HomeMy WebLinkAbout447 CampbellMr. T. Campbell
Terri Drive
West Middlesex, PA 16159
RE: 85 -07 -C
Dear Mr. Campbell:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
December 6, 1985
Order No. 447
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 former Shenango Township Supervisor, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee or public
official's use of office or confidential information gained through that
office to obtain financial gain and Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act which
prohibits a puhlic official, public employee or memher of his immediate family
or any business in which the person or a memher of the person's immediate
family is a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5% of the
equity at fair market value of the business from entering into any contract
valued at $500 or more with a governmental body unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process because you profited from the
township doing husiness with T. Rruce Camphell Construction and T. Bruce
Sales.
A. Findings:
1. That you served as an elected township supervisor from .January, 1978 to
fecemher, 1983 and, as an elected official, you are suhject to the provisions
of the Ethics Act.
2. Township minutes disclosed that from March 9, 1982 through May 10, 1983,
the township did business with T. Bruce Sales and T. Rruce Camphell
Construction Company, on seven occasions. On each of those occasions, you
either made a motion to pay the hills or seconded a motion to pay the hills,
as follows:
!late Firm Amount motion to Pay
3/9/82 T. Bruce Sales 5217.73 Ry Camphell
Mr. T Campbell
Page 2
11/9/82
2/8/83
2/8/83
2/8/83
2/8/83
5/10/83
T. Bruce Campbell Const. Co.
s u u
T. Bruce Sales
T. Bruce Campbell Const. Co.
T. Bruce Sales
T. Scott Campbell
386.55
50.40
8.00
529.83
94.92
170.00
December 6, 1985
By Fedders,
seconded camphell
11
By Campbell,
seconded Fedders
a. The 3/9/82 payment was for two purchases made for the township
through your firm, you sold the items to the township at your cost.
b. The 11/9/82 payment was for an emergency repair of a broken snow
plow. There was no time to advertise for a bid.
c. The 2/8/83 payment of $50.40 was for steel products fabricated in
your shop.
d. The 2/8/85 payment of $8.00 was for oxygen purchased from your firm
for the township. You sold it to the township at your cost.
e. The 2/8/83 payment of $52.9.83 was for the fabrication of a body /tank
for a fire truck. The job was not put up for bid.
f. The 2/8/83 payment of $94.92 was purchased from your firm by the
township, you sold it to the township at your cost.
g. The 5/10/83 payment was purchased through your firm for a member of
the township at your cost. The township was reimbursed in full.
5. Total payments by the township to your companies during 1982 and 1983
were:
a. 1982: Total payments
(1) Material provided at cost
(Tolley Industrial Supply Co. Inc.
to T. Bruce Sales)
(2) Emergency repair snow plow
(3) Non - emergency, not provided
at cost.
h. 1983: Total payments
(1) Items provided at cost
per invoice W. Y. Grainger Inc.
$604.28
137.2.5
386.55
$ 80.48
$853.15
94.92.
Lir. T. Campbell
Page 3
(2) Item for township official -
township reimbursed
(3) Non - emergency, not provided
at cost
170.00
5588.23
6. You are president of T. Bruce Sales and T. Bruce Campbell Construction
Company and you own more than 5% of the equity at fair market value of these
businesses.
7. Invervi ews with township employees disclosed the fol 1 owi ng :
December F, 1985
a. On August 22, 1979, you brought a Campbell Construction Company crane
to the township yards and set two 10,000 gallon tanks in a hole dug by a
contractor. The tanks were to be used to hold gasoline and diesel fuel for
the township vehicles. You also used your firm's tractor and flatbed trailer
to haul one -ton concrete anchor blocks and your crane set them in the hole to
anchor the fuel tanks. You did not charge the township for this service.
h . You had a Campbell Construction Company crane lift a siren to the top
of a pole for installation at no cost to the township.
c. On December 12, 1979, a crane supplied by your firm to the township
was used to set up a communications tower for the use of the township
emergency services. You did not charge for this service.
d. On 'August 31, 1984, your firm loaned a crane to the township fire
department so they could lift a tank from the back of a fire truck. There was
no charge to the township. You have also loaned the company equipment to the
township at various other times without charging for its use.
8. You presently serve the township as a member of the Sewer and Finance
Committees. You are not paid for this service.
B. Discussion:
As a township supervisor you were a public official as that term is
defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. , 5402; Sowers, 80 - 050. As such, your
conduct must conform to the requirements of the Act.
The State Ethics Act provides that:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(c) No public official or public employee or a member of
his immediate family or any business in which the person
or a member of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5%
of the equity at fair market value of the husiness shall
Mr. T. Campbell
Page 4
enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with a
governmental body unless the contract has been awarded
through an open and public process, including prior public
notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals
considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in
violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court
of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within
90 days of making of the contract. 65 P.S. 403(c).
December 6, 1985
You were a township supervisor during the years 1982 and 1983 and the
township conducted business with your company during that time.
In 1982 the evidence reflects that total payments to your company equaled
5604.28. Some of these costs, however, relate to materials supplied at cost
to the township resulting in no financial gain to you or your company. When
these amounts are deducted from the total paid to your company, the amount is
$467.03. This is below the $500 limit set forth in Section 3(c) above and
thus, that section of the Act would not have been violated in 1982. Applying
this same analysis to 1983 total payments to your business by the township
equaled S853.15. Items provided at cost totaled $94.92 and the township was
reimbursed for another purchase valued at- $170.00. This results in a total of
$588.23 in payments by the township to your company for services rendered.
This payment exceeded the $500 limit by $88.23, and there was thus, a
technical violation of the provisions of Section 3(c). We will, however,
because of the de minimus nature of the financial gain realized in excess of
the statutory limits, take no further action in this matter.
We do, however, believe that we should point out the general requirements
of the State Ethics Act in relation to a situation of this nature.
In situations where a puhlic official will contract or do business with
his own governmental body in excess of $500 in any year, an open and puhlic
process must he employed.
In Howard, 79 -044 and Fields, 82 -006, the Commission stated that an open
and public process is met by applying the following standards:
1. prior public notice of the employment or contracting possibility;
2. sufficient time for a reasonable and prudent competitor /applicant to
he able to prepare and present an application or prorposal;
3. public discloosure of all applications or proposals considered; and
4. puhlic disclosure of the contract awarded or offered and accepted.
See also Cantor, 82 -004.
Mr. T. Campbell
Page 5
December 6, 1985
In determining whether the requirements of Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act
had been met, the Commission has adopted a "reasonableness test" which means
that reasonable and prudent competitors should be provided a sufficient time
within which to submit their proposals and, of course, should have had prior
notice of the opportunity to secure such a contract or employment.
In addition, other sections and opinions of the Ethics Act mandate that
the fol 1 owi ng conditions must also be met:
The official should not have anything to do with the
decisions, or votes, discussions regarding the awarding of
this contract or work or the payment of the bills in
relation thereto; no confidential information acquired or
received through the holding of your public position be
used to obtain advantages or financial gain for this
business; and nothing of value can be offered, accepted or
solicited in exchange for or to influence any official's
judgment.
Finally, we have reviewed this matter within the purview of Section 3(a)
of the State Ethics Act and have found no violation of that provision of law.
C. Conclusion: There was no violation of the provisions of the Ethics Act
regarding the year 1982 and there was a technical violation of the Act in
1983. Because of the de minimus nature of the financial gain realized, we
will take no further action in this matter. You are a public official and
obligated tcf meet the requirements of the law as outlined herein.
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 i s
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 /sfh
By th- Co ission,
erber B. Conner
Chai rman