HomeMy WebLinkAbout324 GlovaMr. Eugene Glova
c/o Richard J. Green, Esq.
305 Franklin Street
Johnstown, PA 15901
Re: No. 83 -22 -C
Dear Mr. Glova:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
May 24, 1984
Order No. 324
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 as Supervisor in Upper Yoder Township you acted as an
Agent /Sales Representative for Bankers Life Insurance Company, participated in
presentations to the Township and Township employees designed to sell life
insurance and pension plans and to convince the Township or Township
employees to place /purchase such coverage from /with Bankers Life. These
actions may have violated Section 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act.
A. Findings:
1. You served as a Supervisor in Upper Yoder Township, hereinafter the
Township and as such are subject to the terms and provisions of the Ethics
Act. You began serving as Township Supervisor in January, 1978 and left
office in January, 1984.
2. Early in 1982 the Township Supervisors decided to update the Police and
Municipal Workers' pension plans but there was no official action taken at
this time at any meeting of the Supervisors in regard to any changes.
a. At the time the Police pension programs were administered by
L. Walter Coble Associates.
b. At the time the road crew pension programs were administered_ by
Robert F. Huebner and Associates.
c. Both of these programs were basically funded by the purchase of
whole life insurance policies with a "side" or contingency fund
as well.
Eugene Glova
Page 2
b. You had been placed in contact with Clark by
Manager with the Bankers' Pittsburgh Office.
c. You had been placed in contact with Costanzo
mutual friend.
May 24, 1984
d. The whole life policies associated with the police pension program
were placed with Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company and
Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company.
e. The whole life policies associated with the municipal road workers
program were placed with Putnam Growth Fund, Templeton Growth Fund,
Lincoln Life Insurance and Volunteer State Life Insurance Company.
3. a. Early in 1982 you contacted Ronald Clark, hereinafter Clark, a Pension
Specialist for Bankers' Life Insurance Company, hereinafter Bankers'
to examine the Township police and municipal pension plans.
Joseph Costanzo, Agency
by introduction by a
4. During August, 1982, Clark made a presentation to the Township's policemen
regarding their pension plan and you were present during this session.
a. During this session, you provided assistance in explaining the
advantages of the Bankers' plan to the police officers, answering
questions and advocating that a switch or "rollover" to Bankers'
would be beneficial.
b. No final decisions were made at this session as to changing the
pension Alen.
c. You approached at least three of the Township police officers
individually to advise them of the Bankers' program and to persuade
them that a "rollover" was beneficial to their interests and these
officers understood that part of the benefit of a change to Bankers'
would be greatly increased monthly pension payments.
5. Following this presentation the police officers expressed a desire to
receive information and presentations from other insurance and pension
companies, but the only other company permitted to or invited to make a
presentation was the current carrier, Walter Coble Associates.
6. In September, 1982 the Supervisors had prepared and circulated to the
police and road workers, a memorandum asking these employees if they felt it
was beneficial to change and secure pension coverage with Bankers.
Eugene Glova
Page 3
May 24, 1984
a. The proposed coverage would convert the whole life program funded by
whole life policies to a group life insurance one with a group
annunity arrangement.
b. Of the 11 workers whose names appeared on the memorandum, seven
responded by checking the column "yes," indicating their agreement
with the proposal of changing to Bankers'; one employee was noted as
being "on vacation "; and three employees did not appear to respond in
that they did not sign their names on the space provided or check the
"yes" or "no" column.
c. As to the three employees who originally did not respond (see b,
above) to the memorandum, you approached at least two of these persons
to persuade them that the change to Bankers' should be made and these
persons recall that the indication was made to them that the decision
was already made to change to Rankers' so they had no choice but to
agree /comply with the change.
d. Subsequently, in a memorandum separate from the September 1, 1982
memorandum referred to above, the three employees who originally did
not respond to this proposed change to Bankers' (see b, above) and who
were approached by you (see c, above) signed a memo dated September
21, 1982 and stated as follows: "We agree with a decision to change
to Bankers' Life."
7. Minutes of the Township Supervisors' meetings disclose the following:
a. 2/2/82 - Motion by Cowie, second by High, that whoever serves on the Board
of Supervisors will serve as Trustees for the municipal pension plan.
Approved unanimously.
b. 8/17/82 - You report you are still receiving pension proposals.
c. 9/21/82 - You called for an Executive Session to discuss Township
employees' pension plan. Cowie seconds. Regular meeting reconvened thirty
minutes later.
- You made a motion that Joseph Costanzo he named Agent of Record to advise
the Supervisors on various proposals for pension plans. Motion carried
unanimously.
d. 9/30/82 - Special Meeting. You made a short presentation of pension plans
and stated both police and municipal workers desire change from outdated whole
life to new concept of term life and change to a new carrier.
Eugene Glova
Page 4
May 24, 1984
- You made a motion, seconded by Cowie, that the administration of police
pension program be transferred from Walter Coble Associates to Bankers' and
the motion passed unanimously.
- You made a motion, seconded by Cowie, that the administration of the
Township municipal workers' pension plan be transferred from Huebner
Associates to Bankers' and the motion passed unanimously.
- You made a motion, seconded by Cowie, that the Township purchase group term
insurance, separate from pension plan funding, on all Township employees from
Bankers' and that a check in an amount of $270 payable to Wells Fargo, the
Trustee, be submitted to cover the first month's premium and the motion passed
unanimously.
- You made a motion, seconded by Cowie, that Section 2 of Ordinance #143,
ordained and enacted November 21, 1974 be amended to read death benefits of
life insurance policies purchased on the lives of police officers may be
either whole life or term policies and the motion passed unanimously.
8. Correspondence between the Township Supervisors and Walter Coble Associates
hereinafter Coble, confirm the following:
a. 9/1/82 - Coble letter to the Township explaining the Minnesota Mutual Fund
Agreement and a statement of the assets of both Provident Mutual and Minnesota
Mutual.
b. 9/7/82 - Letter from Township Secretary to Coble requesting information
concerning changes in the police pension fund no later than 9/15/82.
c. 9/15/82 - Coble reply advising of changes that could be made in the police
pension plan.
(1) Coble advised a switch to term insurance was not possible
under the present plan but by transferring funds from the
Provident Fund to the Minnesota Mutual Fund and interest
rate of 13% would be guaranteed for two years.
(2) Termination of the Provident Fund which contained $96,987
would result in a $25,950 penalty unless taken over a
five -year period.
d. 10/7/82 - Letter from Township Secretary to Coble advising that the
Township Supervisors elected to move the police pension funds to Bankers'.
Eugene Glova
Page 5
May 24, 1984
9. The Township received funds as follows as a result of terminating the
police pension plan with Coble:
a. 12/6/82 - Letter from Minnesota Mutual terminating premium deposit fund
and enclosing check in an amount of $106,832.18.
b. 12/13/82 - Benefit memo from Provident Mutual enclosing check in amount of
$71,037.02. That amount was less $25,950, an adjustment from book value to
market value made by Provident when the deposit administration account was
terminated. See No. 8, c(2) above. The book value was $96,987.
c. 1/31/83 Check in amount of $39,283.48 received by the Township from
Minnesota Mutual representing the cash value of 33 life insurance policies on
Township police.
10. Huebner Associates, Putnam Growth Fund, Templeton Growth Fund, Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company and Volunteer State Life Insurance Company
were notified by letter dated 10/7/82 from the Township Secretary that
as of 10/1/82 the municipal workers pension funds were being transferred to
Bankers' Life.
11. The Township received funds as follows as a result of terminating the
municipal workers' pension plan with Huebner Associates.
a. 11/9/82 - $34,391.09 received from Volunteer State Life representing the
cash surrender value of (16) insurance policies taken out on Township workers.
b. 11/10/82 - $3,447.06 received from Lincoln National Life representing cash
surrender values of municipal workers' insurance policies.
c. 1/3/83 - $6,370.46 received from Lincoln National Pension representing
lump sum payouts for six insurance policies.
d. 2/10/83 - $32,305.06 received from Templeton Growth Fund.
Eugene Glova
Page 6
May 24, 1984
12. Correspondence between the Township and Bankers' Life confirm the
following:
a. 6/14/82 - Letter from Pension Specialist Ronald Clark requesting
information on Township municipal workers.
b. 8/11/82 - Letter from Clark to you explaining pension proposals and
requesting a meeting for 8/17/82.
c. 10/7/82 - Clark memo to Supervisor Richard High with materials for
applying to Bankers'. Costanzo commission acknowledgment and group annunity
application attached.
d. 10/13/82 - Memo from D. P. Carter, Bankers' Vice - President, expressing
thanks for applying to Bankers'.
e. 10/20/82 - Memo from Clark requesting government certification letter on
group term insurance.
f. 11/1/82 - Letter from G. David Hurd, Bankers' Vice - President, thanking the
Township Supervisors for selecting Rankers' Deposit Administration Group
Annuity contract.
13. Payments to Bankers' were made by the Township as follows:
a. 10/1/82 - $270 application deposit for first month's term insurance
premium drawn from the Township's General Fund Checking Account ( #50- 02480).
b. 10/8/82 - $28,725.93 drawn from the Township Police Pension Fund Checking
Account ( #50- 02506), Check #111, represented yearly contribution from
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
c. 10/14/82 - $100 drawn from the Township's General Fund Checking Account
(application deposit).
d. 11/17/82 - Check #113 drawn on the Township's Municipal Pension Fund
Checking Account ( #50- 05541) in an amount of $34,391.09.
- Check #114 - drawn on the Township's Municipal Pension Checking
Account ( #50- 05541) in an amount of $3,447.06.
e. 12/8/82 - $106,832.18, check #111, drawn on the Township's Police Pension
Fund Checking Account (350- 02506).
Eugene Glova
Page 7
May 24, 1984
f. 12/17/82 - $71,037.02, check #112, drawn on the Township's Police Pension
Fund Checking Account.
g. 1/5/83 - $6,370.46, drawn on the Township's Municipal Workers' Pension
Fund Checking Account ( #50- 05541).
h. 2/3/83 - $39,283.48, drawn on the Township's Police Pension Fund Checking
Account ( #50- 02506), credited by Bankers to the General Asset Fund.
i. 3/1/83 - $32,315.06, drawn on the Township's Municipal Workers Pension
Fund Checking Account ( #50- 05541), credited to the General Asset Fund.
14. The telephone numbers of the Township's Municipal office are 814 -255 -5243
and 814 - 255 -6073.
a. A review of the records of calls made from these numbers reveals that
during the period immediately prior to the change -over from Coble and
Huebner to Bankers', you placed numerous calls to both the offices and
homes of Bankers' Pension Specialist Clark and Agency Manager Costanzo.
b. One such telephone call by you was made to Clark's home at 10:41 p.m.
on 9/21/82 from another phone in the Johnstown area. The call was made
after the Township Supervisors' meeting where you recommended
converting the pension plan to Bankers'.
c. After Lhis 9/21/82 Township Supervisors' meeting convened you made a
59- minute telephone call to the home of Joseph Costanzo at 10:45 p.m.
The call was made from another phone in the Johnstown area but billed
to the Township.
d. Other calls to Costanzo's home were made on 12/13/82 and 1/2/83.
e. On the same date that Joseph Costanzo was scheduled to be interviewed by
the State Ethics Commission Investigator in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
April 25, 1983, you made a 26- minute call to Costanzo immediately prior
to that interview. The call, which was made to the Bankers' offices,
was made frim another phone and billed to the Township.
15. The calls referred to in No. 14 above and other calls you admit to making
are as follows:
Eugene Glova
Page 8
Date
1) 5/14/82 412 -281 -8313
2) 5/19/82
3) 6/14/82
4) 9/21/82
9/21/82
6) 9/22/82
7) 9/23/82
8) 9/26/82
9) 9/27/82
10) 10/7/82
11) 10/25/82
12) 10/27/82
13) 11/16/82
14) 10/29/82
15) 12/6/82
16) 12/14/82
17) 12/16/82
18) 12/20/82
Number
Called
412 - 367 -2355 Home of
Joseph
Costanzo
412 - 281 -9516
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 835 -9516
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 -281 -8313
412- 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -5483
19) 12/23/82 412 - 281 -8313
20) 12/23/82 412 - 281 -8313 "
Number
Identified as: Time
Office of
Ronald Clark
Home of
Ronald Clark
Office of
Ronald Clark
Home of
Ronald Clark
Office of
Ronald Clark
Office
Joseph
Office of
Ronald Clark
3:27 p.m. 26 min. Johnstown
area phone
3:33 p.m.
12:22 p.m.
10:45 p.m.
10:41 p.m. 3 min.
12:01 p.m. 1 min.
9:38 a.m. 1 min. $ 1.01
10:51 p.m. 28 min. Twp. office $ 4.82
3:25 p.m.
3:29 p.m.
3:27 p.m.
9:52 p.m.
9:22 a.m.
11:30 a.m.
9:40 a.m.
11:46 a.m
1:59 p.m.
of 1:36 p.m.
Costanzo
May 24, 1984
Call made
Duration from
8 min.
43 min.
59 min.
6 min. Twp. office
3 min. Twp. office
2 min. Twp. office
1 min. Twp. office
1 min. Twp. office
1 min. Twp. office
1 min. Twp. office
1 min. Twp. office
Cost
$ 8.58
$ 2.38
$12.00
$10.66*
$ 1.01
1 min. Johnstown $ 1.01
area phone
$ 1.71
$ .93
$ .67
$ .41
$ .41
$ .41
$ .41
$ .41
89 min. Glova pri. $23.89
office - Ebensburg
10:00 a.m. 1 min. another $ 1.01
phone in
Johnstown
11:24 a.m.
1 min. another $ 1.01
phone in
Johnstown
Eugene Glova May 24, 1984
Page 9
Date
21) 2/31/82 412 - 367 -2355
22) 1/2/83 412 - 367 -2355
23) 1/4/83 412- 281 -8313
24) 1/17/83 412 -281 -0409
25) 1/17/83 412 -281 -5483
26) 2/19/83 412 -281 -8313
27) 1/4/83
28) 2/3/83
29) 2/14/83
30) 2/14/83
Number
Called
412- 281 -8313
412 -281 -8313
412 - 281 -8313
412 - 281 -5483
31) 3/7/83 412 - 281 -8313
32) 3/16/83 412 - 281 -8313
*33) 4/25/83 412 - 281 -8313
34) 4/26/83 412- 281 -8313
* billed to Township
11
11
Number
Identified as: Time
Home of
Joseph
Costanzo
Office of 1:58 p.m.
Joseph Costanzo
Call made
Duration from
Cost
1:58 p.m. 1 min. another $ 1.01
phone in
Johnstown
4:29 p.m. 17 min. another
phone in
Johnstown
Private number 4:00 p.m. 63 min. another
Costanzo phone in
Johnstown
7 min.
another
phone in
Johnstown
$ 2.42
Office of 11:13 a.m. 1 min. Twp. office $ .41
Ronald Clark
$16.85
$ 2.57
Office of 4:09 p.m. 1 min. Twp. office $ .41
Ronald Clark
11
Office of.
Joseph Costanzo
2:02 p.m.
2:51 p.m.
3:43 p.m.
4:19 p.m.
2 min.
1 min.
14 min.
25 min.
Twp. office
Twp. office
Twp. office
Twp. office
$ .67
$ .41
$ 3.79
$ 6.65
Office of 2:29 p.m. 8 min. Twp. office $ 2.23
Ronald Clark
2:26 p.m. 2 min. Twp. office $ .67
12:18 p.m. 26 min. another
phone in
Johnstown
$ 6.91*
11:26 a.m. 3 min. another $ 1.53
phone in
Johnstown
Eugene Glova May 24, 1984
Page 10
16. As noted in No. 7, c above you made the motion to appoint Joseph Costanzo as the
Township's Agent of Record as of 9/21/82.
a. Costanzo was named Agent of Record even though he works out of
the Pittsburgh office and at least two other insurance agencies in
the Johnstown area write pension plans for Bankers'.
b, Prior to this action on 9/21/82 you had discussions with Costanzo's
father -in -law about the possibility of Costanzo handling the Township
pension funds.
17. You made an application to the State Insurance Department for a resident agent
license to sell life, anruities and accident and health insurance for Bankers'.
a. State law requires that an individual seeking to sell insurance must have
the sponsorship of the Company for which he seeks to be licensed.
b. Joseph Costanzo, acting as Agency Manager for Bankers' acted as your sponsor
by endorsing your application to the State Insurance Department on
January 20, 1983 to become a resident agent for Bankers'.
c. Records of the State Insurance Department disclose that you were licensed
to sell insurance for Bankers' since January 23, 1983.
d. There is reason to believe that in April, 1982 you had approached
Bankers', through Joseph Costanzo and attended a meeting of prospective
Bankers' agents but did not become or make application to become a
Bankers' agent until some time later (See b, above).
18. Joseph Costanzo received a commission of $3200 as a result of the change to
Bankers' described above.
a. This commission was based upon a sliding scale of the total amounts involved
in the changeover.
b. Clark, who made presentations as described above, as a full -time employee
of Bankers' was ineligible to receive a commission.
Eugene Glova
Page 11
May 24, 1984
19. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that you received any commission or
money directly or indirectly as a result of the Township's change to Bankers.'
a. There is no evidence that any payments of the administrative costs
associated with the non - police pension funds were made from the funds
associated with the police pension program were made or designed to or did
benefit you personally.
b. There is no evidence that the rollover to Bankers', although different in
terms from the previous policies provided a benefit or gain to you personally,
especially insofar as you are no longs, serving as a Township Supervisor.
20. The Department of Auditor General, Bureau of Police Audits, conducted an audit of
the Township Police Pension Fund covering the period January 1, 1981 to December 31,
1981 in July, 1983. The audit report and letter dated August 2, 1983 made a number of
findings, including the following findings or comments:
a. Municipal police pension funds are controlled by the Act of May 29, 1956,
P. L. (1955) 1804 as amended, 53 P.S. 767 et. seq. (commonly known as
Act 600) and police pension funds are financed by allocations of
Commonwealth taxes on foreign casualty insurance premiums.
b. The Upper Yoder Township Police Pension Fund is governed by Township
Ordinance 133 adopted pursuant to Act 600.
c. Page 4 and Page 6 of the Audit Report refer to the $25,950 loss, See No. 8,
c(2) above, on the termination of deposit administration account with
Provident Mutual.
d. Page 9 refers to the potential conflict of interest regarding your being
a licensed agent with Bankers' and recommended that municipal officials should
take whatever action necessary to remove the possibility of such conflicts.
Such action recommended could include written notice to all municipal
officials of such potential conflict or disqualification of such officials
from decisions in which such an incompatibility could arise.
e. The report also found that the Township as custodian of the records of the
police pension fund, did not adequately maintain the Fund's record and thus it
was not possible for the Township to efectively monitor activity in the Fund's
accounts.
Eugene Glova
Page 12
May 24, 1984
21. Officials within the Office of the Auditor General further provided the following
information:
a. The provisions of Act 600 govern the amount of monthly pension a
retiring officer can receive. That monthly amount cannot be any
more than one -half of the monthly earnings at the time of retirement.
This is contrary to the impression of the officers you approached
to persuade them to change to Bankers' because their monthly pension
would be increased by such a change -over. See No. 4, c, above. They
were under the impression from you that a change would greatly increase
their pension paymants.
b. The change -over to Bankers' was initiated primarily to achieve a
higher rate of return on the Fund's assets and although there was
a loss associated with the change -over (See No. 8, c,(2) and
No. 20, c, above) the fact that the interest rate with Bankers'
might be higher made it difficult to predict the net loss or gain
to the Fund as a result of the change -over at least until late 1984
or early 1985 when the actual interest paid by Bankers' as a result
of management of the Fund could be reported and compared.
22. You served as an agent for Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company, (C.L.A.)
from September 9, 1978 until May, 1982.
a. During this period the Township negotiated a contract for its road and
clerical workers which included a package of health and accident
benefits to be placed with C.L.A.
b. You were agent on this C.L.A. policy, which was eventually to be
sold directly to the Union representing these Township employees
rather than to the Township and the Township agreed to contribute
the sums equivalent to the C.L.I. premium costs to a Union Disability
Income Fund.
c. The policy was sold as described in, b, above because the Township
Solicitor opined you had a legal conflict in acting as agent on this
C.L.A. policy if sold directly to the Township.
d. You received commissions totaling $971.42 as a result of this transaction.
Eugene Glova
Page 13
May 24, 1984
e. As of January 25, 1984 the Union's Counsel advised the Township that
the indirect payment of premiums for insurance provided by C.L.A.
by the Township to C.L.A. through the Union violated AFSCME's
Financial Standards Code and must be discontinued. As of February,
1984 the Township was being billed and paying premiums directly to
C.L.A. for this insurance for these Township employees.
B. Discussion: As a Township Supervisor you were a "public official" within the
meaning of the Ethics Act. See 65 P.S. 402. As such your conduct must conform to the
requirements of the Ethics Act. The provisions of the Ethics Act most applicable to
this case are reprinted below for ease of reference:
Section 1. Purpose.
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 candidates 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. 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).
Eugene Glova
Page 14
May 24, 1984
(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 candidatL
for public office would be influenced thereby.
65 P.S. 403(b).
We have carefully reviewed the facts as found above and your conduct in light
of the Ethics Act. We have found insufficient evidence to find a violation of
Section 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics Act as outlined above. We are, however, concerned
that your conduct and specifically your attempts to convince Township employees to
change to Bankers' and your role immediately prior to your involvement with the
Bankers' change in the placement and selling of C.L.A. disability insurance policies
to cover Township road and clerical workers (See No. 22 above).
While we have not discovered direct evidence of any financial gain you received
through commissions on the transfer to Bankers' unlike the role you played vis -a -vis
C.L.A., we are distressed that your role with Bankers' was bound to lead to an
appearance of a conflict of interest. Particularly, you have been advised to avoid
the direct Township- C.L.A. purchase plan (See No. 22 above) in order to remove
conflicts in the role you played as agent (seller) and Supervisor (purchaser) of these
policies. Then, less than six months later you were actively engaged in "selling"
Township employees on the change to Bankers'. You must be presumed to have heard the
advice of the Solicitor as to your C.L.A. involvement, but failed to see any similar
problem with respect to Bankers'. In fact, as outlined above, it is reasonable to
conclude that you were aware of restrictions on your activities to act directly and
overtly as agent for Bankers' as you had with C.L.A. so you did all the "selling" and
persuading, short of technically acting as agent, possible.
We recognize you were not licensed as a Bankers' agent until January, 1983, well
after the Township voted to change to Bankers' on October 7, 1982. Also, we cannot
find evidence that you received any payments as commission or otherwise unlike the
C.L.A. sale which would place you in direct violation of Section 3(a) or (b).
Eugene Glova
Page 15
May 24, 1984
However, there can be little public confidence or trust in a public official who is so
vigorous in his sales tactics as were evident and found above as to the Township's
employees and who then seeks and secures the sponsorship of the Company to become that
Company's agent for whom he has so recently "labored." Under all these circumstances
your conduct gave rise to an appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
Your future conduct should you again serve as Supervisor must conform to the
requirements of the Ethics Act where you seek to ply your trade of insurance vis -a -vis
the Township. Specifically, you must:
1. Comp?y with the provisions of Section 3(c) of the
Ethics Act where applicable as set forth below:
Section 3. Restricted Activities.
(c) No public official or public employee or a member
of his immediate family or any business in which
the person or a member of the person's immediate
family is a director, officer, owner or holder of
stock exceeding 5% of the equity at fair market
value of the business shall enter into any
contract valued at $500 or more with a
governmental body unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process,
including prior public notice and subsequent
public diclosure 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)
2. Abstain from any decisions, votes and discussions
as to the placement of Township business with any firm,
company, etc. where you are or expect to be an agent,
whether you receive(d) a commission or not.
C. Conclusion: We cannot discern sufficient evidence to conclude that you violated
Section 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics Act. However, your conduct as described above,
created an appearance of a conflict of interest with the public trust.
Eugene Glova
Page 16
May 24, 1984
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).
HBC /jc