Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout279 IrvinMr. Norman R. Irvin 1123 Franklin Avenue North Braddock, PA 15104 Re: #83 -70 -C Dear Mr. Irvin: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION January 12, 1984 Order No. 279 2/9/84 letter to Irvin is part of this Order (279) 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: 1. Allegation: That as a Council Member in the Borough of North Braddock you used your office to secure a job /work with Weiss Brothers Construction Company with whom the Borough contracted in 1980 in violation of Section 3(a) and (b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and (b) respectively. A. Findings: 1.a. You served as a North Braddock Borough, hereinafter the Borough, Councilman from January, 1973, until January, 1982, and as an elected public official you were subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act during the time at issue here. b. You were a candidate for the office of Mayor in the Borough during 1983. 2. Minutes of the North Braddock Borough Council meetings confirm the following: a. June 27, 1980 - Special meeting of Council for the purpose of opening bids for the removal of slag. Public notice posted June 21, 1980. Motion by Councilman Krul, seconded by Councilman Reichert that bids be opened and read. Only (1) bid was received, that from Weiss Brothers Construction for removal of slag at a unit price of $1.23 per cubic yard. Norman R. Irvin January 12, 1984 Page 2 - Motion by Councilman McDonough, seconded by Holt that Weiss Brothers hid be referred to the Borough Engineer for study. - Council President Norman Irvin was absent from this meeting. b. July 15, 1980 - Motion by Councilman McDonough, seconded by Holt that the bid submitted by Weiss Brothers Construction for the removal of slag, with a contract with the Borough at $1.23 per cubic yard be awarded. - Motion passed by a 7 to 1 vote with you voting in the majority. 3. Weiss Brothers Construction, Inc., hereinafter Weiss, Demmler Road, McKeesport, PA, is an excavating and engineering firm. 4. The Borough and Weiss signed a contract as per the bid referenced above on August 5, 1980. a. In your capacity as President of Borough Council, you signed this contract. b. The contract provided that Weiss would have the authority and responsibility for hiring workers to perform under the contract. c. The contract has a six -year completion or effective date. 5. In October, 1979 you had purchased a tri -axle truck in order to haul fill for a Pittsburgh area developer, Eugene Lipman, hereinafter Lipman. ' a. Some time after Weiss began hauling slag under the contract with the Borough, you arranged to get some slag from Weiss and haul this on behalf of Lipman to be used by Lipman. b. Subsequent to hauling this slag for Lipman as stated above, Weiss offered you the opportunity to haul slag for Weiss because you owned this tri -axle truck. c. You hauled slag for Weiss in 1981 and 1982 as an independent operator or sub - contractor and were paid on a percent -of- the -load basis. d. You were not an employee of Weiss but the slag hauling services you performed for Weiss resulted in payment by Weiss to you of $49,423.71 in 1981 and $11,402.31 in 1982. e. You sold the tri -axle truck in May, 1983. Norman R. Irvin January 12 , 1984 Page 3 6. Due to a decrease in the demand for slag from the steel industry, Weiss discontinued hauling slag from the North Braddock Borough site sometime during the late fall of 1982. 7. Records of North Braddock Borough disclose that from January, 1979 to March, 1983, no other contracts have been entered into between Weiss and North Braddock Borough. Weiss did hid on sewage construction project but was not awarded the contract. 8. There is no evidence to conclude that you regularly performed services for Weiss prior to your vote on July 15, 1980 (See No. 2, b above) to approve the Borough -Weiss contract. 9. There is no evidence to conclude that you had solicited the business of hauling slag for Weiss (See No. 5, b, c and d above), been asked to perform these services, or could reasonably anticipate soliciting or securing this work prior to your vote on July 15, 1980, to approve the Borough -Weiss contract. 10. There is no evidence to conclude that you accepted or secured the work from Weiss on the understanding that your official conduct, judgment or action would be influenced thereby. B. Discussion: As a "public official" your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. These requirements include compliance with Section 3(a) and (b) of the Ethics Act, as set forth below: 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. 403(a). (b) 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). Norman R. Irvin January 12, 1984 Page 4 Under the facts as found above, when voting to approve the Borough -Weiss contract on July 15, 1980, you were not an employee or sub - contractor of Weiss. The work you did for Weiss did not arise or begin until after Weiss had begun to perform on this contract sometime after August 5, 1980. There is no evidence that at the time you voted for the Borough -Weiss contract you knew or could reasonably have expected to be asked or that you would solicit the Weiss business. Compare Sowers, 80 -050 and Cherpes, No. 171. Thus, your vote on July 15, 1983, and your subsequent acquisition of work with Weiss did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act or run afoul of the general "Purpose" of the Ethics Act as expressed in Section 1 of the Act, 65 P.S. 401. Likewise, under Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, we find no evidence to support the contention that you solicited or accepted the Weiss sub - contract (hauling) work on the understanding that your official action would be influenced thereby. No violation of Section 3(b) can be found under these facts. Finally, however, you must, if you are successful in your bid for election as Mayor, recognize that your relationship with Weiss may affect your future actions as Mayor vis -a -vis the Borough -Weiss contract. Specifically, if you must act in an official capacity as Mayor with respect to the Borough -Weiss contract you would be best advised to seek our Opinion on the propriety of your actions, if needed. C. Conclusion: Under the facts as found above there is no violation of Section 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics Act. II. Allegation: That as a result of this Weiss Brothers job /work or contract you earned /were paid more than $500 in 1980 -1981 which was not properly reported on your Financial Interest Statement as required by Section 4(a) and 4(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 404(a) and (b) respectively and Section 5(b)(5), 65 P.S. 405(b)(5) and State Ethics Commission regulations 51 Pa. Code 4.4(a) and (b) and 5.7. A. Findings: Findings No. 1 -10 are incorporated herein by reference in addition to which we find as follows: 11. As a public official or former public official or a candidate for public office, you were required to file a Financial Interest Statement (FIS) covering calendar years 1980, 1981 and 1982. 12. The Financial Interest Statement you filed as an elected public official on March 16, 1981, for the 1980 calendar year reported in response to Item 15 - Direct and Indirect Sources of Income -- "Norm's Auto Body." Norman R. Irvin Page 5 January 12, 1984 13. The Financial Interest Statement you filed as a former elected official on April 12, 1982, for the calendar year 1981 reported in response to Item 15 -- "Norm's Auto Body." 14. The Financial Interest Statement you filed as a candidate for the office of Mayor of the Borough on February 26, 1983 for the 1982 calendar year reported in response to Item 15 -- "None." 15. While serving as a member of Council of the Borough in 1980 and 1981, you were paid $150 per month or $1,800 annually. 16. You operated a business known as Norm's Auto Body prior to assuming office in the Borough. a. Upon purchasing the tri -axle truck (See No. 5 above) in October, 1979, you hired your brother to manage the Auto Body Shop. b. Approximately six months ago (April or May, 1983) your brother became ill and you were required to resume full -time control of the Auto Body Shop. 17. Weiss paid you more than $500 in 1981 and 1982 as set forth in Finding No. 5(d) above. 18. You submitted amended FIS forms to the State Ethics Commission, dated June 6, 1983, for the years and with the information on Item 15, Direct or Indirect Sources of Income as follows: a. For calendar year 1981 - "Norm's Auto Body, 1059 Locust Street, North Braddock, PA 15104 "; b. For calendar year 1982 - "Norm's Auto Body, 1059 Locust Street, North ,Braddock, PA 15104: Weiss Bros. Const. Co., Demmler Rd. McKeesport, PA 15132; and Alpine Const. Co., North Versailles, PA 15137." 19. You state that any omission on Item 15 of your FIS forms was a result of your understanding that because you were self - employed the question did not refer to you or that further details were not required. B. Discussion: As a public official (former or incumbent) or candidate for public office, you were required to file an FIS. See Section 4(a) and (h) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 404(a) and (h) and 51 Pa. Code 4.4(a) and (d) and 4.2(b). These income and disclosure requirements include disclosure of Sources of Income under Section 5(b)(5) of the Ethics Act as follows: Norman R. Irvin January 12 , 1984 Page 6 Section 5. Statement of financial interests. (b)(5) The name and address of any person who is the direct or indirect source of income totalling in the aggregate $500 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics. 65 P.S. 405(b)(5). Additionally, State Ethics Commission regulations as to "Income Disclosure" set forth at Section 5.7 state that: (h) Business persons who are public officials, public employes, or candidates are required to disclose only those sources of $500 or more adjusted gross income where payment is made from funds of the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is or, if a candidate, would be associated. In all other cases only the name of their business or firm is to be listed. 51 Pa. Code 5.7(h). As a businessman your income from Weiss was directly related to the Borough -Weiss contract. You should have reported Weiss as a specific source of income for 1981 and 1982. While you have supplied amended forms which reveal Weiss as a source of income for 1982, you have not reported Weiss properly as a source of income on your amended FIS for 1981. Additionally, in the years 1980 and 1981, you were paid in excess of $500 by the Borough for your post as a member of Council. This income is reportable on Item 15 for 1980 and 1981. With respect to each of these omissions, however, we do not believe there is reason to review this matter further if further amendments to your FIS forms are filed. C. Conclusion: You must amend your FIS forms for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 as follows: a. For 1980 - add Borough as source of income; b. For 1981 - add Borough and Weiss as source of income; c. For 1982 - add Borough as source of income. If appropriate amendments are made within 15 days of this Order no further review or referral will be undertaken. Norman R. Irvin January 12, 1984 Page 7 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 he made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) 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 he fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than.one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). PJS/jc By the Commission, CF - aff . 1 4 J. meth Chairman Mr. Norman R. Irvin 1123 Franklin Avenue North Braddock, PA 15104 Re: No. 83 -70 -C Dear Mr. Irvin: EMS /jc Mating Address STATE ETHICS COMMISSION P.O. BOX 1179 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 783 -1610 February 9, 1984 We received your amended Financial Interest Statements on January 19, 1984. This fulfills the requirements of the State Ethics Commission Order No. 279 issued to you January 12, 1984. Your Financial Interest Statement is a public record. A copy of this letter will be made a part of the Order as a public record. We are also sending copies of the Financial Interest Statement and correspondence to your governmental body for their Financial Interest Statement public records. Sincerely, !r ^' J"'GS.''2'` ,r � ( .�.,_..(�' /.i• -..sue po7 Edward M. Seladones Executive Director State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania