Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout109 McCuneMr. Jack L. McCune c/o Robert L. Webster, Esq. Webster & Webster 51 E. South Street Uniontown, PA 15401 Re: #81 -12 -C Dear Mr. McCune: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 9, 1982 No. 109 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation into these actions and finds a violation of Act 170. The individual allegations and findings on which our conclusion is based are: I. Allegation: That you failed to disclose on your Financial. Interest Statement rental income from the St. Clair School Building. Findings; 1. As a Township Supervisor in Brownsville Township, you were and are now a public official subject to the terms of Act 170. 2. You leased the St. Clair School Building, which you own, to Brownsville Township. The payment was $1.00 a year and the Township was expected to maintain liability insurance or the premises. The lease agreement did not specify who would pay for improvements. 3. Your Financial Interest Statement filed February 2, 1981 did not list this lease under any Item on the form. The information on said Form was to reflect data for calendar year 1980. Mr. Jack L. McCune c/o Robert L. Webster, Esq. Page -2- March 9, 1982 4. The agreement was in effect in 1980 and by letter of June 17, 1981, your attorney, Robert L. Webster, amended your Financial Interest Statement to report this lease arrangement, as required by Section 5(b)(3) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 405(b)(3). Discussion: As an elected Supervisor you are a public official and you are required to file a Financial Interest Statement as required by the Ethics Act. Section 5(b)(3) of the Ethics Act requires that a Financial Statement include information as to: Any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions; purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, any of its a.gen :A es or political subdivisions; or which was the subject of any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions. 6.5 P.S. 405(b)(3). ou interest in the lease with the Township on the St. Clair School Building should have been reported on your Financial Statement. Conclusion: You have violated Sections 5(b)(3) by not reporting your lease agreement with the Township. However, this failure to report has been rectified and no further action will be taken by the State Ethics Commission as to this allegation. II. Allegation: That as a Supervisor you renovated a building you own and lease to the Township. Findings: 1. You served as a Supervisor from January, 1968 to early 1981 - and were re- elected to that position in the general election of 1981. 2. You agreed to renovate a portion of the St. Clair School Building, which you own and Lease to the Township as discussed above, for use by the Township and received approximately 51,290.00 toy: these renovations. You admitted these repairs were done without the full knowledge or agreement of the Supervisors and that the decision had not been made through an open -and -- public process, Cross - reference Finding No. 7. Mr. Jack L. McCune c/o Robert L. Webster, Esq. Page -3- March 9, 1982 3. The Township Auditors alleged that you were not entitled to the money and asked for its return; the Auditors also discovered that the Supervisors allow the use of pre- signed checks for Township business and the renovations referred to in No. 2 above were paid for with checks of this kind. The use of pre- signed checks was also confirmed by another Township Supervisor. 4. Mr. Robert L. Webster, your attorney, was notified of these findings on the renovations to your building by our letter of November 9, 1981. Discussions on restitution were held with the Township Auditors and Supervisors and the Commission deferred action for 60 days to allow you and the Auditors and Supervisors to reach a satisfactory agreement. 5. On December 31, 1981, Mr. Webster informed the Commission that a meeting had been held to attempt to resolve the problem, that the meeting had been amicable and a proposed settlement had been made to the Township Auditors. He expected that this settlement offer would be accepted. 6. On January 29, 1982, Mr. Webster wrote to inform us that your proposal to reimburse the Township "for all monies claimed except the sum of $425.20 representing panelling, lumber and plycore which was removed from your building and used by the Township at another Township facility" had not been accepted by the Township Auditors as expected. The Auditors had forwarded a written demand that you pay $1,291.35. He also stated that you will do "anything that is required in order to have this matter resolved. However, we believe that the Township's demand that Mr. McCune pay $425.20 for materials that he never received is patently unreasonable." 7. A review of the Auditors' findings arrived at a revised figure of $1229.72. The difference between the Auditors' original amount and the revised amount came from a deduction for material used by the Township. 8. The amount of $425.20 should be subtracted from the revised amount claimed by the Auditors, as found herein, but the amount of $152.55 added to this total to represent the value of wood framing and panelling which we find was in fact installed in your building. 9. The total value /improvements made to your building and paid for by the Township amounts to $957.07 or the $1229.72 minus $425.20 plus $152.55. Mr. Jack L. McCune c/o Robert L. Webster, Esq. Page -4- March 9, 1982 10. Two of the Auditors stated that they were informed by the Township Solicitor that they would have to hire their own Attorney if they wished to take court action against you. They did not take action to surcharge you or other action because they believed the legal expenses would be too high considering the money which the Township might receive from you. Discussion: The Ethics Act governs your conduct as a ppubiic official. The Ethics Act requires that: 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). The Ethics Act also provides that: Any person who obtains financial gain from violating any provision of this act, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S. 409(c). Finally, the Commission under Section 7 (9) (iii) may also require as follows: ...If the Commission finds that there is a conflict, the information shall be provided for criminal proceedings unless the alleged offender removes himself from the conflict with receiving financial gain. 65 P.S 407 (9) (iii_) . These requirements make it clear that the improvements made to the building you own were paid for out of public funds but inured mainly to your benefit as owner of the building. We recognize that the Township also benefitted from the lease arrangement (low cost) in general, from the use of the building (as renovated), and from the ability to reuse some of the material used in these renovations. As a result, although you recognize that restitution for the renovations is appropriate, we believe that considering the benefits derived by each party to this arrangement, to require repayment of the entire $1,229.00 amount set forth in No. 8 above would be unjustified. Mr. Jack L. McCune c/o Robert L. Webster, Esq. PJS /jc Page -5- March 9, 1982 We should note that the figures provided by the parties here and our analysis of same is subject to criticism. However, we have attempted to work with the most accurate - available data in completing our analysis. Conclusion: While Section 9(c) provides for a maximum penalty of three times the financial gain, the Commission believes this issue can be resolved by payment of $957.07 to the Township. This represents the amount found in No. 9 above. If this money is paid to the Township within 15 days of the date of this letter, the Commission will take no further action. If the money is not paid, the Commission will refer this matter to the District Attorney and recommend prosecution. Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final and will become avail- able as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies recon- sideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates mission proceeding is guilty fined not more than $1000 or one year or both, see 65 P.S. the confidentiality of a Com- of a misdemeanor and shall be imprisoned.for not more than 409(e). Sincerely, Paul Yj Smith Chairman