Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout330-R AndersonMr. James I. Anderson c/o Anthony S. Guido, P.C. P. 0. Box 585 DuBois, PA 15801 Re: No. No. 84 -02 -C No. 82 -121 -C Dear Mr. Anderson: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Fehruary 18, 1986 Order No. 330 -R Order No. 331 -R 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. You have, through your counsel, by way of letter dated January 28, 1986, agreed to waive your right to a full evidentiary hearing before the State Ethics Commission. As a result, the Commission is proceeding based upon the investigative record in this matter. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That yo have had township employees cut and haul firewood to your residence and that this is a use of public office or confidential information in a violation of Section 3(a) of the .Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). A. Findings: 1. You served as a Supervisor in Sandy Township from January, 1980 until January, 1984 when you resigned. a. As a puhlic official, you are subject to the State Ethics Act. 2. During 1981, Township road crews cleared rights -of -way on Kiwanis Trail and Platt Road. a. Property owners on hoth roads had stated that the wood cut should he divided equally among the workers. h. This statement by the property owners was generally known. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 2 3. You received some of the wood and it was delivered to your home with township trucks operated by township employees. a. You admit receiving the wood but deny having it hauled to your residence with township equipment operated by township employees. b. Any of the men working on this job could have and some did receive some of the wood. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: Section 3.. Restricted Activities. (a) No puhlic official or public employee shall use his puhlic 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). While you admitted receiving some of the wood, it was generally known that this wood was available to the employees of the township and some other employees also received some of it. Although township equipment and employees were used to haul the wood to your residence, the disposition of the wood appears to have been approved by the township supervisors as the best way for the township,. Under these circumstances we find no violation of Section 3(a) because there is insufficient evidence that you used your office or confidential information gained through that office for personal financial gain. C. Conclusion: We find no violation of Section 3(a) under the above circumstances because of insufficient evidence and will take no further action on this allegation. II. Allegation: That you, a Township Supervisor, participated in union contract negotiations and agreed to pay increases which directly benefitted you and that this is a use of your public office or confidential information and a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). A. Findings: Irr addition to Finding PJo. 1 as set forth above which is incorporated here by reference, we make the following: 4. You participated, as one of three supervisors, in representing the township management in negotiations in 1982 hetween the township and township employees. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 3 a. You stated that the township employees were given substantial wage increases to make the road crew's wages comparable to other municipalities in the area and specifically cited Benzinger Township. b. One of the supervisors _proposed a wage freeze for 1982 but that was overruled. c. John Anderson, your brother, was one of the union negotiators. d. Mr. Edgar Moore, an AFSCl1E union representative since 1975, was not included in the final negotiations. He was not invited to any meetings after making an initial proposal. He did not complain about being left out of the negotiations because the wage increases granted the road crew were significant and surprised him. e. You and your brother, John Anderson, conducted the final negotiations. 5. As a standard practice, the auditors set a higher pay rate for supervisors employed as roadmasters than members of the road crew. a. The auditors took this action because they believed supervisors were management personnel who had greater responsibility than other road crew members. b. In 1982, the auditors set the wages of supervisors serving as roadmasters and /or superintendents at $7.25 per hour. c. For 1982, the auditors at a meeting on January 13, 1982, approved a •- wage of $6.09 per hour for you while serving as a laborer on the road crew. The rest of the road crew also earned $6.09 per hour. This wage was established at a special meeting of the auditors because they had established wages only for supervisors employed as roadmasters at the organizational meeting and were not aware that you had not been appointed as a roadmaster. d. At another meeting on February 19, 1982, the auditors set a wage of $6.75 per hour for you and approved overtime payment. (1) There were a number of discussions about your wage rate. .(2) Township payrolls for 1982 show you were paid at different rates at various times. 6. Prior to being elected as a supervisor, you were a member of the union which represented the roadworkers. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 4 a. You stated that you withdrew from the union after becoming a supervi sor. b. You received union cards from 1980 to 1983 but union dues were not deducted from your pay, therefore, you were not considered a union member. 7. You negotiated an addendum to the contract which would have allowed any employee elected to office to be granted a leave of absence from the union for no more than six years. The seniority of employees in this classification would continue to accumulate during this leave of absence. a. You were the only official who would have benefitted from this agreement. B. Discussion: b. There is some question whether you signed this agreement on the same date as it was signed by the union representatives. c. At a subsequent date, both township management and .the union refused to honor this addendum. Section 3(a), already cited, is again the Section against which your actions must be reviewed. The negotiations and contract between Sandy Township and the union are not subject to our jurisdiction and, therefore, not a part of this discussion. It would also he inappropriate for us to revi the amount of wages and benefits agreed to in the final contract. We are concerned only with whether you used your office or confidential information gained through that office for financial gain. In the 1982 negotiations, there were two significant differences from prior contract negotiations. First, Mr. Edgar Moore, who had participated as the union representative in negotiations since 1975, was not invited to participate after he made the initial proposal. Secondly, John Anderson, your brother, was the principal union negotiator for the final negotiations. During these negotiations, you were aware of the auditors' standard practice of setting wages of township supervisors employed as roadmasters on the road crew higher than other workers on the crew and would have realized that the wage rate you agreed to for the union would serve as a base for your wage rate when the auditors established it. We also have serious concern about the contract addendum. While we cannot resolve the question of whether your signature appeared on this agreement at the same time as it was signed by the union members or was added later, your participation in a negotiation which would apply specifically and only to you because of your former union membership would appear to be a conflict of i nterest. The subsequent decision by the Sandy Township management and the union not to honor this agreement eliminated the possibility that you would realize personal financial gain. However, this action could have financially benefitted you and as a result, James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 5 you were placed in a position of conflicting interests. While we believe that a conflict of interest did develop in this matter, we find insufficient evidence to conclude that you violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: We find no violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act but your activities did create a conflict of interest and such must be avoided in future actions. III. Allegation: That you used a township truck for transportation to hunt and that this is a use of public office and or confidential information and, thus, a violation of Section 3(a), 65 P.S. 403(a). A. Findings: In addition to Finding No. 1 as set forth above which is incorporated here by reference, we make the following: 8. During 1980, 1981 -82 and 1983, you used your township truck for transportation to and from work. 9. There is no evidence that you used township equipment for transportation for hunting. B. Discussion: The prohibitions of Section 3(a) have been stated previously and apply also to this allegation. t•!hile you used a township truck for transportation to and from work, we find insufficient evidence that you used township equipment for transportation for hunting and, therefore, find no violation of Section 3(a). C. Conclusion: Having found insufficient evidence that you used township equipment for transportation for hunting, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and will take no further action. IV. Allegation: That you, as a township supervisor, used township equipment and employees to level land on a landfill operated on your property and that this is a use of your public office or confidential information and, thus, a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). A. Findings: In addition to Finding No. 1 as set forth above which is incorporated here by reference, we make the following: 10. On July 3, 1869, Grace Anderson, your mother, conveyed property in Sandy Township to you. This property was described as "on the westerly side of Township Road T 398, bordered by land of Grace Anderson and Earl and Elaine Vickland." James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 6 11. On November 15, 1976, you entered into a lease agreement with Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc., State College, Pennsylvania. On this same date, your mother also entered into a lease agreement with this company. Both leases were for ten -year periods. a. This agreement leased the land which had been conveyed to you by your mother (Finding No. 10) in addition, your mother continued to own some land. b. You acted as agent for yourself and your mother for these agreements. c. This land was leased to Delta Excavating and Trucking, Inc. to be used as a landfill. They were responsible for acquiring any permits required for so operating this site. 12. On December 7, 1976, the Department of Environmental Resources acknowledged Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc.'s application for a permit to establish a demolition waste disposal site in Sandy Township on the property leased from you and your mother. The Department of Environmental Resources approved this site as Demo Site No. 8 hereinafter referred to on occasion as "the landfill" and issued Permit No. 101090 on January 4, 1977. 13. On March 7, 1980, Delta Excavating and Trucking, Inc. filed a complaint for a preliminary injunction listing you and your mother as defendants and alleging that you invited and permitted the dumping of demolition debris by other persons on the premises known as Demo Site No. 8 which you had leased to Delta. a. Miles Development Corporation of Clarion, Pennsylvania, had used this. landfill known as Demo Site No. 8 until this lawsuit was filed by Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc. b. Boccia Excavating and Contracting of Niles, Ohio had also used this site for dumping. c. The Township also used this site to store limited quantities of blacktop. d. On March 11, 1980, you signed an agreement and stipulation with Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc. to settle this suit on behalf of yourself and your mother. In this stipulation, you agreed that the lease of 1976 (See No. 11-above) remained in force, that you would provide 25 truckloads of dirt to he used as cover at the landfill, and that you would not allow dumping at this landfill by anyone except the Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 7 14. On November 12, 1981, Mr. Russell L. Crawford, Regional Solid Waste Manager, Meadville Region, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental Resources, notified Mr. John Niebauer, President of Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc., that Demo Site No. 8 was in violation of the Department of Environmental Resources' permit requirements and would be listed as an open dump if the conditions were not corrected. a. On January 10, 1982, the Department of Environmental Resources cited violations at the landfill involving cover, fire breaks, ground water monitoring, and vegetative growth. b. On February 9, 1982, James D. Greene, Solid Waste Specialist, DuBois, Pennsylvania, wrote to Mr. Niebauer and informed him that Demo Site No. 8 had been placed on the open dump list. 15. On February 22, 1982, you and Mr. Niebauer met with James Greene, Department of Environmental Resources, Solid Waste Management Specialist at the Department's fluBois office regarding violations at the landfill located on your property. At that meeting an agreement was reached between you and Mr. Niebauer where you agreed to cover, grade and seed the landfill by July 1, 1982 in accordance with Department of Environmental Resources' specifications. a. Mr. Greene confirms that the reason for the July 1, 1982 compliance date was your request to use cover material obtained from berm grading and ditch dredging from Township roads during the spring of 1982. b. This agreement also required Mr. Niebauer to deposit $1,500 in an escrow account of the Keystone National Bank of Pennsylvania. 16. An agreement dated February 74, 1982 was signed by you, Mr. Niebauer, President of Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc. and Kenneth L. Raybuck of Keystone National Rank, 2.00 N. Brady Street, DuBois, Pennsylvania, 15801. That agreement included the following: a. You agreed to place final cover on exposed waste and seed the area to Department of Environmental Resources specifications under terms and conditions described in a letter sent by James D. Greene, dated February 22, 1982," h. Mr. Niehauer placed $1,500 in escrow at the Keystone National Bank of DuBois, Pennsylvania. This money was to he released to you upon the Department of Environmental Resources approval of the work described in Mr. Greene's February 2.2 letter. c. The February 22 letter described the specifications for the cover material and revegetation. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 8 d. You signed this agreement in the presence of witnesses. e. On July 15, 1982, Mr. James E. Greene notified Mr. Kenneth Raybuck of the Keystone National Bank that final cover had been completed at the landfill to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Resources. 17. On May 10, 1982, at a township meeting, you reported that the landfill was closed and that the Department of Environmental Resources had directed that the township cover and plant grass by May 1, 1982, but you had told the Department of Environmental Resources it could not he done and they agreed to delay the deadline until July 1, 1982. At that same meeting, you asked for a motion to get prices to do this work. The motion was carried unanimously. You voted yes. Later it was decided that township employees would do this work. You did not mention the agreement of February 24, 1982 (See No. 16 above) at any township meeting. 18. The Department of Environmental Resources never directed the township to correct the problems at the landfill. 19. On July 17, 1982, Check No. 32272 made out to James Anderson for 31,514.09 was endorsed and cashed by you. The money was not turned over to the township. 20. Township payrolls for the period May 9 to May 22, 1982 show that ten township employees worked at the landfill on various days covering the exposed demolition waste. Road. a. On May 10, 1982, ten employees worked at the landfill and Beers h. On May 12, 1982, ten employees worked on the landfill and patched toads. c. On May 18, 1982, you worked on the landfill. d. On May 19, 1982, ten employees worked on the landfill and grading Hungry Hollow. e. On May 20, 1982, ten employees worked on the landfill and grading Bundy Road. f. On May 21, 1982, ten employees worked on the landfill and grading Daugherty Road. 21. There is no record of your reimbursing the township for the use of personnel , equipment or supplies at the landfill as outlined ahove. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 9 22. On September 21, 1984, the State Ethics Commission received a letter from your Attorney, Anthony S. Guido, containing information to be considered by the Commission as follows: a. Craig Powers was the rOadmaster, not you, during the time of the actions in question. b. Sandy Township stored blacktop material at your landfill and a good part of the wages in question were for township employees working to load or unload blacktop at that site. c. You paid the S1,500 which you received from escrow to Boccia and Peterson for fill at the site. d. The work performed by Sandy Township was in addition to the cost of the fill hauled by Roccia and Peterson and was done pursuant to the order of the Department of Environmental Resources. e. Only two employees worked at the project site. All other employees were there for the purposes of Sandy Township, purposes not related to filling or restoring the site in question. 23. On January 7, 1985, you were interviewed in the presence of your Attorney, Mr. Guido. During that interview, you made the following statements. a. Craig Powers was the roadmaster, not you, during the time of the actions in question. b. Much of the time the township workers spent on the landfill was working with township blacktop. c. The 51,500 which you received from escrow had nothing to do with Sandy Township. d. Work performed by township employees was to cover grade and seed creek dredgi ngs which you had al lowed the township to dump on your landfill and the work was done in accordance with the Department of Environmental Resources order. e. Only two_ empl oyees and you ever worked at the landfill and they worked for no more than two and a half days. 24. No records or documents were provided to the Commission in support of the inforration contained in the letter of Attorney Guido or in your statements. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 10 25. Based on the township payroll records and information from your attorney's letter and our interview of you in your attorney's presence, we find as follows : a. On May 18, 1982, you worked on the landfill. The cost to the township for wages was $48.72 (8 hours at $6.09 per hour). b. On May 19, 20, and 21st, 1982: c. Total amount expended for use of township employees and equipment is $1,123.00. (1) Three employees full -time at the land fill for three days. The cost to the township for wages was $463.92 (two employees) for three days, eight hours each day at $6.62 per hour; one employee for three days eight hours each day at $6.09 per hour). (2) Three truck drivers for three days one /half of the time. The cost to the township was $238.32 (three employees for three days, eight hours each day at $6.62 per hour, one /half of the time - extra time required to deliver to the land fill rather than township storage site. (3) Bull dozer operated at site at $25 per hour for 12 hours (estimated one /half usage during three days) the cost to the township was $300. (4) Grass seed purchased on May 12th and 19th at a cost to the township of $72. (5) The total cost to the township of the above was $1123.46. (6) Costs of gasoline for trucks and other supplies are not included in the above because there is no basis for reasonable estimate. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) is again the Section against which we must measure your activities. The principal facts pertinent to this allegation are well documented. You were deeded property in Sandy Township in 1969 and this property was subsequently leased to Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, Inc. to he used as a landfill. The lease ran for ten years and, therefore, was in force in 1982. You acted on behalf of your Mother and yourself in the lease agreement and the subsequent equity action which was filed in Clearfield County and settled by stipulation, thus, demonstrating your interest in and responsibility with respect to this landfill. In late 1981 and early 1982, the site was found to he in violation of Department of Environmental Resources' standards and on February 22, 1982, you agreed and subsequently signed an agreement as owner of the land with Mr. John Niebauer, President of Delta Excavating and Trucking Company, that you were personally responsible for and would cover, level and seed the areas of the James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 11 landfill which you were leasing to Mr. Niebauer and which were in violation. The township was in no way responsible for the conditions that led to the Department of Environmental Resources violations. Mr. Niebauer agreed to deposit $1,500 in an escrow account with the Keystone National Bank which would be paid to you when this Bank was notified that the conditions at the landfill had been corrected to the satisfaction of the Department of Envi rormental Resources. Although you claim the Department of Envi ronmental Resourcesorder was issued to cover the creek dredgings, you offer no evidence to support this claim and the Department of Environmental Resources files reveal no such order. On the other hand, we have the agreement you signed with Mr. Niebauer in which you agreed that you, not the township, were responsible for covering the fill at the site. In addition, although you initiated discussion and made a motion to have the township accept the responsibility for covering the site, you told the township supervisors that the Department of Environmental Resources _was requiring covering of the creek dredging material which had been dumped on your land by the township. Again, there is no evidence to support this contention. There are no documents which hold the township responsible or make the township responsible for the covering requi red by the Department of Environmental Resources. We also have the establishment of the escrow account making $1,500 payable to you upon completion of the work to satisfy the Department of Environmental Resources order. It is unlikely that the Department of Envirorm ental Resources would not record the township's responsibility regarding the landfill , i f in fact was the township's obligation to correct the problems as set forth in the Department of Environmental Resources citations'. It was also unlikely that the $1,500 would be escrowed for your personal use rather than for the township's use had the township been responsible for this situation. There is sufficient evidence to show that you admitted your personal obligation to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Environmental Resources order, that you used township employees and resources to perform much of this work and that you received and cashed a check for $1,500 upon completion of the work. Even if we were to assume that the township was responsible for performing the functions at landfill, then the 1,5110 that had been escrowed for this purpose should have been converted to the use of the township rather than endorsed and cashed by you. This money could have compensated the township for the use of the equipment and personnel for it to correct the problems on your personal landfill. We agree the work done at the landfill to cover the debris was done pursuant to the order of the Department of Environmental Resources but the evidence clearly supports a finding that this was your personal' responsihility. We also agree that you were not the roadmaster in 1982 but you did serve as chairman and you used your office to have the township supervisors vote to allow township employees to be used to do work for which you were personally responsible. You precipitated and participated in the township's actions which subsequently lead to the use of township resources to meet your personal obligations at the landfill. You did not, however, turnover to the township any part of this 51,500 that had been James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 12 escrowed specifically for the resolution of the problems at the landfill. We, thus, believe that your actions as a township supervisor in obtaining township resources to meet the obligations of the problems at the landfill, and your failure to reimhurse the township for these resources, constituted a violation of the State Ethics Act. - The penalties for violation of this Section are included in Sections 9(a) and (c) of the Act. These Sections state the following: Section 9. Penalties. (a) Any person who violates the provisions of Section 3(a) and (b) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,O00 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or he both fined and imprisoned. 65 P.S. 409(a). (c) Any person who obtains financial gain from violating any provision of this act, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S. 409(c). Additionally, Section 7(9)(iii) of the Ethics Act states: Section 7: duties of the commission. (9)(iii) Initiate an inquiry where an opinion has not been requested hut where there is reasonable belief that a conflict may exist. Such inquiry shall be conducted in privacy with full respect to the confidentiality of all the parties involved in the alleged conflict. If the commission finds that there is a conflict, the information shall he provided for criminal proceedings unless the alleged offender removes himself from the conflict with receiving financial gain. 65 P.S. 407(9)(iii). While the precise amount of financial gain you realized through this activity is difficult to estahlish, at the very least you received the !1,500 from the escrow account and had the henefit of the township's expenditures for work on your landfill. We believe that in the instant situation, you should reimburse the township the amount of funds that were escrowed in this matter. The total amount of funds escrowed at the time you obtained these monies consisted of the original S1,500 deposit and •14.09 in interest that had accrued thereon. We will not impose the trebel damages as set forth in the Ethics Act. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 13 C. Conclusion: You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by having township employees use township equipment in order to perform certain services at your private landfill. You did not turnover to the township $1,500 that had been placed into an escrow account in order to complete these services. As a result, you must remit to the State Ethics Commission, within thirty days of the date of this Order a, check in the amount of $1,514.09 made payable to Sandy township. V. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor in Sandy Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), by using township employees and equipment to move coal from the site of a highway accident to your personal residence. A. Findings: Finding Number 1 is incorporated herein by reference. 26. On June 15, 1981, Chief of Police Beers investigated an accident. a. A load of coal had been spilled on the highway and the owners did not want the coal. b. The coal was hauled to your home and later removed but its ultimate destination is unknown. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: Section T. 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). Although the coal was not township property, we must consider whether you, as a supervisor, used your office to have it hauled to your personal residence. While it was reported that you used township equipment to haul the coal to your residence, we are unable to find sufficient evidence to conclude that there was a violation of Section 3(a) and will take no further action on this allegation. C. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to find that you violated Section 3(a) in your activities disposing of coal spilled on the highway by an accident in June of 1981 and we will take no further action. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 14 VI. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor in Sandy Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), by selling scrap iron belonging to the township and keeping the money. A. Findings: In addition to Finding No. 1 as set forth above which is incorporated here by reference, we make the following: 27. You were in charge of selling township scrap metal and receivi ng the money for the township from these sales. a. Once or twice a year township workers accumulated scrap metal and took it to local companies for sale. h. Shakespeare and Sons Scrap Iron, DuBois, Pennsylvania, paid cash to you for scrap metal as follows: . May 29, 1981: . June 5, 1981: . October 4, 1983: $37.10 for 3,310 lbs. of tin. c. Gruda Metal Corporation, Sykesville, PA, 15865, paid you for scrap metal as fol 1 ows : • On September 3, 1981: $78.57, Check No. 26721, which you endorsed. • July 31, 1982: $ 8.10, Check No. 30005, which you endorsed. • October 13, 1983: $2.04.55, check No. 35767, which you endorsed. (1) This material was hauled to the Gruda Metal Corporation in trucks with township emblems on them. No money from the sale of scrap metal was turned over to the township during the periods noted above. (a) You stated you would use this money to pay for the Township Christmas Party but this was never done. 28. On September 17, 1984, the State Ethics Commission received a letter from Attorney Anthony S. Guido which set forth the following: a. The only scrap iron which you sold which was the property of Sandy Township was 3,310 pounds of tin on October 4, 1983 for you which you received $37.10 and an unspecified amount of scrap on October 13, 1Q83, for which you received 5204.55. (2) $40 for 100 lbs. of aluminum. $60 for 2,000 lbs. of iron and 100 lbs. of aluminum. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 15 b. All of the other materials were your property and sold for your own account. c. You agreed to reimburse the township for the amounts received from the sales of October 4, and 13. d. You had used all of the money for a Christmas party for the children of the township employees and flowers for funerals. His files contained receipts for the amounts you paid for those purposes. 29. On January 7, 1985, you were interviewed in Mr. Guido's presence. You stated the fol l owi ng : a. It was standard practice for the road crew to collect scrap, sell it and put the money toward a Christmas party and flower fund and this is what occurred throughout your time as a supervisor. b. You admitted receiving the checks for $37.10 and 5204.55 in payment for township scrap. c. This money minus a small amount used for flowers, was still in your possession. d. You intended to use the money for a township Christmas party in 1983, but it was never held. e. The money received for selling scrap on the other four occasions cited in our Order was for your personal property. f. The extra time and effort you had contributed to the township as a supervisor far outweighed any financial gain you had received. 30. The following statements made during your interview contradicted the information in your attorney's letter: a. You had not used the money received for selling township scrap for a Christmas party or flowers; you still had most of the money in your possession. b. You had no receipts for any of the money vinich you claim was spent for these purposes. 31. Neither you nor your attorney had documents or evidence to support your claim that some of the scrap was your personal property. James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 16 8. Discussion: We are again concerned with relating your actions to the prohibitions of Section 3(a). It is clear that you did not have the authority to sell township scrap iron and use the money for personal purposes. It is equally clear that you could not retain township funds, realized from the sale of township properties in your own possession because you had expected to spend it for a Christmas party in 1983 or for any other purpose. The expenditure of township funds requires approval by the supervisors as a body and you admit that you retained at least $242 of township funds. In addition, you have produced no evidence to show that the scrap sold in the four instances other than October 4, and October 13, 1983 was your personal property or that you used any of this money for township related purposes. We have evidence that the scrap sold an September 3, 1981 and July 31, 1982, was hauled to the (,ruda Medal Corporation in township trucks with the township emblems on them. The township records also show that you did not deposit money with the township from any of these sales. All of the evidence accumulated by the Commission indicates that the funds obtained to the sell of this scrap iron were converted to your own use. No evidence or information has been offered other than your statements-to support the fact that this money was used for other than your personal purpose. The financial gain you realized was $428.32. Sect ions 9(a) and (c) contain the penalties for violation of Section 3(a) as follows: Section 9. Penalties. (a) Any person who violates the provisions of Section 3(a) and (b) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or he both fined and imprisoned. 65 P.S. 409(a) . (c) Any person who obtains financial gain from violating any provision of this act, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S. 409(c). Additionally, Section 7(9)(iii) of the Ethics Act states: Section 7. Duties of the commission. (9)(iii) Initiate an inquiry where an opinion has not heen requested but where there is reasonable belief that a conflict may exist. Such inquiry shall he conducted in privacy with full respect to James I. Anderson February 18, 1986 Page 17 the confidentiality of al 1 the parties involved in the alleged conflict. If the commission finds that there is a conflict, the information shall he provided for criminal proceedings unless the alleged offender_ removes himself from the conflict with receiving financial gain. 65 P.S. 407(9)(iii). In the instant situation, we believe that you must reimburse the township for the funds that were received through the sell of the scrap iron. We will not, however, impose the three times penalty in this matter. C. Conclusion: You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by selling township scrap metal and keeping the money. You must remit to the State Ethics Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a check in the amount of 5428.32 made payable to Sandy Township. In addition to the foregoing, the State Ethics Act authorizes this Commission to make recommendations to law enforcement officials either for criminal prosecution or dismissal of charges arising out of violations of this Act. 65 P.S. , $409. In the instant matter, while we will make no affirmative recanmendati on for the initiation or dismissal of charges in this matter, we will make this order available to appropriate law enforcement officials for their own review and disposition. Additionally, the Commission believes that a 10% interest penalty should be included in the amount of funds set forth in conclusions No. IV & VI. See 51 Pa. Code 7.174. Summary of Conclusions: I. Conclusion: We find no violation of Section 3(a) under the above circumstances because of insufficient evidence and will take no further action on this allegation. II. Conclusion: We find no violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act but your activities did create a conflict of interest and must be avoided in future actions. III. Conclusion: Having found insufficient evidence that you used township equipment for transportation for hunting, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and will take no further action. IV. Conclusion: You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by having township employees use township equipment in order to perform certain services at your private landfill. You did not turnover to the township S1,500 that had been placed into an escrow account in order to complete these services. As a result, you must remit to the State Ethics Commission, within thirty days of the date of this Order, a check in the amount of 51,514.09 plus 10?; interest made payable to Sandy township. (Total 51665.40) James I. Anderson February 18, 1q86 Page 18 V. Conclusion: There is insufficient evidence to find that you violated Section 3(a) in your activities disposing of coal spilled on the highway by an accident in June of 1981 and we will take no further action. VI. Conclusion: You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by selling township scrap metal and keeping the money. You must remit to the State Ethics Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a check in the . amount of $428.32 plus 10% interest made payable to Sandy Township. (Total $471.15) As a result of the foregoing, you are required to submit to the State Ethics Commission, within thirty days of the date of this Order, a check in the amount of $2,136.64 representing the combined amounts set forth in the conclusions for allegations no.'s IV & VI above. This order is final and will be released as a public document three days after the issuance of 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). By the Cormission , - /� 6' Herbert B. Conner Ch"ai rman JJC /sfb James I. Anderson c/o Anthony S. Guido, P.C. Attorney At Law 109 North Brady Street P.O. Rox 5R5 OuBois, Pennsylvania 15804 Dear Mr. Anderson: EMS /rdp STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 March 12, 1986 I acknowledge receipt of your Personal Money Order No. 93914 in the amount of 12,136.64 payahle to the State Ethics Commission. This money order meets the requirements of Order Nos. 330 -R and 331 -R of the State Ethics Commission. As of February 24, 1986, Order Nos. 330 -R and 331 -R became public records. A copy of this letter will he made a part of these records. Our files will he closed in these matters. Sincerely yours, /Z-e4,4 Edward M. Seladones Executive Director