Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout440 ClarkMr. William Clark 237 E. Sheridan DuBois, PA 15801 RE: 85 -108 -C Dear Mr. Clark: a. Hotel Meals - 11 Registration Air Fare Transportation Tour /Shows /Misc. Total STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION November 25, 1985 Order No. 440 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, Board Member of the DuBois Area School Board, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public official's use of public office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain other than compensation allowed by law when you killed the School District for six days reimbursement while you were entitled to only four, entertainment expenses to which you were not entitled, and attended the convention without required authorization. A. Findings: 1. You are an elected member of the Dubois Area School District Board of Education and, as such, are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. The National School Roards Association convention /exposition was held in Anaheim, Califorinia from March 30 to April 2, 1985. 3. Your expense report shows that the school district paid the following expenses for your trip: $168.00 137.58 22.5.00 288.00 69.00 44.75 $932.33 Mr. William Clark Page 2 November 25, 1985 b. You paid $63.35 for expenses identified as your wife's on the expense account. They are not part of the $932.33 above. c. The air fare of $288.00, for which you were reimbursed by the district was less than that of the other board members because you obtained a special rate from the airlines related to your stay in Hawaii. 4. You arrived in Anaheim on March 29, 1985, in continuation of a vacation trip to Hawaii and stayed for the full convention, leaving on April 3, 1985, on which day you arrived back in DuBois. 5. Part 516.1 of the Pennsylvania School Code says, in part, reasonable expenses incurred by the school board members while attending the National School Boards Convention will be reimbursed by the school district when in the opinion of the board of school directors ... attendance at the annual convention of the National School Boards Association ... will be of educational or financial value to the district ... it may authorize the attendance of one or more of its members. 6. Interviews of the Superintendent of Schools, the business manager, the current secretary of the board, who was a former board member, and the former business manager, the complainant and all nine present members of the school board brought forth the same response, the school boards over the past 10 to 12 years have never authorized attendance although one or more members have always gone to the national convention in those same 10 or 12 years. 7. The Superintendent of Schools, Dr. George Nye, advised that auditors from the State Department of Education and the State Auditor General's Office have never criticized expenditures incurred by the board members. 8. Minutes of school board meetings for the period June, 1984 through June, 1985, show that there was no official discussion of the National Convention of the National School Boards Association which was held in Anaheim, California. 9. These minutes also disclose that on April 25, 1985, the first meeting following the national convention, a handout prepared for dissemination to the board members and attending members of the public included Item 33 under the heading "Items of Information" that listed the estimated expenses incurred by the board members attending the convention. The actual expenses were listed under Item 27, Items of Information, in a handout prepared for the June 27, 1985 meeting. Everyone interviewed stated that the reason for the late reporting of actual expenses was their inability to get a final accounting of expenses from the travel agency. 10. The only money you received from the school district for this trip was reimbursement for expenses. Mr. William Clark Page 3 Novemher 25, 1985 B. Discussion: As an elected school director, you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Weaver, 85 -014. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements thereof. Generally, the Ethics Act provides as follows: 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 order to determine if, in fact, you used your official position to obtain financial gain other than the compensation provided by law, we must review that which is allowed in respect to the instant situation under the relevant statutory authority. See Weaver, 85 -014. The Public School Code in pertinent parts as follows: When, in the opinion of the board of school directors of the board of public education ... attendance of one or more of its members and of its non - member secretary, if any, and of its solicitor, if any, at the annual convvention of the National school Boards Association or any other education convention, will be educational or a financial advatange to the district, it may authorize the attendance of any of such persons at the annual convention of the National School Boards Association or any other educational convention, wherever held, not exceeding two meetings in any one school year in addition to annual or special conventions of the intermediate unit. Each person so authorized to attend and attending shall he reimbursed for all expenses actually and necessarily incurred in going to, attending and returning from the place of such meeting, including travel, travel insurance, lodging, meals, registration fees and other incidental expenses necessarily incurred. Actual travel expenses shall he allowed. All such expenses shall be itemized and made public at the next meeting of the board. Such expenses shall be paid by the treasurer of the school district in the usual manner out of the funds of the district, upon presentation of an Mr. William Clark Page 4 Novemher 25, 1985 itemized verified statement of such expense: Provided, that advance payments may be made by the proper officers of the district upon presentation of estimated expenses to be incurred, to be followed by a final itemized, verified statement of such expenses actually incurred upon the return from such conventions, and a refund be made to the district of such funds remaining or an additional payment be made to meet the verified expenses actually incurred. As outlined above, the Board of School Directors may authorize the attendance of such directors at the annual meeting of the National School Boards Association, wherever held. There is no limit set forth on the number of days for which such attendance may be authorized and the directors attending shall be reimbursed for all actual and necessarily incurred expenses including actual travel expenses. The first question to be answered in the instant situation is whether your attendance at such convention was authorized by the board of directors. A review of the minutes of the board of directors for several months prior to the meeting, does not reveal discussion or vote on this issue. We do note, however, that six (6) of the nine (9) members of the board attended this meeting. It is thus, clear that a majority of the members of the board approved of such attendance. The School Code does not outline the method or manner of the necessary authorization. While better management practices may require some form of official recordation of the board's authorization in this respect, we'd() not believe that this is an issue that we should address. Regarding the issue at hand, the evidence indicated that the board did authorize or otherwise approve your attendance at the National School Board Association annual meeting. In addition to the foregoing, we must also address the issue of whether you receive funds in excess of that to which you were entitled. As noted, you were entitled to expenses actually and necessarily incurred. This is no limit on the number of days for which attendance may be authorized. We do believe you must attend the meeting. See; Schultz, No. 369. Here the meetings began on March 30, 1985 and lasted until April 2, 1985. You arrived at the meeting on March 29, 1985 and returned on April 3, 1985. The meeting was in California. There is no allegation or evidence that you did not attend the meeting. The fact that you travelled on the day before and after the actual meeting does not indicate that you received any funds in excess of that to which you were entitled. This is so, especially in light of the fact that the meeting was held in California. Your wife did accompany you on this trip, but Mr. William Clark Page 5 the evidence indicates that the school district did not expend funds on her behalf. There is no indication that you received any other funds in excess of your actual expenses. The final issue that should be addressed is whether a full accounting was made pursuant to the School Code. The code requires itemization of all expenditures and it appears as though vouchers and receipts were provided in relation to your expenses. This accounting is to be made at the first meeting of the board after the convention. Here the accounting was not made until June. This was several meetings after the required time. Our investigation indicates that this delay was incurred not by your failure to comply with the code, but by various administrative problems at the agency that arranged the trip. You were unable to obtain the necessary information regarding actual costs until the June meeting. We note that in an effort to comply with the code, the estimated expenses of the trip were set forth at the April meeting of the board. A review of the evidence in this matter indicates that you did not receive any financial gain through your official position that was not otherwise authorized by law. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State Ethics Act under the present circumstances. 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 Orde, 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). JJC /sfb By the Cgmmissio Herbert B. Conner Chai man November 25, 1985