HomeMy WebLinkAbout217 GierlachMr. Joseph Gierlach
Union Township Supervisor
Union Township
1441 Sunny Avenue
New Castle, PA 16101
Re: # 82 -95 -C
Dear Mr. Gierlach:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
August 19, 1983
Order No. 217
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. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which
those conclusions are based are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, as a township supervisor, approved the use of
township funds to pay for gas bought and billed to the township by persons
having no official connection to the township.
A. Findings:
1. You serve as a Union Township Supervisor and as such are subject to the
requirements of the Ethics Act. You have been a township supervisor since
January, 1978.
2. Union Township purchases unleaded gasoline from Del's Service Station
and is billed periodically for these purchases.
a. Del's Service Station sells gasoline only to those persons having the
approval of the township supervisors.
b. Township supervisors have approved such purchases for the police
cruiser, road vehicles, and the vehicle of the dog enforcement officer.
c. The supervisors have also approved purchases of gasoline by township
employees for personal vehicles when those vehicles are used for township
business.
Joseph Gierlach
August 19, 1983
Page 2
3. Expenditures for unleaded fuel were $1,445.00 in 1979; $1,799.00 in 1980;
$3,296.00 in 1981 and $3,206.00 in 1982.
a. Township employees having approval to purchase unleaded gasoline at
Del's Service Station were the police chief, two patrolmen and the dog
enforcement officer.
b. The only purchases for gasoline for personal vehicles were three
purchases in April, 1981 by township patrolmen to conduct patrols with their
own vehicles. These purchases and bills were approved by the supervisors and
amounted to approximately $40.00. A
4. Union Township maintains a supply of regular gasoline for the purpose of
fueling older township equipment. A log book is maintained which details the
date, amount of gasoline received, vehicle and person operating the vehicle.
5. Only township employees received gasoline from either Del's Service
Station or township supplies (see No. 4 above) during the period from 1980
to 1982.
6. There was no information available for gasoline usage in 1979.
7. During the lates fall of 1979, Police Chief Ciamona apprehended your son,
Joseph Gierlach, Jr., pumping five gallons of gasoline from township supplies
into his personal vehicle. This incident was reported orally to you at the
time of the occurrence and was brought to the attention of all supervisors at
a township meeting in February, 1982. The township was not reimbursed for
this gasoline but took no further action with relation to this incident.
B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of Act 170 states:
No public official or public employee shall use
his public 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.
Joseph Gierlach
August 19, 1983
Page 3
Section 3(b) of Act 170 states:
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).
The persons for whom you approved the use of personal vehicles were
all township employees and those vehicles were used for township business. In
addition, the bills for gasoline you approved were for the use of those
personal vehicles on township business. There is also no evidence that your
approval of the use of personal vehicles or the payment of gasoline bills was
based on any understanding that your vote /official action or judgment would be
influenced.
Although your son was not a township employee and the gas he took was not
for official business, there is no evidence that you approved this action nor
is there any evidence that you received personal financial gain or that your
official action was influenced by the offer of anything of value in this
incident. There is no evidence that you personally benefitted from this
incident nor is there any reason for the Commission to question your decision
not to press action in a matter involving this small amount of gasoline and
the Commission finds no violation of the Ethics Act under the facts found
above.
There is also no evidence that your approval of the use of personal
vehicles or the payment of gasoline bills was based on any understanding
that your vote /official action or judgment would be influenced.
While the Commission believes there is insufficient cause to take action
on your failure to publicly resolve the charge that your son had taken five
gallons of gasoline from township supplies, we find that this failure
contributes to the creation of an appearance of a conflict with the public
trust and strongly suggest that in the future such incidents be resolved
publicly to insure the citizens that their interests have been considered and
protected.
C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics Act when you approved the use
of personal vehicles for township equipment and the subsequent payment of
bills for gasoline purchased for those vehicles when they were used for
township business. However, failure to take action on the report that your
son had taken township gasoline created the appearance of a conflict of
interest with the public trust and, in the future, these issues should be
resolved publicly to avoid creating that appearance.
Joseph Gierlach
August 19, 1983
Page 4
II. Allegation: That you, as a township supervisor, have participated in
decisions that have benefitted your daughter and that this is a violation of
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, Act 170 of 1978.
A. Findings:
8. Roberta Covelli, Clerk /Typist for Union Township, is your daughter.
9. Roberta Covelli is not a minor or dependent child and does not reside with
you.
10. Roberta Covelli commenced employment with Union Township on July 17, 1978
as a clerk /typist. You voted for her appointment.
11. No set hiring policy exists in Union Township. Job openings are filled on
the basis of job applications made to the supervisors. The Board of
Supervisors approve all hirings.
12. On January 4, 1982, a motion by Supervisor Fee was seconded by you that
you be named secretary /treasurer. The motion carried by a 2 to 1 vote with
Supervsior Cumberledge opposing.
13. On January 9, 1982, on a motion by Supervisor Cumberledge, seconded by
you, your letter of resignation dated January 7, 1982 was accepted. A second
motion by Supervisor Cumberledge also seconded by you to appoint Susan Currie
was approved by unanimous vote.
14. You represented Union Township during labor negotiations in 1979 and 1981
that affected the salary and fringe benefits received by your daughter,
Roberta Covelli. You signed and approved the contracts of 1979 and 1981. The
negotiating committee for the township employees consisted of Thomas Mills,
Susan Currie and Liz Long, AFSCME representative.
15. During negotiations for the contract effective November 16, 1981, you
participated in negotiations and approved a labor contract that resulted in:
a. Article I, Section 2, stating the position held by Roberta Covelli will
remain in the bargaining unit for the duration of her employment in this
position with the township.
b. A salary schedule for Roberta Covelli with salaries commencing on
November 16, 1981 of $10,662,00, November 16, 1982 of $11,515.00, and November
16, 1983 of $12,432.00.
16. In their 1981 audit report, the auditors questioned the salary of the
secretary /treasurer noting that it and other township employees' salaries were
much higher than those in surrounding townships.
Joseph Gi erl ach
August 19, 1983
Page 5
a. The auditors also recommended that one secretarial position could
handle the current workload.
b. The supervisors did not act on these recommendations.
B. Discussion: Section 1 of Act 170 states:
The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a
public trust and that any effort to realize personal
financial gain through public office other than
compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust.
In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the
people of the State in their government, the Legislature
further declares that the people have a right to be
assured that the financial interests of holders of or
candicates for public office present neither a conflict
nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Because public confidence in government can best be
sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and
honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally
construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. 401.
Section 3(a) of Act 170 states:
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 defines immediate family as "a spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent children." Your daughter does not
reside in your household; she is neither a minor nor a dependent. You
participated in various Union negotiation decisions which did benefit your
daughter but because she is neither a minor nor a dependent, there is no basis
to find a violation of Section 3(a).
However, the Commission has a responsibility to consider these actions
in light of Section 1 of the Act which requires that public officials, public
employees and candidates avoid both a conflict and the appearance of a
conflict with the public trust.
The Commission has already ruled that the appearance of a conflict of
interest exists when a public official participates in actions which benefit
family members other than those defined as "immediate family" in Act 170.
See Leete, 82 -005.
Joseph Gierlach
August 19, 1983
Page 6
The lack of an established hiring policy compounds your continued
participation in decisions which favorably benefit your daughter. The public
would find it difficult to believe that you could maintain your impartiality
and meet your official responsibilities when the question of your daughter's
tenure and salary are involved.
In a letter of February 3, 1982 from Robert W. Zech, Jr., attorney in the
Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau to The Honorable Thomas Fee, Mr.
Zech noted that the clerk /typist position would be appropriately covered by
the union contract. While this information was not available to you during
the 1981 negotiations in which you made the agreement that your daughter's
position would be covered for the balance of her employment, the Commission
strongly urges that the supervisors seek an official legal opinion to
determine whether this agreement_ is still appropriate and to insure the public
that the action taken was proper and not preferential treatment for your
daughter. Unless this action is taken, an appearance of a conflict will
continue to exist. You must remove yourself from these situations.
C. Conclusion: You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. However,
your continued and frequent participation in official decisions which
favorably benefit your daughter creates the appearance of a conflict with the
public trust and, in the future, you must remove this appearance by abstaining
from participation in any township decisions affecting your daughter.
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 be made available as a public document 15 days after service
unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code
2.38. 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 the confidentiality of a Commission 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
By the Commission,
Ty „;74
ul J( mith
Chai rma