Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout437 ZaffutoMr. Anthony Zaffuto 6 North Ethel Street Sykesville, PA 15865 RE: 84 -164 -C Dear Mr. Zaffuto: A. Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION November 25, 1985 Order No. 437 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 you, a School Director in the DuBois Area School District, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public official's use of public office or confidential information by purchasing a computer system without an open and public process from the school district. 1. You have served on the DuBois Area School District since 1982 and are subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170- 1978). 2. The DuBois Area School District approved the following policies for the disposition of excess or outdated equipment in the district: a. September 23, 1982, on motion by McCully, second by Ahlherg, the hoard authorized the sale of equipment no longer suitable for school use. The motion was passed 8 to 0 and you voted. h. May 26, 1983, on motion by Fyda, second by McCully, the hoard approved the seeking of bids to dispose of excess or outdated equipment in the district. The motion was passed 9 to 0 and you voted. c. March 22, 1984, on motion by Clark, second by Fyda, the hoard approved the following policy for the disposal of obsolete and outdated equipment: Mr. Anthony Zaffuto Page 2 November 25, 1985 (1) The superintendent was authorized to dispose of obsolete and outdated equipment of the district after presenting a list of this equipment for review by the board. (2) The equipment was to be sold to the highest bidder and all transactions reported to the board at the public meeting. (3) The intent of the policy was not to make the procedures so cumbersome that the cost to the district for the disposal of the equipment would be more than could be recovered from sale of the equipment. (4) A notice of available equipment was to be posted in each school building for 10 days prior to the sale and a single listing was to be placed in each of the three area newspapers. (5) If possible, a trade -in value would be determined and that value would become the base price for the sale of the equipment. (6) The disposal of the equipment "may be handled" by sealed bids, awarded to the highest bidder or a negotiated sale if no bids are received. In addition, items could be sent to auction, disposed of as a gift or scrap, or offered to municipal governments and non - profit organizations. 3. Approximately May of 1983, lists of equipment were posted in the various schools in the district. These lists included a computer which the district had purchased in 1980 and which was no longer of value to the district because they had purchaseO replacement computers. There were no other notices or advertisements of the availability of this equipment. a. No bids were received for this computer and in late 1983 or early 1984, you asked Dr. Nye, Superintendent of Schools, about the computer. He told you no one had bidden and that you should submit a bid if you were interested. b. You submitted a bid for approximately $25.00 after a board meeting in early 1984. You believed other board members were aware of your bid but interviews with other members show that not all of them were aware of your bid. c. In February, 1984, your purchase of the computer was questioned by another board member. d. After that meeting, you returned the computer and your $25.00 purchase payment was reimbursed. Mr. Anthony Zaffuto Page 3 November 25, 1985 e. The computer was later sold to Mr. Fred Valdes for approximately $250.00. 4. As a result of this transaction, on March 22, 1984 the board established a policy, cited in the finding 2c. B. Discussion: As a member of the school district, you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act, and subject to the requirements thereof. 65 P.S. §402. The 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 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). In the instant situation, you did not use any confidential information or otherwise use your official position in order to bid on the computer. The availability of this item was publicly posted in the various schools of the district in May, 1983. No one from the public submitted any bid on this item. Several months after the posting of the computer was made, you approached the superintendent of district and inquired about submitting a bid. You, thereafter, did submit a bid of $25 and obtained the computer. Sometime later you returned the computer and obtained a refund. This was done because another board member questioned the purchase. Under these circumstances, we find no violation of the Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: We find no violation of the Ethics Act under the foregoing facts. 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 may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Mr. Anthony Zaffuto Page 4 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 Con rbe B. Conner He er Chai nman November 25, 1985