Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 5 Services, Fred Rougeux. Mr. Rougeux indicated that there was no anticipated district need for the vehicle since you would not be taking it until late Friday afternoon and would be returning with it the following day. h. It is district practice to assess a charge of .25 per mile any time a school district vehicle is being used for other than direct instructional purposes. Examples would be the Ski Club going to an outing, the baseball team going on their southern trip, FBLA competitions at other places, etc. Since you felt it was appropriate to pay these fees, you did so. i. Prior to taking the vehicle, you called your insurance agent in Frackville, Paul Malinchok, and advised him of what you were planning to do. He verbally insured the district vehicle in the event that an accident occurred during the time you rented the truck. j. When the matter was brought up in an executive session by board member Dr. Lawrence Wootton, you explained the above facts to all nine board members who were present. 12. You did not pay for the utilization of the school district pick- up truck until after such utilization had been questioned by the members of the school board at a meeting thereof. III. Discussion: As the superintendent of the Clearfield Area School District, Stanley Rakowsky is a "public employee" as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1. As such, he is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law. 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 Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 6 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 this case the scope of our inquiry concerns whether Stanley Rakowsky as superintendent used school district vehicles, equipment and personnel for his own personal benefit in contravention to Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above. Stanley Rakowsky has served as the superintendent of Clearfield Area School District since August of 1984 and in that capacity supervises over four hundred employees in the daily administration of the school district. One of his subordinate employees was John Buckley who was the supervisor of the maintenance department. The record reflects that there have been several instances where Mr. Rakowsky has used school district personnel or facilities or equipment for his own personal use. , On various occasions he used John Buckley to perform personal favors during school district working hours. In addition, on June 13, 1987, he used the school district pickup truck to haul wood to his personal residence. When he borrowed the school district truck, he parked his Mercedes Benz in front of the shop which blocked the exit of any other school district vehicles. After it was discovered that he used the school district truck for his personal use, Mr. Rakowsky was billed for the milage on the truck. He then paid the invoice amount of $71.50 to the school district. Although the school district has a policy of allowing the use of school district vehicles at a charge of $.25 per mile for other than direct instructional purposes, the allowable uses seem to be limited to school related activities such as ski club outings, baseball team trips, FBLA competitions but do not appear to include use for purely personal matters. On another occasion, he utilized Mr. Rougeux to accompany him in his vehicle to State College, Pennsylvania where his Mercedes Benz was being repaired. Since he left near the end of the school day, he took Mr. Rougeux during school working hours. Mr. Stanley Rakowsky Page 7 Finally, he has used the Clearfield Area School District Building since March of 1984 on an on -going basis to garage one of his personal vehicles. In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above to the instant matter, the facts do establish a use by Mr. Rakowsky of school district personnel, equipment and facilities for his own personal use. Such actions have resulted in a financial gain to the extent that he has not had any out of pocket expenses relative to the utilization of the school district personnel or facilities. In addition, the gain is not compensation provided for in law because there is no provision in the Public School Code which allows for the utilization of school district personnel or facilities for one's own personal use. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the relative minor nature of the actions and the restitution that has already been made, while we find a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law, we will take no further action in this case. Dorrance, Order 456. Stanley Rakowsky is however reminded that public office is a public trust and therefore he must desist in the future from using public office for personal purposes. IV. Conclusions of Law: 1. As the superintendent of the Clearfield Area School District Stanley Rakowsky is a public employee subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. A violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Stanley Rakowsky used a school district vehicle, equipment, personnel and building for his own personal purposes. In res Stanley Rakowsky s File Docket: 87 -109 -C : Date Decided: March 29 1990 Date Mailed: March 30, 1990 ORDER No. 744 1. A violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Stanley Rakowsky used a school district vehicle, equipment, personnel and building for his own personal purposes. 2. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances o this case, this Commission will take no further action. 3. Stanley Rakowsky is directed to desist from utilizing school district vehicles, equipment and personnel for his own personal purposes. BY THE COMMISSION,