Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout450 KolbeMr. David Kolbe R.D. #1 Auhurn, PA 17922 Re: 85 -100 -C Dear Mr. Kolhe: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION December 6, 1985 Order No. 450 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 haled are as follows: I. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor of South Manheim Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office for financial gain other than compensation provided hy law because you participated in your appointment as road superintendent and you are being paid as road superintendent hut are not performing the duties and responsibilities for which you are tieing paid. A. Findings: 1. You have served as a South Manheim Township Supervisor from July 1, 1984 to the present and are suhject to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 2. You have also served as a part -time road superintendent since October 19, 1984, and continue to serve in this position. 3. You were appointed as supervisor on July 16, 1984, hy a vacancy hoard consisting of Edward Finnegan, Linda S. Minnich and Terrance F. McGlone. 4. On October 8, 1984, you were appointed road superintendent. The motion was made by David Hummel and seconded by Terrance F. McGlone. There is no record or township minutes to show whether you voted. 5. Your salary as superintendent was estahlished hy the auditors. 6. On January 7, 1985, you were re- appointed road superintendent, own motion hy Supervisor McGlone and second hy Supervisor Hummel. The minutes do not reflect whether or not you voted. ir. David Kolbe Page 2 7. You had formerly worked at Boyer's IGA Store as manager. You are no longer employed there. 8. Your position as road superintendent is a part -time position as approved by the supervisors. a. This arrangement is possible because at least one of the road workers is an experienced employee who can implement the work. b. Your job at the IGA Store did not require you to work specified hours during the day and, thus, you had flexibility to accomplish your duties as a road superintendent. 9. There is no evidence that you used your office to have yourself appointed as road superintendent or that you were paid for work not performed. 8. Discussion: As a township supervisor you are a public official as that tem is defined in the State Ethics Act, Sowers, 80 -050. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Act. 65 P.S. §401 et. seq. The Act provides as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (a) Mo 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). December 6, 1985 Here, there is no evidence that you used your official position to obtain any financial gain other than the compensation provided by law. There is no evidence that you participated in your appointment as roadmaster. Additionally, the Second Class Township Code allows a township supervisor to also serve as a roadmaster. 53 P.S. §65514. The compensation of a supervisor who serves as a roadmaster must he fixed by the township board of auditors. 53 P.S. 65515. Your compensation was set in accordance with this provision. Finally, we found no evidence that you were compensated by the township, but pe rf o reed no work. C. Conclusion: Under the foregoing factors, you did not violate the State Ethics Act. Mr. David Kolbe Page 3 necemher 6, 1985 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 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 Ci mission erbert ' . Conner Chairman