HomeMy WebLinkAbout415-R BeckMr. Robert P. Beck
10605 Si l vert ho rn Road
Edinboro, PA 16412
Re: No. 84 -105 -C
Dear Mr. Beck:
AA N
)711
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
June 20, 1986
Order No. 415 -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. On February 11 and February 25, 1986, hearing on this matter
was conducted and relevant evidence and testimony was presented. The
individual allegations, conclusions, and findings on which those conclusions
are based are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, a former Franklin Township Supervisor, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohibits the use of
public office or confidential information gained through that office by .
participating in the Township Pension Fund whose entire premiums were paid
from puhlic funds; securing the cash surrender value from those insurance
plans for your personal use; voting on and /or approving payment of premiums
for those plans.
A. Findings:
1. You served as a Franklin Township Supervisor from at least 1974 until your
term of office expired at the end of 1979. As an elected official you are
suhject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. Franklin Township records prior to April, 1978 were destroyed by fire.
3. Township records do not reflect you as being employed by the township as
either roadmaster, laborer, or in any position except as a supervisor during
the period from 1974 through 1979.
4. Township meeting minutes record the following actions relating to
appointment of a roadmaster:
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 2
a. January 2, 1979: Motion by Supervisor Horn, seconded by Ley to
appoint Ley as Road Foreman. The motion passed two to one.
Ley voted for his appointment.
b. February 13, 1979: Supervisor Beck asked Solicitor Bolla whether the
Ethics law prohibits Ley from voting for himself. Solicitor
comments that it is ;got wrong because the Ethics Act does not cover
that situation.
c. There is no record of your being appointed as township roadmaster or
township secretary /treasurer during your term of office.
5. Minutes of the Franklin Township Auditors' Reorganization meetings record
the following actions relating to comr.ensation for road foreman and
supervisors working i n other capacities:
a. January 3, 1979: Supervisors salary to remain the same - Ley to
receive $6.00 an hour with one week's paid vacation and the township
to pay for upkeep and running expenses when Ley's truck is used for
township business. Other supervisors were to receive $4.75 an hour.
There was no approval for pensions or other benefits.
b. Minutes of the Auditors' meeti :cgs from 1974 through 1978 also do not
record approval for pensions or benefits.
6. On July 17, 1978, Edwin T. Kosteva, Columbia Life Insurance Company, wrote
to the Franklin Township Board of Supervisors telling them that, "In further
review of your file, we find there is no formal documentation of your
pension plan ... no formal document governing the provisions of your plan.
Without such a formal document, questi oos can arise ... complicated by
litigation against the township. You should have an ordinance or resolution
establishing the pension plan and a formal document governing the plan." He
said he and agent Frank Gigliotti would work with the solicitor and
supervisors to prepare the documents and a resolution.
7. Mr. Gary Gastemi re, an auditor for Frankli n Township since 1978, testified
that although he was aware the township was paying premiums to Columbia Life
Insurance for a pension fund and the auditors did not question these payments,
they had never approved payments for any supervisor's inclusion in a pension
plan.
8. Franklin Township Supervisors' meeting mi nutes from May, 1978 through
April , 1982 record the following information about the supervisors' pension
plan:
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 3
a. October 10, 1978: Motion by Ley, second by Horn to establish a
Defined Contribution Pension Plan, passed unanimously. Criteria and
guidelines for the plan were also established by this motion. The
plan applied to employees and supervisors but excluded employees
working less than 1,000 hours per year.
(1) The plan provided that full -time employees and supervisors were
eligible to participate but that the employer (township) would
contribute $800.00 per year for "... each eligible employee."
(emphasis added)
(2) There was no provision for premium payments for supervisors.
( 3)
Solicitor Lawrence Bolla testified that this was "... probably
a form resolution presented by Columbia, as I recall."
(4) The effective date of this plan was shown as May 15, 1974. The
insurance company did not have a copy of the resolution
establishing this plan until September, 1981.
(5) There are no signatures on this plan.
(6) Except for the township minutes, there were no documents
presented to show official notice from the township to Columbia
Life Insurance Company authorizing that company to set up the
plan and accept payments from the township. A contract was
agreed to. (See Finding 16).
(7) There is no evidence of township action approving
township payments prior to this resolution.
(8) There is no evidence that any action was taken to
payment of premiums for supervisors.
b. May 12, 1981: Supervisor Herman asked Solicitor Bolla about the
legality of the township paying a pension plan for the supervisors.
On motion by Herman, second by Horn with a unanimous vote; bills,
with the exception of those for the pension plan for supervisors
other than the roadmaster, were approved for payment. In addition,
payment of $800 to Columbia Accident and Health Insurance by check
No. 1791 was approved.
c. June 9, 1981: Solicitor Bolla reported that only employees of the
township can participate in the pension plan. He states that he has
confinned this with Ken Greider of the Pennsylvania State Association
of Township Supervisors and the Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors Legal Counsel. He recommends that a letter to
a plan or
authorize
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 4
request repayment be sent to Columbia Insurance. He adds that the
Insurance Commissioner could be asked to help collect the refund if
Columbia Insurance Company does not respond favorably. Motion by
Horn, seconded by Supervisor Herman authorizing the solicitor to
request repayment from Columbia Insurance was carried.
d. July 14, 1981: Solicitor Bolla reports Columbia Life Insurance will
return the money for people not working for the township if
withdrawal forms are signed. - Motion by Ley, seconded by Herman to
table the issue until you ,.re at the meeting. Motion carried.
e, August 11, 1981: Frank Gigliotti, Columbia Insurance Company,
attends and states that the company will refund the money providing
they receive a signed form. They will return the money to the
individual but not the township. Motion by Herman, second by Horn to
table the i Fsue pending Gigli otti's investigating the files of
Columbia Insurance. Motion passes with a unanimous vote.
‘ 1) On August 19, 1981 Gail Kipp, Columbia Insurance Pension
Department wrote to Frank Gigliotti as follows:
"Please find attached a copy of the letter and the releases
that were sent to the township's solicitor. If the supervisors
agree to hand the money to the township, then these releases
would be Columbia Insurance's protection against any liability
to these individuals at a later date. If they do not sign
these releases, we can not give the township the money
di rectly."
(2) Mr. Frank Gigliotti testified that he was not aware that the
supervisors wanted to terminate their pension plans and that he
did not remember this memorandum or the August 11, 1981 motion
to return to meet with the supervisors after "investigating"
the company's files.
(3) On September 4, 1981, Ms. Kipp again wrote to Mr. Gigliotti
stati ng :
"Many thanks for the copy of the resolution. They seemed
to have followed Ed's rough draft that he had sent them. I
noticed on Section 11 that they have a #1 and #2 schedules.
They should have had a box before each number and one of the
boxes checked. This could be a source of ambiguity; though our
copies of federal and state reports support the 100 percent
Immediate Vesting Schedule. It would only affect Robert Herman
in any case, since he started employment in 1980 whereas Horn
and Ley have been there over six years."
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 5
"�+`7*=s �.`+�w?� w•�*a.rsare_.s.� ..: - . .ate
(4) There is no evidence that you ever received information from
Mr. Gig liotti Is investigation of the Columbia Insurance files
or the above correspondence.
f. September 8, 1981: Issue tabled because Mr. Gigliotti was not able
to attend the meeting.
October 13, 1981: Solicitor Bolla said he would attempt to have the
question of insurance put on the agenda of the Erie County
Association of Township Officials. He adds that other townships
recognize they have the same problem. Mr. Gigliotti did not attend
the meeting and the minutes give no reason for his absence.
9•
J•
h. January 4, 1982: Supervisor Herman requested that the solicitor
notify Columbia Life Insurance to close out the pension fund and to
forward checks. Supervisor Sachar supported this request.
i. February 10, 1982: Solicitor Bolla presented forms to the
supervisors to be signed to terminate the pension plan. Motion by
Herman, second by Horn to expedite the forms for the supervisors to
terminate the pension plan. Unanimous approval.
March 10, 1982: Solicitor Bolla reports that the forms for
termination of the pension plan had been forwarded to the Columbia
Life Insurance and the plan will be terminated by the end of the
month.
k. April 14, 1982: Solicitor Bolla reports that the pension fund is now
termi nated.
9. Franklin Township auditor records for the past nine years do not record a
supervisor's request for the approval of a pension plan.
a. Minutes of the township auditors' reorganization meetings from 1974
through 1985 record approval of compensation for supervisors employed
by the township only for hourly wages, vacation leave, and expenses
for use of personal vehicles while on township business.
10. Columbia Life Insurance Company, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, records
disclose the following information about the Franklin Township pension plan:
a. The plan was administered under a Group Annuity Contract No. DA -164.
b. The effective date of the plan was May 14, 1974.
c. Eligible participants were defined as full -time employees and
supervisors; persons working less than 1,000 hours annually were
excluded.
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 6
d. 100% immediate vesting was included.
e. The employer contributed 100% of the premium which was $800 per
employee per year.
f. Horn, Ley, Township Secretary /Treasurer Diane Horn and you are listed
as the only participants.
11. Correspondence between the Franklin Township Solicitor and Columbia Life
Insurance Company discloses the following:
a. June 30, 1981: Letter from Solicitor Bolla to Columbia Life
Insurance Company; "I have reviewed the Pennsylvania Second Class
Township Code regarding the pa�rment of insurance and annuity benefits
to supervisors. 53 P.S. §65713 is the relevant statute governing
Franklin Township's contract with your company. That section clearly
provides that a second class township may only provide this type of
coverage for employees of the township. The supervisors themselves,
if they are not employees of the township, are not entitled to any
benefits under this section. Please refer to the case of
Hendricks v. East Rockhill Township, 1 D.& C. 3rd 763 (1977) for a
most recent interpretation of the relevant statute." He added that
he had been directed by the township supervisors to demand repayment
of all funds currently in the pension fund attributed to Henry Horn,
Ley, and you. He noted that, in Ley's case, they were not requesting
return of the amount paid for him as a full -time employee of the
township. He also asked for an accounting of all funds paid into the
purchase payment fund from the registered date and the interest paid
on those funds.
b. July 7, 1981: Edwin T. Kosteva, Pension Administrator, wrote to
Solicitor Bolla stating that Robert Beck is no longer a supervisor
and received his vested benefits February 28, 1980. Kosteva had
enclosed authorization for withdrawal of fund forms to be completed
and signed and stated that they needed specific information on which
of the contributions the township had made for Ley while he was a
working supervisor and when Ley was a non - working supervisor.
c. July 10, 1981: Solicitor Bolla wrote to Mr. Kosteva stating that
one -half of the existing contributions were made by the township as a
result of Ley's employment as roadmaster with the township. He
stated the township intended that this amount would remain in Ley's
fund, the balance was to be refunded.
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 7
d. August 7, 1981: Gail S. Kipp, Pension Manager, Columbia Life
Insurance Company, wrote to Mr. Ed Springer, Springer & Perry, asking
him to respond to a question raised by Solicitor Bolla by telephone.
Solicitor Bolla asked whether there was legal authority for the
township to terminate the funds and collect the money if the
supervisors do not agree to relinquish the money. Solicitor Bolla
had stated that the supervisors were not eligible to participate in
the plan. The amounts involved were Horn, $7,318.23; Robert Herman,
$630.00; and Ley $7,718.33. She also noted that you had received
your vested benefits of $5,843.13 on March 5, 1980.
e. August 17, 1981: A. J. Carden, Vice President, Columbia Life
Insurance Company, wrote to Lawrence C. Bolla. Columbia Life
Insurance had been advised by their legal counsel that the most
practical manner in which to resolve the Franklin Township pension
question would be to have supervisors sign release forms to allow the
company to refund the money to the township. He enclosed release
forms.
f. January 20, 1982: Solicitor Bolla wrote a letter to Gail S. Kipp
confirming a telephone conversation of that day stating his
understanding that any of the present or former supervisors who wish
to withdraw their assets from the pension plan need only sign the
"Authorization for Withdrawal of Funds" form which had been provided.
He added the form was to be signed by both the withdrawing employee
and by the appropriate township official. The appropriate township
official was not identified. He noted that he thought the forms
could be prepared and signed at the regular township meeting on
February 10, 1982.
March 4, 1982: Gail S. Kipp wrote a letter to Solicitor Bolla
enclosing copies of the letter sent to Horn, Herman and
Secretary /Treasurer Diane Horn, noting that these accounts had been
closed and the people paid in full. She also asked for a copy of any
resolution that was passed at the February 10, 1982 meeting.
12. Yearly Policy Statements and Plan Account ledgers obtained from Columbia
Life Insurance confirmed the following information regarding contributions
made on your behalf by Franklin Township:
a. The plan was effective on May 15, 1974. Your participation date was
at that time.
g.
b. Contributions, interests and the balance of your plan at the end of
each year i s shown i n the fol 1owi ng table:
YEAR
BEGINNING
BALANCE
AMOUNT OF
CONTRIBUTION
INTERESTS &
MISC. CREDITS
FEES
WITHDRAWALS
BALANCE
1974
-0-
$800.00
$ 27.79
-0-
-0-
$827.79
1975
$827.79
$800.00
$77.71
-0-
-0-
$1,705.50
1976
$1,705.50
$800.00
$1n.4.,
-0-
-0-
$2,641,91
1977
$2,641.91
$800.00
$186.18
-0-
-0-
$3,628.09
1978
$3,628.09
$300.00
$255..56
-0-
-0-
$4,683.65
1979
$4,683.65
$800.00
M 22.56
22.50
-0-
$5,812.55
I 328.90
1980
$5,812.5E
-0-
I 30.58
$5,843.13
-0-
1981
-
-
-
-
-
-
1982
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$4,800
$1043.13
$22.50
$5,843.13
-0-
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 8
TOTAL CREDITS
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS
13. Records confirm you endorsed check No. 6376 in an amount of $5,843.13
that was cashed on March 12, 1980. None of that money was returned to the
township.
14. Attorney Bolla, former Township Solicitor, provided the following
information:
a. You and the other supervisors were coaxed into purchasing the
insurance by the Columbia representative.
b. He researched the pension issue and found a lower court case in Bucks
County. Based on a court ruling, he advised the board of supervisors
that the plan obtained from Columbia was inappropriate.
c. He attempted to have the policies changed but Columbia refused to do
so without a release form signed by supervisors. Ley refused to sign
such a release.
d. No payments for your pension plan were made by the township after
1979.
15. You declined to be interviewed.
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 9
16. The record of the township pension plan and your participation is as
follows:
A. May 14, 1974, Contract DA -164 entered into by the township and
Columbia Life Insurance Company.
(1) Supervisor Ley and you signed as applicant. Franklin Township
was identified as the applicant.
(2) The name of the plan was "Franklin Township Pension Fund ".
(3) Other than the signatures of Ley and you, there is no record of
township authorization of this plan.
B. On October 10, 1978, the township supervisors approved a "Defined
Contribution Plan" at the suggestion of Mr. Edwin T. Kosteva,
Columbia Life Insurance Company. (See Finding 5, 6 & 8a)
(1)
The Columbia Life Insurance Company copy of this plan was the
only one presented.
(a) It was not signed or dated.
(b) It was not received by the insurance company until
September 3, 1981. (See Finding 8e (3)).
(c) The effective date was shown as May 15, 1974 but there was
no explanation for the back dating.
(d) The township had not identified the vesting option they
were choosing. The options were 1: "100% immediate
vesting "; 2: "0% for three years. 25% after 3 years
employment, with 25% each year thereafter until 6 years ".
(See Finding 8e (3)).
(1) There was no record as to whether the period for considering
either option was May 15, 1974, October 10, 1978 or September,
1981.
(2) This designation would have affected your vested interest. If
option 2 was selected and effective October 10, 1978, you would
not have been eligible for full vesting until 1984.
C. On February 8, 1980, you sent a letter to Columbia Life Insurance
Company asking to have your "pension check released."
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 10
D. Columbia Insurance Company issued check #006376 dated March 3, 1980,
in the amount of $5,843.13. You endorsed and cashed this check.
E. There i s no record of official township action to termi nate the
plan.
17. a. Questions regarding the legality of the pension plan program arose
after you left office.
b. You alleged that you relied upon the solicitor's advice as well as
the advice of the insurance company representative in this matter.
c. You assert that the auditors affirmed the pension program and never
questioned the expenditures for said program.
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official as that
term is defined in the State Ethics Act. E5 P.S,. §402. As such, your conduct
is subject to the requirements thereof. Sowers, 80 -050; Glova, No. 326; Hunt,
No. 384 -R.
Generally the Ethics Act provides that:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holdi ng public office to obtain fi nanci al gai n
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).
The question of the propriety of pension and annuity plans for
supervisors of second class townships has been reviewed by this Commission on
many occasions. McCutcheon, No. 127; Hoak, No. 128, Marcello, 85 -003. The
Commi scion determi nations i n these matters have been reviewed and affirmed by
the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. McCutcheon v. State Ethics
Commission, 77 Pa. Comm. 529, 466 A.2d 283, (1982).
Generally, in situations such as the instant matter, it must be
determined whether the official used his position to obtain or secure
financial gain other than the compensation that is authorized by law.
It is now clear that pension benefits such as the type of question
herein, constitute a financial gain. See, McCutcheon v. State Ethics
Commission, 466 A.2d 283, at 288.
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20, 1986
Page 11
The additional question to be answered is
paid a
to a
compensation provided by law. A complete analysis of this exact issue set forth in the above authorities. See such benefits are
been
1 D & C 3d lab Pa. Com
ee also; Hendricks v. a has
500
supervisor A.2d 1282 (1977), Srall yynoski v. Hazel Township, East Rockhill
townshi , (1985). Gene i sor who serves only in that e position na i son eo be all set
Statute. 53 P.S. 65515, position s specifically s by
A Supervisor who is also employed by the township
in one of the positions authorized in the Second Class Township additional compensation, however, in order by law, . Such compensation p Code, may
Y law must be affirmatively fixed by er to be
Auditors. 53 P.S. §65542. Y the Township Board of
We have reviewed the instant matter in light of these now established
concepts of law as well as under the policy pronouncement of the Commi
51 Pa. Code §7.1.
ssion.
If you had been appointed by
the
laborer you would have been eligibletooreceivvestherpensionabenefitsswit or
auditor approval. With relation to you en as a
as with
participation in the plan
non - working township supervisor, clearly in light of the foregoing, Y
not entitled to participate in the plan at the township's expense only in your
capacity as a supervisor. 9, You were
benefits as The auditors did not have the power to approve h
that bene auditor you l w ece iotnototherwise iemobY constitute township. We employed P p note
such
See, ud he oi supra. a
tute affirmative approval.
It is also important to note, in relation to the foregoing situation, in 1978 the supervisors, with your participation, approved
contribution plan at the suggestion of the Columbia Life Insura ation,
representative. p a defined
Specifically, set forth in that defined contribution plan,
was the requirement that the plan was for full -time employees and the to contribute $800.00 per year for each eli ible em to ee. While
indicated that supervisors were eligible to participate there a the
provision in the plan for premium p
rovi . Thus, al Y p emium payments for supervisors who were not
i not
earl as 1978, the board of supervisors knew that the
payment for this program by the township,
was questionable. To argue that the survisorsiwereonotoaware ofpthe� sors,
standards for participation that those same supervisors established
defined contribution plan would be incredulous. Regardless of all that had been raised regarding this plan, from 1978 on, in the
nevertheless accepted and retained the funds that were received. 1 the
believe that your receipt of those funds to which you
violates the State Ethics Act. As such, we an compensation to which an employee is notaentptledeiof aegainooreof�tled s us of office not in accord with the State Ethics Act. Huff, 84e015,oDoms public
�a1 akes,
Mr. Robert P. Beck
June 20 , 1986
Page 12
85.0 Oh 0, �deave.• 014 , Blumlin
e determination by 85_
r•i -_Ed vy the th:a:er t t g '
f)ryod b ? solicitor 388' While
with aw, the fact that you did leave
was conducted without fraudulent you may plan was, in office prior
to reimburse 7n intent or ee ived fact not
eimb r that t he the proceeds thereof in
se the gov ernmental public e g does not relieve vote to take
Generally, body the amount o f e the individual suc hthe
pr
oceeds
the State Ethics Act received improperly.
duty
Section 9, Penalties. Act provides ?m p r operly,
y as follows:
(a) ( b ' perscp who violates ates the
and ( ) is gr;ilt
than $10, 000 Y of a felony P�'ov �; on of
Section or be both fined imprisoned so oran ot more be five not mope
9 • Penal ned. 65 P.S. 409( e Years
(c) Any
any provision who obtains
penalty r °n °f this act financial gain
v iolating
Treasury P ovided by law, ' in addition
a sum of , shall tTon to any other
f inancial money equal t a into the State
t
409(c) gain resulting from hree t'mes
an such violation. the
In addition 65 P.S.
results of n to the above
the alleged any investigation t to the a ppropriat e opriat the
divesting offender that
n9 hims over A Commission may
Ethics himself from the prosecuting authority,
Commonwealth 65 P.S. of any financial conflict n d the
wealth Court of §Pen nsylvani a 079(iii)• This received of i nterest by' unless
supra, In addition to his princi �n violation of the State
forth that in McC principle has been upheld by the
deride no t the Commission t io f ollowing, the
n may, in ng, theorrm ss? v. Sate
to recommend determining o Ethics Commission
such to r ecommend set
7.17 x tenuatin g or atin Prosecution i f also
E prosecution,
'
g circumstances,
( a) The Commission may, in deciding
r ecommend nd Prosecution
matter nd pr sec as set fort whether to
options to the Commission) §7.16 (relating to
occur: Prosecution if )decid
any of the foilowingteventsfer a
secured )as The ereS Aervi sor, i f gain
and refunds the ult of inclusion has already
and refunds e gain °n in a plan Y been
Treasury as appropriate; ' n, determined by the remits
' e Plan, the township or
or the
State
Mr. Robert P. Reck
June 20, 1986
Page 13
(4) The Supervisor, if gain has already been
secured as set forth in paragraph (3) refunds, in
addition to the amount determined thereunder, an
additional 10% thereof per annum so that any benefit
derived from the gain associated with the plan is
negated. 51_Pa. Code 7.17(a).
As a result of the foregoing, the Commission may offer a person who has
ohtained financial gain in violation of -the State Ethics Act, the opportunity
to divest himself of that financial gain.
In addition to the following, we note, that even if you were to have
received your pension program and the financial gain resulting therefrom, in
good faith and based upon the advice that you had received from others,
including your solicitor, such good faith receipt of benefits or financial
gain to which you are not entitled would not alleviate you from the duty of
returning such gain to the governmental body from which it was received. Good
faith reliance upon a solicitor, has been held not to constitute just cause
for retention of a financial gain to which one was not entitled. See,
Allegheny County v. Grier, 179 Pa. 639, 368. 353, (1897); McCutcheon v. State
Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Comm. 529, 466 A.2d 283, (1983); Kestler Appeal, 66
Pa. Comm. 1, 444 A.2d 761 (1981). We believe that this result is appropriate
and, therefore, we will offer you the opportunity to divest yourself of the
financial gain that was received in violation of the State Ethics Act. In
addition, we believe the 10% penalty set forth in the regulations is
appropriate. 51 Pa. Code 7.17(a), (4). The amount of financial gain which we
have determined to have been ohtained in violation of the State Ethics Act,
would he the amount of funds expended by the township on your behalf in your
capacity as supervisor. The total amount expended by the township,
behalf, was $4,800.00 and with accrued credits and interest obtained o through
the pension program, a total amount which you received as a result of your
termination of the program was $5,843.13 plus the 10% equals $6,427.44
inappropriately received.
C. Conclusion: You violated the State Ethics Act when you, as a township
supervisor, received, accepted and retained the proceeds from a
township - provided pension plan to which you knew you were not entitled.
Unless, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order you remit to the
State Ethics Commission a check made payable to Franklin Township in the
amount of $6,42.7.44. In the event that you do not make such restitution, we
will refer this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for
further review.
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 he made availahle as a puhlic document 5 days after service (defined
P4r. Robert P. Beck
June 20 1986
Page 14
as mailing) unless
reconsideration you doc umentati on file docum
with the Commission
2.38. 0 rin andsou f challenges ile waives his 9 this pertinent
2.38 releasing, right to c hallenge no one factual findings. which justifies
di scussi nge this'0rder i ncluding ng the Respondent by
See 51 p es
discussing °r circulating this may violate this Pondent uniess.heode
Any Person who Order, confi dentialit y b
is guilty of a misdemeanor the confide
imprisoned for not emeanor and shall ntiality of a Commission
more on e be not
th ye or both see 65e than $1,OOp proceeding
P.S. 40 9(e). r
By the Commission
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman