The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About453 HoutzMr. Ronald H. Houtz R.n. #4 Bellefonte, PA 16823 Re: 83 -184 -C Dear Mr. Houtz: pp \, STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION March 3, 1986 Order No. 453 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 memher of the Spring- Renner Joint Authority, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), by having Lisbon Contractors, who held a contract with your authority, deliver tons of fill material to your private property. A. Findings: 1. You served as an appointed and compensated memher of the Spring- Renner Joint Authority. a. You were appointed to the Authority by the Renner Township Supervisors on May 9, 1979. h. Authority members are compensated at the rate of $30 per meeting. 2. The Spring- Renner Joint Authority (SRJA) was created in 1976 by Spring and Renner Townships to oversee the sewage systems of both townships. This includes, hut is not limited to the awarding of contracts for construction of sewer lines. 3. Minutes of the Spring - Renner Joint Authority confirm the following: Mr. Ronald H. Houtz Page 2 March 3, 1986 a. March 19, 1979 - SRJA received authorization on February 23, 1979 from EPA to advertise for bids for construction on Phase I. - Rids were taken on contracts 1, 2, 3 and 4 i ndividual ly and i n combi nation. Lisbon Contractors was the apparent low bidder. b. August 13, 1979 - Motion Clyde Adams, Second Leslie Lutz that a resolution be approved to award the contract, consisting of contract numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 in combination, to Lisbon Contractors in an amount of $12,566,643.05. You voted in favor of that motion. - Motion Stellard Reightol, second Ron Houtz to authorize the chairman to sign the resolution and that the secretary attest such signatures. Motion carried. c. December 14, 1981 - Ron Houtz nominated for Chairman hy Leslie Lutz. Nominations closed on motion of Clyde Adams, second Tim Miller (Houtz only nominee). d. April 27, 1982 - You asked for a formal motion to give Rob Barnes and yourself the authority to negotiate the 55 to 60 items on the punch list with Pennflot and to get items resolved so the contractor could finish the required work. (Pertains to Lisbon repairing). e. June 14, 1982 Pennflot update. Several meetings since the May 14, 1982 meeting. Rob Barnes reports there will be a meeting on May 15, 1982, in which the contract engineer, Barnes and Ron Houtz will meet with Pennflot to settle one issue. f. July 28, 1982 - Ron Houtz noted that Lisbon Contractors will be finished with the corrective work by Thursday of the next week. Final Pennflot inspection to be by August 9, 1982. August 9 , 1982 - Barnes reported that Pennflot punch l i s t completed hy the contractor with the exception of chip and oil. h. February 14, 1983 - Motion by Tim Miller, second by Bob Chubb to approve requisition #8 authorizing the Spring-Renner Joint Authority Treasurer to pay Lisbon Contractors $46,662.00 from the authority's Construction Fund. Motion carried. Mr. Ronald H. Houtz Page 3 2. I did not think that anyone would care because the fill was for the taking. March 3, 1986 i. March 14, 1983 - The Authority discussed the decision of February 14 and you stated that you thought the February motion on the payment issue was "good and valid ". j. May 9, 1983 - Council voted to approve the final payment to Lisbon Contractors. The vote was 8 to 2; you voted with the majority. a. A question was raised about paying Lisbon Contractors while the "compact issue" was still not s ettl ed . b. The solicitor's opinion was asked and he stated that Lisbon had a legal claim for payment and could sue and be awarded a judgment if the authority decided not to make the final payment. k. November 14, 1983 You entered a statement into the record about Lisbon Contractors bringing fill to your farm. Your statement included the following: 1. "I allowed the contractor to bring the fill from Phase I to my farm. 3. I had reason to believe that some other authority members knew about my receiving the fill. Nothing was said at that time. 4. It has heen brought to my attention that some authority members now think by accepting the fill from the contractor, my vote could have been swayed. 5. I have talked to my supervisors, with their solicitor sitting in, concerning this matter. They feel that no harm was done and that I should remain on the authority as appointed and continue to do the job I've been doing, 6. I intend to remain an active member of this "authority." 4. (luring the installation of the sewer lines for the Phase I project, Lisbon Contractors required to cut across the state highways. . Mr. Ronald H. Houtz Page 4 March 3, 1986 5. Lisbon Brothers: Contractors failed to resurface the highways according to Pennflot specifications. a. This necessitated the milling of the highway to remove old amesite prior to Lisbon Brothers resurfacing the state highways. This occurred during the summer months of 1983. 6. As a result of the milling process, fil 1 material was created, some of which was used by the contractor along the berms of the highways. 7. The remaining material was in large pieces and of lesser value. a. You admitted that you made Lisbon Brothers aware that the remaining fill could be dumped on your property in a ravine that needs to be filled. b. You admitted that between 8 and 10 tri -axle loads of that material were hauled to your property by Lisbon Brothers' drivers during the summer of 19 83 . c. Fill material was generally hauled to the closest dumping site. Fill was dumped at the Kel -Mar Hotel, Sunset West Restaurant and little league field. d. The distance to your property was about 5 miles more than the distance to other properties. 8. Authority sewage matinenance workers asked for some of the fill to use when installing sewer lines and man holes. The director of the authority said their request was made after the material had been hauled to your farm. 9. You had heen accepting fill at your property for the past 10 to 12 years to fill a ravine. This was done to eliminate serious soil erosion. You accepted fill from a numher of sources, not only Lisbon Brothers. B. �? scussior: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act states: 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) . Mr. Ronald H. Houtz Page 5 March 3, 1986 Your votes to award the contract and make payment to Lisbon Contractors followed accepted practices because the bid was awarded to the low kidder and payments were made in accordance with the standard procedures and advice of the solicitor. Your participation in these actions were on the public records and it was generally known that you were invovled in following the contractor's performance. The only exception to this was the hauling of fill to your farm. Your public statement about this was made after you received the fill. While there was a request from some authority workers to have some of the fill to use for their work, the authority members and engineer were aware of Lisbon's milling of the highways and the availability of fill from this project and took no action to secure it for the authority. It is reasonable to assume that they believed it was of no value to them. finder these circumstances, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: Under the foregoing circumstances, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. 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 thisZTrc F, 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 Commission, erber• B. .onner Chair an