Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout287 MilkoMr. Victor S. Milko 90 Union Avenue North Versailles, N,, 15137 Re: #82 -22 -C Dear Mr, Milko: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 15, 1984 Order No. 287 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commissioa has now completed its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusi "•ns, and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That you, as a Township Supervisor, agreed to vote yes for a re- zoning request on November 30, 1981 for Liberty Candy Company, a firm to which you owed $1,200 because someone had done a favor for you and your yes vote would return that favor. A. Findings: 1. You are now serving your fourth term as a Township Commissioner in North Versailles Township and as such are subject to the Ethics Act. 2. You and your wife are the only shareholders in Allegheny East Vending Service, Inc. 3. On October 22, 1981, Allegheny East Vending Service, Inc. filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Act. Victor S. Milko March 15, 1984 Page 2 4. According to the papers filed, Allegheny East Vending Service, Inc. owed Liberty Candy Company $1,200 for purchases made in 1980. 5. Allegheny East Vending Service. Inc. has done business with Liberty Candy Company for several years. 6. Liberty Candy Company occupied a building in North Versailles Township. However, when this building became too small, they sought to purchase other property for a larger warehouse. a. You state •:;hat you encouraged them to stay in North Versailles Township because the tax base would be increased for the Township and employment would be provided for about 40 persons. b. According to the Township Secretary, the Planning Commission held three meetings to discuss a re- zoning request sought by Liberty Candy Company but the minutes of these meetings were voided and purged. 7. On November 30, 1981, Liberty Candy Company's re- zoning request was presented to the North Versailles Township Commissioners as Ordinance No. 797. This proposed Ordinance was to re -zone an area from "A" Residential to "0" Commerical and was presented and voted on in three separate sections. a. The first section was an amendment to the zoning ordinance to create a 15 -foot buffer strip and a 15 -foot setback in "D" commercial zones along any border abutting on "A" residential zones. 1. On the first roll call on this section, you voted against the amendment. The vote was 4 to 2. 2. After the Solicitor explained that an amendment to the Ordinance required six votes, you and another Commissioner changed your votes, and the amendment passed unanimously. 8. The second section of Ordinance No. 797 contained an amendment to the zoning map to change the zoning of three properties from partially Residential and partially "D" Commercial to entire "D" Commercial. a. A motion to reject this section as presented was made and passed 6 -0. You were present and voted to reject the proposal. b. Two of the properties in the original section were then considered separately. The proposal to change the zoning of these two properties was passed unanimously. You were present and voted for passage. Victor S. Milko March 15, 1984 Page 3 9. At the March 15, 1982 meeting, you stated you had been accused of having a conflict of interest. a. The Solicitor said there was no conflict if you had nothing to gain. b. You stated you had gone to Federal Court 31 flays before your vote and reported that you owed Liberty Candy Company $1,200. You also noted that Allegheny East Vending Service, Inc. owed the money, not you personally. 10. Liberty Candy Company abandoned the idea of building a larger warehouse in North Versailles Township because of the oiany citizen objections. 11. There is no evidence that you, a member of your immediate family, or a business with which you were associated benefitted financially from these activities or that you received something of value with the understanding that your official action would be influenced. 8. Discussion: Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act states: 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. C5 P 4030). Victor S. Milko March 15, 1984 Page 4 Although you participated in Township actions affecting Liberty Candy Company to whom you owed $1,200, there is no evidence that you, a member of your immediate family, or a business with which you were associated realized financial gain because of these activities. Your official actions were taken at public meetings with a number of citizens in attendance. The $1,200 debt to the Liberty Candy Company was a matter to he resolved by bankruptcy court. We find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. There is also no evidence to support a finding of a violation of Section 3(b). That section requires an understanding that the public official will or will not take public actions in return for something of value. In this case, the only thing of value was the $1,200 debt of Allegheny East Vending Service, Inc. While we believe that this $1,200 debt was a financial interest of yours or of a "business with which you are associated" as defined in the Ethics Act, you had begun bankruptcy proceedings before the November 30, 1981 meeting at which you voted on Ordinances affecting Liberty Candy Company's interest. Because this $1,200 debt would be settled through the bankruptcy proceedings, it is not reasonable to believe this was "something of value" which would affect your official judgment or action. In addition, our investigation failed to disclose any understanding, or agreement, or promise to convey "something of value" given or accepted to influence your official conduct. In addition to reviewing matters under Section 3(a) and 3(b), the Commission also has a responsibility to consider a public official or public employee's actions in light of Section 1 of the Ethics Act which states that a public official or public employee shall have neither a conflict of interest nor the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. While your debt to Liberty Candy Company was shown on the documents filed under Chapter 11, this action would not be common knowledge. However, you publicly disclosed this interest before and during your official actions on the request of Liberty Candy Company and we believe that was sufficient to dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest. C. Conclusion: You did not violate either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act when you voted on Township zoning actions relating to Liberty Candy Company to whom your company owed $,1200. You also did not create the appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust. II. Allegation: That Mr. Milko's firm, Allegheny East Vending Services, Inc., has not paid federal or state taxes from October 1, 1979 to the present and has not paid East Allegheny school taxes from 1980 to the present. Victor S. Milko March 15, 1984 Page 5 A. Findings: Findings No. 1 -3 are incorporated here by reference in addition to which'we find as follows: 4. As a Township Supervisor, you have no official control or influence in the establishment or collection of federal and state taxes. 5. As a Township Supervisor, you have no control or influence in the establishment or collection of school taxes. B. Discussion: There is no reasonable basis for the State Ethics Commission to pursue these allegations because we found no evidence that you could use your public office to control the establishment, collection, or payment of taxes in any of these jurisdictions. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics Act or create the appearance of a conOlict of interest with the public trust in your tax transactions with the Federal Government, State Government or the School District. III. Allegation: That you, as a Township Supervisor, used your office to avoid paying local wage taxes. A. Findings: Findings No. 1 -3 are incorporated here by reference in addition to which we find as follows: 6. Pennsylvania Municipal Services, Inc., 326 Delawars Avenue, Oakmont, PA, 15139 had a contract to handle collection of wage and school taxes for North Versailles Township. They would not cisclose information without your approval and you declined to give such approval. 7, Pennsylvania Municipal Services, Inc. has held this contract since 1977. 8. This issue was the subject of an investigation by the Allegheny County District Attorney's office. No criminal activity was found in that investigation. B. Discussion: While the release of your tax information by you or the Pennsylvania Municipal Service, Inc. would have pr°uviced a definite factual basis for a decision, we found ; evidence that warrants further investigation of an issue already investigated by the County District Attorney's office. There was no new information presented or discovered. Victor S. Milko March 15, 1984 Page 6 C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics law in your tax transactions relating to your local taxes. There is no evidence that you used your office to avoid paying local taxes. We will take no further action on this issue. 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 (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 be 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, ( P- ( - 6 5 2 mith Chairman