Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout452 AmatiMr. Ronald Amati Supervisor, Carroll Township 66 Highland Avenue nonora, PA 15033 Re: #84 -56 -C Dear Mr. Amati: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 3, 1986 Order No. 452 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possihle 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 Supervisor in Carroll Township and operator of a service station in that township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), which prohihits a public official from using his public office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain other than the compensation provided by law for himself or a member of his immediate family by towing for township police business and servicing township vehicles at a garage in which you have a financial interest. A. Findings: 1. You have served as a Supervisor in Carroll Township since January, 1984, and, as such, are subject ,to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 2. At the 1984 reorganization meeting of the township supervisors, you were appointed Maintenance Service firector for the Municipal Building and township vehicles. 3. In partnership with your brother, Louis, you operate Amati's Service Station and have heen in this husiness for a numher of years. P1r. Ronald Amati Page 2 March 3, 1986 4. Township records record the following business transactions and relationships between your service station and the township: a. Undated repair Order No. A067503: Towing of a Chrysler Police car and inspection of two trucks - no charge. b. Repair Order No. A066880 dated May 14, 1984, for the inspection of a truck, a car, and a repair of a tractor tire in the amount of $32.50. By Check No. 1518, the township paid Amati Service Station on July 3, 1984. c. Invoice No. 13711 from Pittsburgh Office Furniture and Equipment Company Incorporated dated January 30, 1984, in the amount of 1;575 for a used Gray Mosier Safe. By Check No. 12.47, the township paid you 5575 for the purchase of this safe. d. You have no contracts with the township to provide towing, maintenance, or servicing of township vehicles. 5. During February or March of 1984, you suhmitted a bill to the township. After being told that you could not do business with the township, you withdrew the bill. 6. The township also has done and continues to do business with other service stations. 7. Other towing services are used to tow vehicles from the scene of an accident or from the location where they have heen broken down. 8. Township records show that you received the following towing requests: a. 1484: 18 out of 54. b. 1983: 12 out of 45. c. 1982: 10 out of 39. 9. The ahove requests relate to the towing of private vehicles and not to any township vehicles. R. Discussion: As a Township Supervisor in Carroll Township you are a public official as that tens is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. X402.; Sowers, 80-050. Mr. Ronald Amati Page 3 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). The Act further defines business with which one is associated as follows: Section 2. Definitions. Business with which he is associated." Any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or holder of stock. 65 P.S. 402. March 3, 1986 There is no doubt that you are associated with Amati's Service Station. Therefore, under the above restriction, you could not employ or otherwise use your public position as a township supervisor, or any confidential information obtained in that position, in order to obtain any financial gain for yourself or for Amati's Service Station. In the instant situation, there is no evidence, however, that you have used your position for that purpose. The towing that was conducted by Amati's Service Station was not in relation to township vehicles. These towing assignments were in relation to private vehicles. There is no evidence that you employed your position as a township supervisor to direct this business to Amati's Service Station. Additionally, while you did submit a bill to the township sometime in March of 1984. you retracted that bill after being informed that you could not do business with the township. With relation to the payment of $575 for the purchase of a safe, our investigation reveals that you initially paid this amount out of your own funds for the purchase of the safe for the township and that the township subsequently reimbursed you this amount of money for that purchase. As a result, you obtained no financial gain from that transaction. Finally, we note that on May 14, 1984, Amati's Service Station did, in fact, perform certain repairs on township vehicles. These repairs resulted in a payment of $32.50 to Amati's Service Station. There is no evidence, however, that you directed the husiness to he forwarded to Amati's Service Station. We also note that at the time that these repairs were conducted, you had only been a . township supervisor for several months. A review of all of these circumstances in light of the de minims nature of the amount of money paid by the township to Amati's Service Station leads us to the conclusion that you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. Mr. Ronald Amati Page 4 C. Conclusion: Based upon the foregoing evidence, you did not violate Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. March 3, 1986 II. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor in Carroll Township and operator of a service station in that township, violated Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. .5403(c), which requires an open and public process when a puhlic official or member of his immediate family or a business with which they are associated contracts with his governmental body in the amount of $500 or more by towing for township police business and servicing township vehicles at a garage in which you have a financial interest. 10. Findings 1, 2, 3, 4b, c, and 8 are incorporated here by reference. B. Discussion: In addition to the foregoing provisions of law, the State Ethics Act also provides as follows: 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 business shall 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) . As a partner in Amati's Service Station, it is clear that the provisions of Section 3(c) would be applicable to your husiness. While Section 3(c) does not place an outright prohibition upon a public official contracting with his own governmental body, the Act would require an open and public process in relation to any contract or husiness in excess of $500. This restriction would not only relate to individual contracts in excess of that amount but also to cumulative husiness for the period of the year. See Donati, No. 204. Such an open and public process would require prior puhlic notice of the employment or contracting possibility; sufficient time for a reasonable and prudent competitor to he able to prepare and present an application or proposal; puhlic disclosure of all applications or proposals considered; puhlic disclosure of the contract awarded or offered and accepted; and the abstention of the public official from any participation in the review and award of said contract. See Howard, 79 -004; Fields, 82 -006, and Cantor, 82 -004. Mr. Ronald Amati Page 5 A review of the factual findings, in light of the applicable law, indicate that Amati's Service Station conducted no business in excess of 5500 with Carroll Township. As a result, there was no violation of this section of the State Ethics Act. The only business that Amati's Service Station conducted with the township was the aforementioned repair work which amounted to a charge of S32.50. This is under the S500 limit. Additionally, while Amati's Service Station does engage in the towing of private vehicles, payment for this service is not made from the township and does not relate to any township vehicle. These towing assignments relate to private vehicles. Because no township funds are involved in this situation and because there is no contract or business being conducted with the township, there is no violation of Section 3(c) of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: Based upon the foregoing considerations and factual findings, we find no violation of the State Ethics Act. III. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor in Carroll Township, violated Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. §403(b), which prohibits a public official from offering anything of value with the understanding that his official actions will be influenced by informing Carroll Township police officers that you will give them your official support if they refer police towing to a garage in which you have a financial interest. 11. Findings 1 through 8 are incorporated here by reference. 12. The Chief of Police has established the following policy for towing vehicles from the scene of an accident: a. The vehicle owner is asked which service they want and that service i s used. h. If no special request is made by the vehicle owner, the officers are to call the towing service nearest the accident or stranded vehicle. R. fi scussion: The State Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (h) No person shall offer or give to a puhlic official or public employee or candidate for puhlic office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no puhlic official or public_ employee or candidate for puhlic office shall solicit or accept, March 3, 1986 Mr. Ronald Amati Page 6 anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). March 3, 1986 The findings of fact as developed during our investigation reveals that the chief of police of Carroll Township has established a procedure for towing vehicles from the scene of an accident. The vehicle owner is given the initial option of determining which towing service said individual prefers. If the individual prefers no specific towing service, then the officer on 1 ocation will call the towing service nearest to the accident or stranded vehicle. There is no evidence that you have offered any special consideration to any official or employee of the township in return for the referral of this towing business to Amati's Service Station. Because there is no such evidence, this Commission must conclude that you did not violate the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: There is no evidence that you violated Section 3(b) of the Stat ics ct. 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 puhlic document 15 clays 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 thi sUrTe , 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). By the Co mission He B. Conner Ch man