HomeMy WebLinkAbout353 LapriolaMr. Vito Lapriola
P. 0. Box 138
Avis, PA 17721
Re: No. 83 -160 -C
Dear Mr. Lapriola:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
November 28, 1984
Order No. 353
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 President of Borough Council in Avis Borough, you
participated in proposing, discussing and approving a housing
project /development in 1980 known as Oak Grove Gardens and subsequently, in
1982 both you and your wife were hired as employees at Oak Grove Gardens and
that the Borough is currently considering another housing project /development
where you may again be hired or serve as Manager. These actions allegedly
violate Section 3(a) and (b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a) and (b)
respectively.
A. Findings:
1. You have served as a member of Avis Borough Council since January, 1973
and have also served as Council President for most of those years. As an
elected official you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. As early as 1976, Avis Borough Council considered the possibility of an
elderly housing project being constructed in Avis Borough, hereinafter, the
Borough.
3. A housing canmittee was formed to discuss such possibilities and funding
sources. You have served on the housing committee.
4. Minutes of the meetings of Borough Council confirm the following:
a. February 11, 1976 - Special Meeting, Council unanimously adopted
Resolution #65 for the purpose of applying for funding
for (35) units of elderly housing. You voted in favor
of the Resolution.
Vito Lapriola
Page 2
b. December 13, 17 - Regular meeting, you moved and Councilman
seconded to borrow $10,000 from the State
Avis for the purchase of the Avis Elementa
This motion carried unanimously.
- Resolution #72. Borough Council unanimous
upon the location of the proposed site of
housing project for Avis. The project was
located at the former elementary school si
Short Street.
November 28, 1984
Ma rks
Bank of
ry School
ly agreed
the elderly
to be
to on
c. February 4, 1980 - At a regular meeting of Borough Council, Mayor Morton
reported on a survey for elderly housing; 435
interviewed with 168 "yes" votes and 38 "no" voted in
in regard to the interest in living in a unit within
within the Borough.
d. February 18, 1980 - Special Meeting. Funding for elderly housing
discussed. Michael Matsko, Farmers' Home
Administration (FHA) reported that Clinton County is a
target area for funding but probably no more than (40)
units would be approved.
e. March 3, 1980 - Regular meeting. Motion by Marks, second by Wolfe to
pass Resolution #82 authorizing the Mayor to execute
an option agreement between Alexander Properties of
Harrisburg and Borough Council for the purchase of the
old school property for the purpose of development of
elderly housing units.
f. June 2, 1980 - Regular Meeting. William Russell, along with John
Irvin and Stiles Williamson of the Clinton County
Housing Authority (CCHA), discussed funding
applications through FHA and PA Housing Finance
Agency for the elderly housing project.
g. July 7, 1980 - Regular Meeting. You reported of a meeting you and
Councilman Wolfe had with FHA concerning elderly
housing application. The Borough showed a new
application for 1.5 million for 42 units in 1980 and
1981. Application to be submitted before August 8,
1980 by Alexander Properties for the Borough.
h. July 15, 1980 - Special Meeting. Amendment passed to Section 601.c(1)
of the Zoning Ordinance of 1974 that at least one -half
(1/2) parking space per apartment be required. You
voted in favor of that amendment.
Vito Lapriola
Page 3
i. December 8, 1980 - Regular Meeting. You reported that the Borough had
been awarded (42) units of elderly housing by FHA
under Section 8.
j-
January 16, 1981
k. March 2, 1981
5. With relation to this
Gardens or the "project,"
Grove Associates on Augus
August, 1981.
November 28, 1984
- You stated you needed Council's approval before any
action could begin by the developer.
- Motion by Councilman Kehoe, seconded by Councilman
Wolfe to have the developer start the proper
procedure for the (42) units of elderly housing.
Motion passed unanimously.
- Special Meeting held regarding elderly housing
project. Tom Wenger, Alexander Properties, presented
two site plans: (1) HUD type project, two stories
high, designated SK -1A and (2) Garden type apartments,
designated SK -1B.
- Motion Kehoe, second Schomhl, to accept SK -1B plan.
Motion carried unanimously and you were present and
voted.
- Motion Wolfe, second by Schomhl, to name the units Oak
Grove Garden. Motion passed unanimously and you were
present and voted.
- Motion Wolfe, second Kehoe, that Oak Grove Gardens be
permitted to hook into the Borough sanitary sewer
system. Motion carried unanimously and you were
present and voted.
Housing Committee reported t
nearly completed and will be
Properties for the final appl
on March 16, 1981. The commi
agreement was signed between
Alexander Properties for the
housing complex.
hat the housing survey was
forwe rded to Alexander
ication to be submitted
ttee reported that an
Avis Borough and
development at the
project, hereinafter referred to as Oak Grove
application was made for a zoning permit by Oak
t 12, 1981 with construction to begin sometime after
a. Oak Grove Associates is a limited partnership and owner of the Oak
Grove Gardens.
Vito Lapriola
Page 4
November 28, 1984
b. Oak Grove Associates purchased the property on which Oak Grove
Gardens is built from the Borough.
6. Upon completion of the construction of Oak Grove Gardens, Oak Grove
Associates entered into an agreement executed on July 1, 1983 with the CCHA
whereby CCHA was to act as agent and manager of Oak Grove Gardens.
a. As revealed by a letter obtained from Borough records dated April 11,
1980 from you to Thomas Wenger, of Alexander Properties, there was some
possibility that this management arrangement with CCHA might be undertaken
because you wrote to Alexander Properties with respect to this project that:
"We (the Borough) are also encouraged by your plans to have the Clinton County
Housing Authority serve as the management agent for the proposed building."
b. The minutes of CCHA of February 13, 1981 show that CCHA Executive
Director reported that CCHA would agree with Oak Grove Associates to manage
Oak Grove Gardens.
c. A letter from Michael Matsko, District Director of FHA, dated
February 7, 1984 to Stephanie Malik of Oak Grove Associates states with
respect to the project that the "Management Agreement submitted to us (FHA) by
your letter of January 6, 1984 is approved by Farmers' Home Administration."
d. Under this agreement CCHA receives a management fee of 3.7% of the
gross revenues received from Oak Grove Gardens.
e. The management agreement entered into by the CCHA and Oak Grove
Associates gave virtually total control of the daily management of the project
to the CCHA and page 8, Item No. 15 of this agreement states that the CCHA has
the power to hire the necessary managerial and maintenance personnel for the
project.
7. John Irvin, Executive Director of CCHA, had "help- wanted" notice published
in the Lock Haven newspaper on September 22, 1981 to advertise for a
maintenance position at the housing complex located at Lock Haven which CCHA
also managed.
a. One hundred thirty -eight applications were received for that
position.
Vito Lapriola November 28, 1984
Page 5
b. According to Irvin, applications received as a result of this
advertisement were used when selecting the manager of Oak Grove Gardens.
c. No other notices or advertisements for the Oak Grove Garden manager's
position were placed or appeared in any newspapers or other local media.
8. You submitted an application for employment to John Irvin, Executive
Director of the CCHA on September 21, 1981, one day prior to this
advertisement appearing in the Lock Haven newspaper.
9. According to Irvin, all applications were reviewed by the Board of
Directors of the CCHA.
10. You stated you were interviewed by CCHA Executive Director John Irvin for
the manager's position of Oak Grove Gardens in late 1981.
11. At the time of your application for employment as outlined above:
a. You had 25 years of experience as a welder with Piper Aircraft but
had been furloughed from this job.
b. You had received a certificate from Central Career Correspondence
Schools on March 15, 1971 in Motel Management.
c. You had received a certificate from LaSalle Extension University on
December 21, 1973 in Motel /Hotel Executive Training.
d. The Rural Housing Specialist of FHA indicated that FHA guidelines for
hiring and determining qualifications of managers for housing complexes using
FHA guidelines are very flexible.
(1) Larger complexes demand a more experienced or trained
manager while smaller ones, such as Oak Grove Gardens,
require persons with basic maintenance and accounting
skills.
(2) This Specialist stated that because of the certificates
listed above, in his experience, he would consider you more
qualified than most managers hired for complexes similar in
size to Oak Grove Gardens, but that FHA is mainly concerned
that the compensation set for managers falls within mandated
ranges rather than with the qualifications or experience of
complex managers.
Vito Lapriola
Page 6
November 28, 1984
12. The minutes of CCHA for August 3, 1982 indicate that following an
executive session, the Board returned and the Chairman reported that the Board
agreed to hire you and your wife for the project managers of the new Borough
elderly housing.
13. Your employment with the CCHA as manager of Oak Grove Gardens commenced
on January 3, 1983 at an annual salary of $7,810. In addition, you and your
family were provided at no cost to you, an apartment in Oak Grove Gardens,
with a computed monthly rental of $505.
a. Your salary was increased to $8,810 effective January 3, 1984.
b. Your wife also earns $1,550 /yr. for five hours of clerical duties
each week as an employee of CCHA at Oak Grove Gardens.
14. Minutes of Avis Borough Council Meetings disclose that additional housing
projects have been discussed by Council. Those minutes confirm the following:
a. January 12, 1983 - Stiles Williamson of the CCHA and Bill Russell, 224
Development Company, discuss with Council multi - family
housing units that could be available in May or June.
A site on Martin Street was looked at by Russell.
- Motion Kehoe, second Brungard, to have the 224
Development Company apply for housing in the Borough's
name. Motion passed unanimously. You voted for that
motion.
b. March 7, 1983 - You reported of a possibility that the Borough could
receive 50 units of middle income housing and that the
developer was looking at a site on Summit Street. You
stated the units are only in the discussion stages.
c. July 5, 1983 - Petition presented by Robert Saul containing 256
signatures opposing additional housing.
You reported that Bill Pursell and Bill Russell
representing 24 Development Company would like to meet
with Council on August 8, 1983 to discuss the proposed
housing project.
15. You confirmed that a closed work session of the Borough Council was held
on August 8, 1983. Those attending were members of Borough Council,
representatives of the developer and John Irvin and Stiles Williamson of the
CCHA.
Vito Lapriola
Page 7
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).
November 28, 1984
a. The meeting was closed to the general public.
b. No decision on the housing project was made at that time and as of
this date, no definite decision on the proposed additional housing project has
been made.
c. Even if additional housing is approved by Council, there is no
guarantee that your employer, CCHA, will be chosen to manage any such housing
complex.
16. There is insufficient evidence to establish that your conduct as a public
official on Borough Council was influenced by an offer of future employment
with regard to Oak Grove Gardens or that you solicited or accepted such
employment on the understanding that your official judgment or actions would
be influenced thereby.
B. Discussion: As a member of Borough Council you are a public official
whose conduct must conform to the provisions of the Ethics Act. The Section
of the Ethics Act applicable here are Sections 3(a) and (b), reprinted below
for ease of reference:
Vito Lapriola
Page 8
November 28, 1984
As found above, there is insufficient evidence to establish a violation
of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. It cannot be stated that your votes or
judgment with respect to the Oak Grove Garden project were influenced in
violation of Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act. Likewise, there is no evidence
to establish a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. We cannot state
with any degree of certainty that you used your office or votes on Council to
benefit yourself or your wife or the CCHA by whom you both were after your
votes and by whom you both are presently employed. These conclusions,
however, do not end our review of this situation and further discussion is
requi red.
Specifically, even though no violation of Section 3(a) or (b) of the
Ethics Act can be established, we must review your conduct in light of the
provisions of Section 1 of the Ethics Act which states:
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.
Under Section 1 of the Ethics Act you must also strive to assure the
public that the public's interests do not conflict nor appear to conflict with
your personal financial interests. The timing of the Borough's approvals for
the Oak Grove Garden project did pre -date your appointment as manager there.
It is clear that CCHA was being considered as agent /manager for the Oak Grove
Gardens project as early as April 11, 1980 (See Finding No. 6, a). You did
not apply for a position with CCHA until September 21, 1981 (See Finding No.
8). But the circumstances of your application -- presented the day prior to
the advertisement and for a position other than the one for which you were
finally selected -- raise concerns. The Commission has stated that where a
Township Supervisor contracts with a developer whose plans were subject to
that Supervisor's review, the Supervisor must:
Vito La pri ola November 28, 1984
Page 9
(1) not use his official position to obtain
such employment;
(2) not utilize confidential information
gained in his official capacity to secure
such employment;
(3) refrain from voting on a developer's
plans where he will seek, has been
asked or can reasonably and
legitimately anticipate being asked to
perform work for the developer;
(4) refrain from voting on matters related
to a developer from whom he obtains
work where he as Supervisor may be
asked to vote on matters which arise
after he has obtained such work;
(5) make public his relationship with the
developer or acquired with the
developer and the reasons for his
abstention as required by (3) and (4)
immediately above. The public
disclosure requirement would be met by
an announcement at the Supervisors'
public meeting. See Sowers, 80 -050.
These concepts must be observed, if and when you are faced with future
decisions with respect to projects in which you, your wife or CCHA, for
example, may be interested. The circumstances under which you were first
hired by CCHA make it even more imperative that you follow these guidelines in
the future should such a situation arise. We note that similar advice as this
has been given to you by the Borough solicitor in that he advised you should
abstain from discussions or votes on any proposed housing project where the
possibility, however remote, exists that you might secure or have obtained
employment.
We must also comment about the totality of these circumstances, however,
and express our concern in this regard. It is possible that our
investigation and conclusions fail to put all the pieces to this matter in
their proper place. The coincidence of items such as your favoring the
project, seeking and securing employment as manager and your role in the
tennis court conversion, discussed below, could support a strong suspicion
that the Ethics Act had been violated. We were simply in the context of our
investigation, unable to secure definitive proof that no violation existed
under these circumstances. We have the authority to request that other law
enforcement officials review this matter and conduct further investigation as
they see fit. We believe this case is one were this authority should be
exercised.
Vito Lapriola November 28, 1984
Page 10
C. Conclusion: We have found insufficient evidence to establish a violation
of Section 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics Act. Your conduct in the future should
be guided by the discussion provided above.
However, because these circumstances, upon further review and
investigation, as needed, could lead to the conclusion that the Ethics Act had
been breached, we will make this Order and our files available to the
appropriate law enforcement officials for their review and further action, as
they deem appropriate. We make this referral without a recommendation for
institution of any prosecution, but in an effort to insure that a thorough
review of the totality of this matter is given every appropriate review and
analysis.
II. Allegation: That while serving as Borough Council President in Avis
Borough and while employed as Manager of the Oak Grove Garden
development /project described above, you directed or caused Borough employees
and equipment to be used to do work at this development site or to the benefit
of the development /project without proper authorization and approval from
Council and without reimbursement for such work being made to the Borough in
contravention of Section 3(a), (b), or 1 of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a),
(b) or 401. Examples of such work include Borough workers /trucks used to haul
stone to complete an entrance to the paved parking area of this
development /project and removal of stone, dirt and debris from tennis courts
to facilitate /provide a parking area designated as a municipal parking lot but
used primarily as a parking facility by development /project residents and
visitors.
A. Findings: In addition to the findings set forth above, we find further as
follows:
15. A recreation area for Borough residents on property owned by the Borough
was located on Short Street adjacent to Oak Grove Gardens.
16. The site plan (SK -1B) submitted by Alexander Properties at a Council
meeting and approved by Council on January 16, 1981 provided for twenty -five
(25) parking spaces for forty -three (43) housing units.
17. The Borough Zoning Ordinance of 1974 required that one and one -half
(1 -1/2) parking spaces be provided for each housing unit.
18. At a meeting of Borough Council held on July 15, 1980 an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance of 1974, 601. C(1) was passed unanimously. That amendment
required at least one -half (1/2) parking space per housing unit be required
at Oak Grove Gardens. You voted in favor of the amendment.
19. Additional minutes of Borough Council meetings confirm the following
regarding the recreation area /parking lot located on Short Street as set forth
in No. 15, above.
Vito Lapriola
Page 11
November 28, 1984
a. February 7, 1983 - A discussion was held concerning utilizing the
tennis courts on Short Street as a municipal
parking lot. No decision was reached.
b. March 7, 1983 - You asked Council's feelings on using the tennis
courts on Short Street for a municipal parking lot.
You stated the money could come from the CCHA to put
in the parking lot.
- Motion made by Councilman Wolfe to utilize the tennis
court site as a municipal parking lot. Motion died
for lack of a second.
- Recreation Committee reports it wants to keep the
area as tennis courts or for the Borough to find
another site for the tennis courts.
- Motion Kehoe, Second Brungard to have (3) volunteers
from Council along with the Mayor to meet with the
Recreation Committee and open the meeting to the
public on what to do with the lots located on Short
Street, Prospect Avenue and Rich Streets. Motion
carried unanimously with: you voting.
c. March 21, 1983 - Recreation Committee Chairman reported on the
meeting between Council and the Recreation Committee
and the suggestions that were discussed. Council
tabled any action on the suggestions as there is no
funding for such a project.
d. May 2, 1983 - Motion by Wolfe, second by Sweely to utilize the
tennis courts as a municipal parking lot. Motion
carried with you voting with the majority.
20. The new municipal parking lot (old tennis courts) was to be and is used
by residents of Oak Grove Garden residents and non - residents of this complex
alike.
a. Residents of Oak Grove Gardens have realized a benefit from the
conversion of the tennis courts to a municipal parking lot in that the
residents have used the municipal parking lot for parking of their personal
vehicles on a regular basis.
b. There is no evidence that the conversion of this area into a parking
lot was completed solely or primarily to benefit the Oak Grove Gardens'
residents or you or your employer, CCHA.
Vito Lapriola
Page 12
November 28, 1984
c. The discussions and evidence of the rationale for this conversion
also indicate that additional parking space was needed in this area to
correspond to and support events held at a baseball field adjacent to the old
tennis court area.
21. With regard to this conversion you undertook actions, including:
a. You directed Road Foreman Fritz Hartman to have the Borough road crew
dismantle the tennis courts located adjacent to Oak Grove Gardens so that the
property could be converted to a municipal parking lot and you stated you
directed the work to be done following Council's decision to make the change.
b. You directed Avis Borough road crew foreman Francis Hartman to repair
the entranceway to the municipal parking lot (formerly tennis courts) and this
entailed the hauling of stone to complete the entranceway and to make the
parking lot more accessible.
c. You stated the stone was dumped on property owned by Avis Borough,
not Oak Grove Gardens and Foreman Fritz Hartman confirmed the Borough
road crew completed the work to improve the entranceway to the municipal
parking lot and that the work was done on Borough property,
22. In addition to the actions described in No. 21 above, you admitted that
when the road crew was dismantling the tennis courts you asked Foreman Hartman
to have the road crew remove debris from the Oak Grove Gardens property that
was left behind by the project contractor and that you told Hartman to bill
Oak Grove Gardens for the cost of same.
a. Your boss, John Irvin, Executive Director, CCHA, confirmed that he
asked you to make the request of the road crew and to bill the CCHA.
b. Foreman Hartman confirmed the Borough road crew removed this
debris which took no more than one hour using a Borough truck and backhoe.
This work was completed in March, 1983.
c. Hartman also confirmed he completed a bill, No. 0081, on March 22,
1983 for the work completed at the Oak Grove Gardens site. That bill lists
the use of a Borough truck for one hour at $15 and Borough backhoe at $20.
The bill was submitted to Steve Snyder, Borough Secretary, for mailing.
d. The Borough Secretary provided a chart entitled "Rate of Charge for
Rental of Borough Equipment" dated "1980."
(1) The Borough Secretary stated the charges listed thereon
have not been changed since 1980.
(2) The rates listed on this chart, include "Chevy Truck ...
$15 per hour" and "Backhoe ... $20 per hour."
Vito Lapriola
Page 13
(3)
November 28, 1984
This chart also contains the annotation that "All rates are
based on per hour basis, and any fraction thereof becomes the
next full hour. Employee wage is included in the per hour
charge."
e. Snyder confirmed the bill was mailed to Oak Grove Gardens and that
payment was received by Avis Borough on April 6, 1983 by check No. 148.
23. It is not unusual for and the Borough road crew will, on occasion,
provide services for private citizens and groups of the Borough, using Borough
employees and equipment.
a. To have work completed by the road crew, private citizens will submit
a requisition to the road committee. The road committee gives the
requisitions to Council President who directs the road crew to complete the
work requested.
b. There was no requisition submitted to the road committee by Oak Grove
Gardens for services by the Borough road crew described in No. 22 above.
c. Both you and Borough Secretary Steve Snyder state, however, that it
is not unusual for a private citizen not to submit a requisition particularly
in an emergency situation or one where the road crew is working in a certain
area.
B. Discussion: The major allegation here was that Borough equipment and
employees were used, without proper reimbursement to the Borough, to improve
private property. Given our findings as set forth above, this contention
cannot be sustained. Therefore, we find no violation of Section 3(a) or (b)
of the Ethics Act in these circumstances.
Once again, however, you should, as a public official , be sensitive to
the public's perception that you might, as a public official, be using your
office to further the interests of the CCHA as your employer or for the
benefit of the residents of Oak Grove Gardens where you live and work. It
would have been better for you, as a resident and manager of Oak Grove
Gardens, to have abstained from participating in the Borough's decision to
convert the tennis courts to a parking area, which because of its location and
proximity, would be of obvious use to the residents of the Oak Grove Gardens
complex. If a similar situation presents itself in the future, you should
abstain from participating in the Borough's discussions and decisions that
affect this complex so directly and obviously.
C. Conclusion: There is no evidence that Section 3(a) or (b) of the Ethics
Act was violated under these circumstances. You should have abstained from
voting to convert these tennis courts to a parking lot under these
circumstances and you are directed to observe the provisions of Section 1 of
Vito Lapriola
Page 14
the Ethics Act in your future conduct so as to assure the public that your
financial interets as resident and manager of Oak Grove Gardens present
neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust.
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 /na
Her•ert B. Conner
Chairman
November 28, 1984