Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout298 UrbanskiMr. Thomas Urbanski Councilman, Glassport Borough 701 Broadway Glassport, PA 15045 Re: No. 83 -134 -C Dear Mr. Urbanski: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION April 13, 1984 Order No. 298 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 Councilman in Glassport Borough you voted for passage of an ordinance or blocked the passage of an ordinance which had the effect of favoring an individual who had employed your services as a plumber to install a sewer lateral -line and that this conduct violates Section 3(a)•, (b) or 1 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), (b) or 401 respectively. A. Findings: 1. You serve as a Councilman in Glassport Borough, hereinafter the Borough, and as such you are a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. During 1982 and 1983 the Borough Council considered the question and took certain actions regarding the installation and extension of sewer lines to Summit and Juniata Avenues, located within the Borough. Thomas Urbanski April 13, 1984 Page 2 a. In June, 1982 the Council determined that Summit Avenue should be provided with a sanitary sewage line. b. The minutes of the Council meeting of June 8, 1982 disclose that Ordinance No. 817 was unanimously approved, with you present, to undertake this project with respect to Summit Avenue. c. Ordinance No. 817 provided that residents benefitting from the sewer line installation on Summit Avenue should pay their proportional part of the costs to defray the money spent for materials to be purchased by the Borough for this project and the labor by Borough employees to install this line. d. Because of the proximity of two homes on Juniata Avenue to the Summit Avenue sewer project it was proposed that a connector line be constructed to accommodate these two properties owned by the March and Jewett families. e. The minutes of the Council meeting of February 8, 1983 reveal that Ordinance No. 825 was presented for consideration. 1) Ordinance No. 825 indicated the Summit Avenue sewer project was completed as of January 11, 1983, set the service fee to be assessed against the property owners benefitted by the project at $1,000 and set the deadline for payment of this fee. 2) Councilman Tacik made a motion to adopt this Ordinance as read which was seconded by Councilman Pepe, but the vote on adoption ended in a 3 -3 tie, with you voting against adoption, which required that consideration of the Ordinance be postponed until the next meeting. _ f. Council considered Ordinance No. 825 at their March 8, 1983 meeting and at that time upon the advice of the Solicitor who concluded that the Summit and Juniata Avenue sewer lines should be considered as one project and that costs of these lines should be apportioned among all the property owners benefitted from the project, the Ordinance was not adopted and you voted against adoption. g. Council considered Ordinance No. 825 again at their meeting of April 12, 1983 at which time it was adopted by a 3 -2 vote, with you voting in favor of adoption. 1) Ordinance No. 825 as adopted authorized assessment of costs except as to the March and Jewett properties (See No. 2, d above). 2) You had requested that these two properties be removed or deleted from Ordinance No. 825. Thomas Urbanski April 13, 1984 Page 3 h. Also at the April 12, 1983 meeting, Ordinance No. 828 regarding the Juniata Avenue sewer project and the March and Jewett properties, in particular, was presented but held over until another meeting following discussion as to how much to assess these property owners for the sewer line installation. i. Ordinance No. 828 was again presented at the June 14, 1983 Council meeting but no action was taken on it at that time. j. The minutes of the Council meeting of July 12, 1983 indicate that Ordinance No. 828 was presented for consideration, passed by a unanimous vote in which you participated and contained an assessment of $1,000 with respect to the March and Jewett properties on Juniata Avenue. 3. The minutes of Council of September 13, 1983 record that the total costs of the Summit Avenue project and the Juniata Avenue cost were: a. Summit Avenue: $28,000, including Payroll - $5,695.92; Materials - $6,660.74 and Paving - $11,611.51. b. Juniata Avenue: $2,052, including - Payroll - $1,455.76; and Materials - $697.14. 4. At the September 13, 1983 meeting you made a motion, seconded by Councilman Stinner to charge the owners on Juniata Avenue (March and Jewett) $500 as their share of the cost of the installation of the sewer line and this motion passed by a 4 -3 margin. 5. You are self - employed as a master plumber. 6. You were contacted by James and Sylvinia March and asked to install the sewer line tap -in from their home on Juniata Avenue to the main sewer line installed by the Borough. a. You did not accept this work or job. b. You referred the Marchs to James Partyka, a journeyman plumber. c. James Partyka performed the installation work requested by the Marchs and was paid for this work by them. d. You did not receive any payment or money from the Marchs or James Partyka with respect to this sewer tap -in line or otherwise. Thomas Urbanski April 13, 1984 Page 4 7. A sewer tap -in line must be inspected and a sewer plan filed with the Allegheny County Board of Health as mandated by law. a. Only a master plumber can file, certify and register the required sewer plan. b. You filed the plan with respect to the March property, but you were not paid any fee for this service and the homeowner paid the $18 fee for filing this plan. c. You had performed the task of certifying filing and registering sewer line plans with the County as a master plumber without charge or accepting a fee for other residents of the Borough as a service to those residents. 8. You explained you voted in favor of the $500 charge to the March and Jewett properties (See No. 4, above) because the distance of the final tap -in to the sewer line was considerably less for the Juniata Avenue properties (March and Jewett) than it was with respect to the Summit Avenue properties and the "rebate" was based upon the recommendations of the Solicitor and the costs of the projects. B. Discussion: As an elected Borough Councilman you are a "public official" and your conduct as such must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act. Section 3(a) 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). Section 3(a) mandates that you may not use your votes as a public offical to favor your own interests. In this situation, however, we find no evidence that your votes to reduce the assessment on the March property were designed to or operated to your personal financial benefit. You did not seek, secure or perform any installation services for the March property nor did you receive any payment associated with same. The service you performed in certifying and filing the March property sewer line plan does not violate Section 3(a) or indicate you used your votes on Council to your own benefit. Thomas Urbanski April 13, 1984 Page 5 Likewise, with respect to Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act,:we find no violation. Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act states: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (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). There is no evidence that you were offered or accepted anything of value with respect to your votes on the Juniata Avenue projects or that your votes were cast on an understanding that a financial reward, such as a sewer -line installation job, would follow a favorable vote. Should you have any questions about when you should abstain from participating in Council's decisions on certain matters, you should be guided generally by our Opinion in Sowers, 80 -050 (copy attached) and request a specific opinion as needed. C. Conclusion: There is no violation of Sections 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics Act upon these facts as found and discussed above. 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. Thomas Urbanski April 13, 1984 Page 6 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 Att. By the Commission, aul J. Stn"ith Chairman