Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout395 GrovesMr. William Groves Township Supervisor R F D 1 Carmichaels, PA 15320 Re: 84 -180 -C Dear Mr. Groves: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION August 5, 1985 Order No. 395 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 follow: I. Allegation: That you, a township supervisor, are in violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, which prohibits a pubic official's use of public office or confidential information gained from that office for personal financial gain because you have used and may still be using township equipment and personnel for such private purposes as cleaning and installing a fishing lake for a sportsmans club, installing a driveway for private citizens, installing a driveway at your own home, having township personnel service private vehicles, and having township gravel hauled to your home and business or that of friends for personal use. A. Findings: 1. You serve as a supervisor in Cumberland Township and as such are subject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 2. Hopkins and Sons, Waynesburg, Pennsylvania installed a fishing lake at Dry Tavern Sportsmans Club, sometime in 1982. 3. There is no evidence that township equipment or personnel were used on this project. 4. The township removed two trees from in front of a residence at Dowlin and South Streets. a. The trees were not on private property and were damaging the sidewalk. Mr. William Groves August 5, 1985 Page 2 b. The township agreed to remove the stumps if the property owner dug around the tree stumps. This was done. 5. The access road was built to the home of a township resident after a cave -in had damaged the existing road and the supervisors were advised that repair to that road would cost $50,000 to $75,000. The resident gave the township right -of -way to build the access road. This action was taken with the approval of al 1 supervisors. a. On April 27, 1984, McDonald Associates Engineering stated it would not be economically feasible to repair the collapsed road and recommended that the township acquire a right-of-way from the property owner and build a new road. b. On June 7, 1984, at a regular meeting of the township supervisors, the supervisors voted to enter into an agreement with the property owner. c. A written agreement was made between the township and the property owner. 6. You use your truck for township business and a hitch which broke while hauling the township roller was repaired by a township employee. 7. Each year, the auditors approved the use of supervisors' personal vehicles for hauling men, material, and tools and established an hourly rate for the use of the trucks allowance and a maximum number of gallons of gasoline. 8. There is no evidence that you have used township equipment to haul gravel to your home, business or that of your friends. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: Section 3. Restricted activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403. We found no evidence that you used township equipment or personnel for personal gain because each of the incidents alleged were actions related to your responsibilities for the township. We find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Mr. William Groves August 5, 1985 :Page 3 C. Conclusion: There is no evidence that you used township equipment or personnel for your private purposes and we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. II. Allegation: That you, a Cumberland Township Supervisor, are in violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, which prohibits a public official's use of office or confidential information gained from that office because you have or may still be using your office to obtain work for Baily Trucking Company in which you are a partner. A. Findings: 9. Finding No. 1 is incorporated herein by reference. 10. You are part owner of a company called Baily Trucking, P.U.C. Incorporated. Mr. Craig Baily is the other owner. a. This company was incorporated by you an J. Craig Baily on June 5, 1984. 1981. b. You state that you have been in this business with Mr. Baily since 11. Craig Baily and his wife also own another company, Baily Trucking Company. a. Baily Trucking Company has received contracts from the township in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. 12. There is no evidence that Baily Trucking, P.U.C. Incorporated received bids from the township. B. Discussion: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: Section 3. Restricted activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403. We find no evidence that the trucking company in which you have a share receives business from the township. Although your partner, as Baily Trucking, P.U.C., receives business from the township for another business which he and his wife own, you have no financial interests in that business. Under these circumstances, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Mr. William Groves =Page 4 C. Conclusion: Baily Trucking Company P.U.C., the business owned by you and J. Craig Baily, has not received business from the township and, therefore, we find no violation in Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. 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 he fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). JJC /sfb By the C mmi si erb t B. Conner Ch.1rman August 5, 1985