Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout131 GaydosMr. George M. Gaydos, Jr. President of Council Borough of Bell Acres Big Sewickley Creek Road Sewickley, PA 15143 Re: #82 -15 -C Dear Mr. Gaydos: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION No. 131 June 28, 1982 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 allegations and finds a violation of Act 170. I. Allegations: That as President of the Borough Council of Bell Acres, you constructed and sold grates valued at more than $500 to the Borough, without an open and public process and participated as a Councilman in the payment and purchase of same, thereby violating Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the Ethics Act. Findings: 1. You served as President of the Borough Council at least in 1980, 1981 and 1982 and by virtue of this office, are a public official under the terms of Act 170. 2. During 1980, you sold road grates to the Township and were paid $300.00; during 1981, you sold road grates to the Township and were paid $1,579.00; up to April 12, 1982, you were paid $1,560.00 for grates sold to the Borough in 1982. 3. The Borough did not use an open and public process to solicit bids and award a contract for the purchase of these grates. 4. The Chairman of the Borough Public Works Committee stated that in July of 1981, he solicited - by telephone prices for grates from companies in the area. These companies were Coraopolis Light Metals, Inc., J & J Fabricating, and Koontz Metals, Inc. J & J Fabricating and Koontz Metals, Inc. are now out of business and this information cannot be verified; the Vice - President of Coraopolis Light Metals states that the first contact they had from the Borough asking for prices on road grates was May 11, 1982. 5. After public debate, which began when a resident questioned selling of the grates, Coraopolis Light Metals submitted a bid which was $4.00 less for a comparable size grate than the price you charged to the Township. George M. Gaydos, Jr. June 28, 1982 Page 2 6. The grates you supplied to the Township were custom -made and fitted. Discussion: Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act requires that any contract for 500.00 or more between a public official and his or her governmental body must be: ... "awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of making of the contract." 65 P.S. 403(c) The contract for purchase of grates in 1980 presents no problem because it was less than $500.00. However, in both 1981 and 1982, you received more than $500.00 for selling grates to the Borough. While it can be neither proven nor disproves that the Chairman of the Borough of Public Works Committee solicited bids by telephone in July of 1981, even this action, if true, would not have met the open and public process required by Section 3(c). Both you and the Chairman of the Public Works Committee stated that you believed purchase of the grates from you was the least expensive and most effective way to meet the Borough needs. However, this belief was never tested through the use of an open and public process. In addition to insuring that the citizens have the necessary knowledge about their government's operations, the open and public process would also ascertain whether the Borough was getting the best value for the public's funds. While there is no written contract between you and the Borough, the transactions for making and being paid for the grates are "contracting" as that term is used in Act 170 and subject to the open and public process,of Section 3(c). Conclusion: You have violated Section 3(c) of Act 170 by selling grates to your governmental body for more than $500.00 without an open and public process. If you cease and desist these actions immediately, the Commission will take no further action. You can contract with your governmental body in the future if it is done through an open and public process including prior public notice and subseqeuent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. George M. Gaydos, Jr. June 28, 1982 Page 3 II. Allegation: During the course of our investigation, we found reason to believe that you did not file a Financial Interest Statement in either 1980 or 1981. Findings: 1. Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act requires that public officials and public employees file Financial Interest Statements every year they hold office and the year after they leave office. 2. The Statement in 1980 should have been filed by May 1st of that year and covered your financial interests for calendar year 1979. 3. The Statement in 1981 should have been filed by May 1st of that year and and covered your financial interests for calendar year 1980. 4. A Statement for calendar year 1981 should have been filed by May 1, 1982. 5. You have not filed a Statement in either 1980 or 1981. Conclusion: You have violated the filing requirements of Act 170 by not filing Financial Interest Statements in 1980 and 1981. If you have not filed the Statement due by May 1, 1982, you will have also violated Section 4(a). You are directed to file the original Statement for each year 1980, 1981 and 1982 with the State Ethics Commission and the copy of the Statement with your Borough within 30 days of the receipt of this Order. You have now filed your Financial Interest Statements with the Commission and the Borough of Bell Acres. The State Ethics Commission will take no further action in this matter. 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 available as a public document within 15 days unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent, unless he waives his right to challenge tFiisUrder, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Comission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). PJS /jc Sincerely, ' J Paul mith Chairman