Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout472 JulianMr. Vincent Julian R.D. 1 River Hill Road Monongahela, PA 15063 Re: 83 -159 -C Dear Mr. Julian: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION May 2, 1986 Order No. 472 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 Supervisor and Roadmaster in Forward Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a), by collecting compensation from the township without performing services, having township employees work on private vehicles owned by you and your sons, using township funds to purchase auto parts, tires and household items for your private use, having township employees and equipment used to put asphalt around your private pool, taking a salt motor spreader for your private use, and having your wife, niece and other relatives placed on the township payroll. Each allegation is individually addressed below: Allegation #1: Collecting compensation from the township without performing the services. A. Findings: 1. You have served as a supervisor in Forward Township, a township of the second - class, for at least the past (16) years. As an elected puhlic official you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. Examination of minutes of meetings of the Forward Township supervisors for the years 1979 through 1985 confirm that at every annual reorganization meeting all supervisors are appointed roadmasters. a. You attended those meetings and cast affirmative votes for supervisors appointment as roadmasters. The votes were all unanimous. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 2 May 2, 1986 b. You stated the appointment of supervisors as roadmasters was a long time practice in Forward Township. This has been confirmed by the other supervisors. 3. Your wages as roadmaster were set by the Forward Township Auditors. The rates of pay were as follows: a.. 1979 - $5.00 /hr. b. 1980 - $5.50 /hr. c. 198]. - $6.05 /hr. d. 1982 - $7.00 /hr. e. 1 3 - $7.00 /hr. f. You admit that each year the supervisors requested an hourly rate and that these requests have been approved by the auditors. g. The requests for wages from the supervl sors we-e made by way of form letters which read as follows: ... we the auditors set the following ■►ourly rates ... The requests only required the signature of the audi tors. 4.. Payroll records obtained from Forward Township confirm that you were paid as fo11(;r15 : 19722 Pay Perioe Hours Rate of Gross Het Endi ng Su brr.i tted Pay Pay 1/]..;`79 E' $5.00 $250.00 $167.92 1/31/7: 6;; 5.00 315.00 211.58 2/15/79 51 5.00 255.00 145.78 2/28/79 4 5.00 225.00 159.05 3/15/79 48 5.00 240.00 156.21 3/31/79 4P 5.00 245.00 164.56 4/15/79 44 5.00 220.00 144.91 4/30/79 46 5.00 230.00 154.49 5/15/79 32 5.00 160.00 107.47 5/31/79 52 5.00 260.00 174,64 6/15/79 58 5.00 290.00 194.79 6/30/79 63 5.00 315.00 211.5E Mr. Vincent Julian Page 3 7/15/79 7/31/79 8/15/79 8/31/79 9/15/79 9/30/79 10/15/79 10/31/79 11/15/79 11/30/79 12/15/79 12/31/79 b. 1980 Pay Period Endi ng 78 67 61 74 20 48 45 55 50 42 52 52 Hours Submitted 1/15/80 50 1/31/80 50 2/15/80 62 2/29/80 42 3/15/80 43 3/31/80 39 4/15/80 44 4/30/80 56 5/15/80 34 5/31/80 37 6/15/80 60 6/30/80 80 7/15/80 84 7/31/80 92 8/15/80 81 8/31/80 62 9/15/80 41 9/30/80 47 10/15/80 47 10/31/80 62 11/15/80 47 11/30/80 58 12/15/80 48 12/31/80 65 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Rate of Pay $5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Total Total 390.00 335.00 305.00 370.00 100.00 240.00 225.00 275.00 250.00 210.00 260.00 260.00 $6,225.00 Gross Pay $275.00 275.00 341.00 231.00 236.50 214.50 242.00 308.00 187.00 203.50 330.00 440.00 462.00 506.00 445.00 341.00 225.50 258.50 258.50 341.00 258.50 319.00 264.00 357.50 $7,320.0 May 2, 1986 261.96 225.01 204.86 248.52 67.17 161.21 151.13 184.71 167.93 148.41 174.65 174.65 $4,163.20 Net $184.73 184.73 229.06 155.39 158.57 144.10 176.96 206.89 125.62 136.70 221.67 295.55 310.33 339.89 299.06 229.06 151.48 173.65 173.65 229.06 173.65 214.29 177.34 240.14 $5,090.15 Mr. Vincent Julian Page 4 c. 1981 d,, 1982 Pay Period Ending 1/15/81 1/31/81 2/15/81 2/28/81 3 ;15/81 3/31/81 4/15/81 4/30/81 5/15/81 5/31/81 6/15/81 6/30/81 7/15/81 7/31/81 8/15/81 8/31/81 9/15/81 0/30/81 10/15/81 10/31/81 11/15/81 11/30/81 12/15/81 12/31/81 ray Period E nd i ng 1/15/82 1/31/82 2/15/82 2/28/82 3/15/82 3/31/82 4/15/82 4/30/82 5/15/82 5/31/82 6/15/82 6/30/82 Hours Submitted 62 89 36 68 51 50 45 57 56 67 61 68 78 60 58 68 61 96 105 118 94 100 102 116 Hours Submitted 118 66 G 50 78 52 38 55 70 51 54 83 Rate of Gross Pay Pay $6.05 $375.10 6.05 538.45 6.05 217.80 6.05 411.40 6.05 308.55 6.05 302.50 6.05 272.25 6.05 344.85 6.05 338.80 6.05 405.35 6.05 369.05 6.05 411.40 6.05 471.90 6.05 363.00 6.05 350.90 6.05 411.40 6.05 369.05 6.05 580.80 6.05 635.25 6.05 713.90 6.05 568.70 6.05 605.00 6.05 617.10 6.05 701.80 Toza1 $10,684.30 Rate of Pay $7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 May 2, 19R6 Net $250.02 345.59 145.17 244.22 175.70 171.63 171.48 199.86 195.82 240.19 217.99 244.22 294.91 211.96 203.94 244.22 235.99 368.23 392.46 443.61 348.79 374.24 374.74 408.13 $6,x.11 Gross Net Pay $826.00 $520.32 462.00 288.80 000.00 000.00 350.00 213.10 546.00 332.84 364.00 224.22 266.00 163.86 385.00 236.40 490.00 301.34 357.00 237.76 378.00 228.34 581.00 352.08 Mr. Vincent Julian Page 5 7/15/82 7/31/82 8/15/82 8/31/82 9/15/82 9/30/82 10/15/82 10/31/82 11/15/82 11/30/82 12/15/82 12/31/82 e. 1983 Pay Period Ending 77 94 126 94 54 53 34 20 25 25 20 20 Hours Submitted 1/15/83 20 1/31/83 20 2/15/83 20 2/28/83 25 3/15/83 46 3/31/83 65 4/15/83 46 4/30/83 20 5/15/83 40 5/31/83 65 6/15/83 59 6/30/83 54 7/15/83 67 7/31/83 44 8/15/83 52 8/31/83 29 9/15/83 29 9/30/83 45 10/15/83 32 10/31/83 32 11/15/83 23 11/30/83 32 12/15/83 32 12/31/83 36 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total Rate of Gross Pay Pay $7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total 539.00 658.00 882.00 658.00 378.00 371.00 238.00 140.00 175.00 175.00 140.00 140.00 $9,499.00 $140.00 140.00 140.00 175.00 322.00 455.00 32.2.00 140.00 280.00 455.00 413.00 378.00 469.00 308.00 364.00 203.00 203.00 315.00 224.00 224.00 161.00 224.00 224.00 252.00 $4,531.00 May 2, 19116 326.77 404.82 538.88 404.82 228.34 224.30 144.10 84.24 106.56 103.36 93.24 93.24 $5,851.7 Net $ 93.24 93.24 93.24 107.81 198.36 281.04 198.86 96.24 192.48 281.04 254.67 232.86 288.17 189.74 218.40 134.59 134.59 192.16 147.85 147.85 106.28 147.85 147.85 153.73 $4,132.14 Mr. Vincent Julian Page 6 May 2, 1986 5. The pay checks you received were based on hours you submitted to Audrey Julian, the township secretary /treasurer, who is your wife. a. You stated that each supervisor is required to maintain a personal record of hours worked and that at the end of each pay period the hours are submitted to the township secretary. Those hours are not documented or approved by any of the other supervisors. 6. Payroll records of the township c *o not reflect what services, if any, were performed by you. 7. The roadmaster position is not a full -time job, and work by the supervisors acting as roadmasters is to be done on to as needed basis. The supervisors were to do jobs not completed by the part -time road crew. 8. Until January, 1984 Forward Township did not employ a full -time road crew. The work force consisted of workers who were considered "part- time" although township records confirm that from 1981 through 1983 at least two individuals worked on a regular basis. 9. Throughout your years service as Forward TowrFhip Supervisor you have also been employed full -time as a welder for U.S. Steel, Iron Works. a. You stated that work done as Forward Township roadmaster was done after worki ng hours at U.S. Steel. 10. Payroll records obtained from U.S. Steel Company disclosed the following periods of unemployment: a. September 16, 198i to January 18, 1982 - reason: non - occupational disability. b. January 3G, 1982 to February 24, 1982 - reason: furlough. c. September 30, 1982 to February 28, 1983 - reason: furlough. d. May 8, 1984 to August 3, 1984 reason: non - occupational disability. e. December 2, 1984 to December 6, 1984 - reason: furlough. f. January 4, 1985 to January 24, 1985 - reason: furlough. 11. U.S. Steel medical personnel confirm that the non - occupational disability from September 16, 1981 to January 18, 1982 (related to 10a and 10d) was due to a lung /bronchial condition. You were initially cleared to return to work on October 5,1981, but you did not return until after being re- examined on January 15, 1982. Mr. Vi ncent Julian Page 7 a. During the period fromm September 16, 1981 to January 18, 1982 you received disability benefits from U.S. Steel in the amount of $230.00 per week. b. Medical personnel disclosed that such a bronchial condition should have restricted any type of manual labor that you would have been able to perform. 12. Forward Township Payroll January 15, 1982, the period leave, confirm that you were a. Pay period b. Pay period c. Pay period d. Pay period e. Pay period f. Pay period g. Pay period h. Pay period i. Total ending - 9/30/81 endi ng - 10/15/81 ending - 10/31/81 ending - 11/15/81 ending - 11/30/81 ending - 12/15/81 ending - 12/31/81 ending - 1/15/82 13. You confirm that the compensatio Records for the period September 15, 1981 to of time during which you were on disability compensated for the fol lowi ng hours: x $7.50 /hr x 7.50 /hr x 7.50 /hr x 7.50 /hr - 96 hours - $580.80 - 105 hours - 118 hours - 94 hours - 100 hours - 102 hours - 116 hours - 118 hours - 849 hours n received was - $635.25 - $713.90 - $568.70 - $605.00 - $617.10 - $701.80 - $826.00 - $5,248.55 for manual labor performed on township roads as well as snow plowing of township roads. 14. Forward Township payroll records for the period May 1, 1984 through October 31, 1984, the other period for which you were on disability leave, (Fi ndi ng 10d), confirm that you were compensated for the fol1owi ng hours: Pay period ending: a. 5/15/84 - 44 hrs. b. 5/31/84 - 73 hrs. c. 6/15/84 - 40 hrs. d. 6/30/84 - 11 hrs. $330.00 $547.50 $300.00 - $ 82.50 May 2, 1986 Mr. Vincent Julian Page 8 e . f 9. h. 7/15/84 -, 77 hrs. x 7/31/84 - 77 hrs. x 8/15/84 - 38 hrs. x Total - 360 hours 15. a. Forward Township records confirm; that yct.; attended spring conferences held at Seven Springs Resort uponsored by the Allegheny County League of Municipalities on the following dates: 1. 1979 - April 6, 7, 8 2. 1981 - April 2, 3, 4, 5 3. 1982 - April 1, 2, 3, 4 4. 1983 - April 7, 8, 9, 10 b, Township records also confirm that you attended fall conferences at Seven Springs sponsored bf t ,e l legheny County League of Municipalities on the following dates: 1. 1982 - September 30, October 1, 2, 3 2. 1983 September 29, 30 October, 1, 2, 16. Tt; anship payroll records indicate that you were compensated as follows for hours submitted for work at the township when also attending conferences. (related to 15 above). 19'79 - Ap^il 6, 1979 - A 10 hours at $5.00 /hr = $50.00 198] 3 hours at $6.05 /hr = $18.15 ae b. April 2 2, 1981 c. A p , April 8, 1983 7.50 /hr - $577.50 7.50 /hr - $577.50 7.50 /hr - $285.00 - $2,700.00 1983 - ril 7 1983 - 3 hours at $7.00 /hr = $21.00 - 2 hours at $7.00 /hr = $14.00 May 2, 1986 hel d d. 1983 - September' 29, 1983 - 8 hours at $7.00 /hr = $56.00 September 30, 1983 - 2 hours at $7.00 /hr = $14.00 17. The part -time township employee with the most seniority and who worked on a regular basis from 1981 to mid -1983 states you did not work the number of hours for which you were compensated. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 9 18. Following is a listing of hours submitted for payment by each of the Forward Township Supervisors for the years 1980 through 1983: a. 1980 b. 1981 Lewis Davis - 121 hours @ $6.05 /hr - $732.05 Alfred Pellegrini - 827 hours @ $6.05 /hr - $5,003.35 Vincent Julian - 1766 hours @ $6.05 /hr - $10,684,30 c. 1982 Lewis Davis - 427 hours @ $5.50 /hr - $2,348.50 Alfred Pellegrini - 768 hours @ $5.50 /hr - $4,224.00 Vincent Julian 1331 hours @ $5.50 /hr - $7,320.50 May 2, 1986 Lewis Davis - 328 hours @ $7.00 /hr - $2,296.00 Alfred Pellegrini - 700 hours @ $7.00 /hr - $4,900.00 Vincent Julian - 1357 hours @ $7.00 /hr - $9,499.00 B. Discussion: As a Township Supervisor in a township of the second class, you are clearly a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Act. Sowers, 80 -050; King, 86 -025. The State 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). Within the above provision of law, a township official may not use his position in order to obtain any financial gain for himself other than the compensation provided for by law. Such an official may not use confidential information obtained in his official position for similar purposes. As an elected township official you were, of course, permitted to be appointed to the position of township roadmaster, or laborer and were also authorized to receive compensation for serving i n such a position. In order to receive such compensation, however, and in order for such compensation to be that which is provided for by law, it must have been fixed by the township board of auditors and a supervisor so employed must be physically able to and actually work on Mr. Vincent Julian Page 10 May 2, 1986 the township roads and facilities. 53 P.S. §65514; §65515; Nanovic, 85 -005. Thus, any township supervisor, who in his official position, approves and accepts payments for working on township roads when that individual actually does not work would be in violation of the State Ethics Act as well as potentially in violation of other provisions of law. We have reviewed the instant situation in light of the above principles of law, The most serious question that has been raised in reference to this situation results froit the fact that while on non - occupational disability leave from your full -time pr°ive to employment, you were paid for working on the township roads. According to Vie medical personnel who were familiar with your situation, your disability would have been of the type that restricted you abililty to perform manual 1. bor. You confirm, however, that the compensation received for working on the township road was, in fact, for manual labor. As a result, the facts indicate that one of two possible explanations for t:e above situation exists. Initially, you may have received pay for a non - occupational di sab i l i t from your private employer while you, in fact, worked on township roads. This would indicate that your disability was not Furious enough to limit your performance cf manual labor duties. In this respect, your receipt of disability pay from your private employer while you were actually capable of working, is questionable. The other possibility, based uper. the above outlined facts, i s that you were, i n fact, disabled to the point of not being able to perform manual labor but that you nevertheless received pay from the township even though such labor was not performed. The evidence in - f..he instant situation is not sufficient to allow us to determine wi ' h any degree of certainty which of the two fact ±al patterns actually occurred. We do believe, however, that the occurance of either one of these factual patterns would have resulted in a situation that is not in accord with the law. If, in fact, you had receive:l disability income from your private employer based upon the fact that yct wlre unable to perform manual labor but yet did go out and perform such labor for the township, provisions of law not within the jurisdiction of the State Ethics Commission may have been violated. If on the other hand, this situation is the type described in the second possibility above, then you would have violated the State Ethics Act in that you would have received compensation in your official position for work not actuJf.ly performed. In addition to the foregoing, we feel obligated to make note of the fact that throughout your term as e township supervisor, the township payroll records indicate that you worked a substantial number of hours in your position as township roadmaster. This work was performed even though you were also serving in a full -time position; of private employment. Indeed, the work that you performed and the pay that you received from the township is more than that paid by the township to the other two supervisors combined. While the township payroll records indicate that you worked a substantial number of hours during each pay period, several township employees have indicated that they did not see you working on the township roads for this amount of time. Thus, you either worked on the township roads at a time when other employees were not working or you were compesated for working on the township roads when, i n fact, you did not perform such services. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 11 May 2, 19R6 Fi nal ly, we note, as set forth i n Fi ndi ng 15, you received compensation as a township roadmaster on various dates. Township records, however, also confirm that you attended conferences in Seven Springs on behalf of the township on those dates. As such, we believe that there is a substantial question raised as to whether you actually performed your duties as a township roadmaster on these days. We believe that the pattern of activity evidenced by the foregoing factual situation is highly questionable. As such, we believe that the facts presented above warrant complete review by the appropriate law enforcement authorities in this Commonwealth so that a determination can be made as to whether further proceedings should be initiated in relation to this situation. C. Conclusion: The evidence presented in relation to the number of hours that you worked and the payment that you received for working on the township roads while you were also a full -time employee of a private corporation, the fact that you collected disability income from a private employer while at the same time allegedly performing manual labor for the township, and the fact that you received compensation for worki ng on township roads while you were allegedly attending township conferences, warrants further review by appropriate law enforcement authorities. We are, therefore, referring this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority with the recommendation that further review be undertaken in order to determine whether your actions are in accordance with appropriate laws and that appropriate actions be initiated if warranted. Allegation #2: Havi ng township employees work on private vehicles owned by you and your sons. A. Fi ndi ngs : 18. One of your sons owned a Plymouth Duster that was repaired at the Forward Township Garage in May, 1982. a. You admit that you and James Large, a part -time roadworker for the township, changed an engine in this vehicle at the township garage. b. You allege that the work was completed on Monday, May 24, 1982. c. Large confines this. 19. Forward Township payroll records for the period May 16, 1982 to May 31, 1982 disclosed the following: a. Large was not compensated for any hours on May 24, 1982. Mr. Vi ncent Julian Page 12 May 2, 19R6 b. You were compensated for (3) hours worked on May 24, 1982 at a rate of $7.00 /per hour. c. Township records do not reflect what services you performed on May 24, 1982. 20. You deny that you were compensated by the township on May 24, 1982 while working on your son's vehicle. a. You claim that the compensation was related to township duties. You offered no proof as to duties /work performed. 21. You and your wife provided the following documents: a. Invoice from Pit -Mon Auto Salvage, Monongahela, Pennsylvania, dated May 24, 1982 made out to Vincent Julian. The invoice is in the amount of $191.50. b. Check #304 drawn on the joint account of Vincent and Audrey Julian, payable to Pit -Mon Auto in an amount of $191.50 and dated May 24, 1982. 22. You and township Road Worker James Large were observed on Monday, October 22, 1984, working on your personal vehicle, a GMC Pick -Up, in the Forward Township Garage. a. On October 22, 1984, Roadworker James Large was compensated for (8) hours. Large was compensated for (8) hours every work day of that period. B. Discussion: Once again, your conduct must be reviewed under the aforecited section, 3(a) of the State Ethics Act., If in affect you had tilized township employees in order to repair your personal vehicle or the personal vehicle of a member of your immediate family, then you would be in violation of the State Ethics Act. As a township supervisor and roadmaster you have general control over the supervision of the township and over the employees of the township and the work performed by said employees. 53 P.S. §66516(e). There is no doubt that you did, in fact, use the township facilities, i.e. the garage, in order to have repairs performed on your personal vehicle. Ttis was done on Monday, May 24, 1982, and you have acknowledged that the facilities were used. The use of such facilities was not available to the public at large, and your use of these facilities was occasioned only by virtue of the fact that you were a township supervisor, as well as a roadmaster. You also admit that you assisted Mr. Large, a township employee, in the repairs that were made on the car but that you were not compensated for making said repairs. We hasten to note, however, that you did receive compensation for working 3 hours on Monday, May 24, 1982, the date on which the car was serviced. Additionally, we note that this date was not one Mr. Vincent Julian Page 13 May 2, 1986 of the dates during which you were on disability leave or furlough from your private employment. Thus, your work with Mr. Large must of have been performed while you were not working at your private employment and when you were not working on the township roads. Once again, we believe that this factual situation presents a question as to the payment you received in relation to your township duties. In any event, even if it were determined that the compensation you received was for legitimate township road work, the use of the facilities, in this case the township garage, would have been a financial gain obtained through use of your public office. Again, on Monday, October 22, 1984, you and Mr. Large were observed working on your personal vehicle in the Forward Township garage. Mr. Large was compensated for 8 hours of work on that day. We believe that Mr. Large's receipt of compensation at the township's expense for working on your private vehicle would constitute a violation of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: Your use of the township facilities, and the - use of a township employee, who is compensated by the township for working on your private vehicle, constitutes a violation of Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. This matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority for further review and disposition. Allegation #3: That you purchased auto parts, tires and household items for your private use with township funds. A. Findings : 24. Forward Township records confirm that the following are major suppliers for auto parts, tires, etc. a. Webster Auto Parts, Rte. 906, Webster, PA 15087 b. Elizabeth Milling, Elizabeth, PA 15037 c. Skrinny's Auto Repair, Elizabeth, PA d. Essey's Tire Service e. Ehler's Auto Parts, Belle Vernon, PA f. Frye Lumber Co., Monongahela, PA g. Rubinos Generator Service, Monongahela, PA h. Key Auto Supply, Monongahela, PA i. Devore Hardware, Monongahela, PA Mr. Vi ncent Julian Page 14 May 2, 1986 25. The past practice of the township was to authorize any township employee or supervisor to purchase supplies. a. The township employee requesting parts would make the purchase, usually from one of the above companies. The employee would be required to sign the bill. The township would subsequently be invoiced at a later date. b. These bills would subs'equentiy be s ubmitted for approval at township supervisors meetings. You routinely vcte to approve the bills. c. Your signature appears on numerous i nvoicef for the purchase of auto parts, tires and household items. d. There is no way to determine if any of these put chases were made for personal reasons. 26. Information obtained from township records and Elisabeth Milling Co. confirms the following: a. Elizabeth Milling invoice no. 21044 dated September 24, 1981 to Fo w :rd Township for (1) Woodmaster Supp. Heater, $580.00. Sold by NiP and charged to the township. Received by V. Julian. b. Circled in the upper right hand corner of invoice no. 21044 was "2 wood coal ". That notation was written by . Robert Andrews, owner of Elizabeth Milling. c. Elizabeth Milling (0. sta;emen,: to Forward Township which lists September 24, 1981 entry, invoice no. 21044 in an amount of $580.00. Statement marked paid October 9, 1981, #941. Total amourt due $643.92. d. Forward Township Ge-ieral Acccunt Check #941, dated October 9, 1981 pzyable to Elizabeth Milling in an amount of $643.92. 27. Robert Andrews, owner Elizabeth Milling, states that the handwriting in the upper right corner of invoice no. 21044 was written by him and denotes that (2) wood and coal stoves were sold at a cost of $580.00. Andrews made this notation based on information provided to "rim by Salesperson Michael Piscitelli, who made the sa ?e. Andrews also confirms that $580.00 would have been the cost of two stoves. 28, The township has one wood and coal stove in the township garage. a. The stove is a Coal Master Coal Heater, Model C -6 78U, Serial No. H136436, Blower Serial #86780. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 15 May 2, 1986 b. The stove was manufactured by Suburban Manufacturing Co., Dayton, Indi ana. c. You confirm this was the stove purchased by you from Elizabeth Mil 1 i ng on September 24, 1981. (Rel ated to fi ndi ng 26 a.) 29. Suburban Manufacturing confirms that Model C -6 is a wood and coal stove which normally sold for $241.50. The blower 78U sold for an additional $46.25. Total cost for one complete unit was $287.75, approximately one half of the price paid to Elizabeth Milling. B. Discussion: The facts as set forth above do not indicate that you purchased any auto parts or tires using township funds for your own personal use. However, on September 24, 1981, you purchased a wood burning stove at the Elizabeth Milling Company. A wood burning stove was, thereafter, installed in the Forward Township garage building. Further review of the situation, however, reveals that the owner of Elizabeth Milling marked down on the invoice for the township's purchase of the stove in question, a note indicating that the township had, in fact, purchased two wood burning stoves. It is also clear that the township paid $580.00 for the stove(s) purchased by you on that date. The manufacturer of the stove has clearly indicated that the purchase price of the stove, which was obtained by the township, would have been approximately $287.75. This is approximately one half of the value of two stoves. Based upon the fact that the stove you purchased for the township was specifically two times the amount of one stove, and based upon the fact that the owner of the Elizabeth Milling Company, at the time that the purchase was made, indicated on his invoice that two stoves had been purchased, raises a question as to the disposition of the second stove. The purchase of the stoves was made by you, however, only one stove has been accounted for as being on township property. Because of the factors, as set forth above, we believe that a substantial question has been raised as to your disposition of the second stove. We are unable to determine if, in fact, you obtained the second stove for your own personal use or for a use that was not in accord with the provisions of the State Ethics Act. However, because of the substantial questions raised in this particular matter, we are referring this factual information to the appropriate law enforcement authority for further review as to the disposition of the stove that was purchased by you with township funds, but not turned over to the township. C. Conclusion: Based upon the factual information as set forth above, we are unable to determine whether you violated the State Ethics Act. We do, however, find that two wood burning stoves were purchased using township funds and that only one stove was turned over to the possession of the township. In light of this finding, we are referring this matter for further review by the appropriate law enforcement authorities. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 16 May 2, 1986 Allegation #4: That you used township employees and equipment to put asphalt around your private pool. A. Findings: 30. You had ar, i n- ground ng pool instal led on your property some time i n 1981. The pool was i r,tal led by r'ari Fekula, Forward Township Tax Collector, who alsc het ?n :cevati ng business. 31. Carl Fekula confirms that he instal the pool i n July, 1981. His records confirm that tie pcol package was purchased from his supplier, Olander & Brophy and was paid for by hire ;ire July 16, 1981 by check #889 in an amount of $3,378.91. Fekula also confirmec' that he charged an additional $1,500 for excavation and installation. a. Records of Olander & Broph„ confirm that a pool kit and accessories were delivered to Carl Fekula's place of business in June, 1981. 1he total cost of the pool kit, accessories and tax was $3,378.91. Company records also confirmed that payment was made by Fekula, Check #889 on July 16, 1981 in an amount of $3,378.91. b. Company records further disclosed that Fekula purchased no pools prior to 1978 or after 1981. 32. Records obtained form Audrey Julian confirm the following regarding payments made to Carl Fekula for the swimming pool. a. Equibank Bank Statement of Vincent and Audrey Julian dated October 23, 1981 listing Check #'s 147 in an amount of $3,000 and #152 in an amount of $200.00 made payable to Carl Fekula. b. Check #147 dated August 3, 1981 payable to Carl Fekula in an amount of $3,000. c. Check #152 dated August 26, 1981 payable to Carl Fekula in an amount of $200.00. d. Equibank Bank Statement dated January 25, 1982 listing Check #187 in an amount of $200.00. e. Check #187 dated October 20, 1981 payable to Carl Fekula in an amount of $200,00. f. Equibank Bank Statement dated February 22, 1982 listing Check #'s 195, 204, 228 and 247 all in the amounts of $200.00. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 17 33. Audrey Julian provided a breakdown of the pool costs as follows: Pool Diving Board Ladder Vacuum Solar Cover Winter Cover 6% Tax Excavation $2,951.00 185.00 75.00 60.00 143.00 141.15 $3,555.15 213.30 $1,500.00 $5,268.45 May 2, 1986- g. Check #195 dated November 6, 1981, #204 dated December 7, 1981, #228 dated January 19, 1982 and #247 dated February 16, 1982. All made payable to Carl Fekula in the amounts of $200.00. h. Equibank Bank Statement dated April 26, 1982 listing Check #268 in an amount of $200.00. i. Check #268 dated March 18, 1982 payable to Carl Fekula in an amount of $200.00. j. Private Line Loan Account, #03- 04065 -9 listing check date of May 14, 1982 in an amount of $868.45. 34. You confirm that during the spring or summer of 1982, landscaping was done around the pool. a. You admit that township roadworkers George Scagline and Franklin Pascarella and your son James assisted in the landscaping and black topping of the area around the pool. You allege that none of the township roadworkers were on the township payroll on the date when the work was performed. 35. Township roadworker Frank Pascarella purchased the black top from Clairton Slag at your direction. You stated you gave Pascarella a personal check to cover the costs of the blacktop. a. The black top was hauled to your residence by Pascarella in a vehicle owned by Pascarella. b. You state that only one load of blacktop was purchased from Clairton Slag . c. You provided a copy of a personal check, number 327, dated June 24, 1982 made payable to Clairton Slag in an amount of $210.13. You state this check covered the costs of all blacktop used around the pool. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 18 May 2, 1986 36. Roadworker Franklin Pascarella confirms that he used his personal truck to haul blacktop from Clairton Slag to your home in June, 1982. a. Pascarella stated two loads were delivered to your home. One load was paid for with your personal check; the other was charged to the township, 37. Township records crnf :rm the following: a. Clairton Slag Scale T cket No. 06E75 dated June 24, 1982 for ID2 top, batch weight 11890 signed by Frank Pascarella. b. Clairton Slag Invoice #T6 -24 dated Jur. 30, 1982 in an amount of $178.90 for 5.95 tons of ID -Top. Invoice marked paid July 6, 1982, No. 9'24. c. Forward Township Supervisors General Account C No. 934 dated July 7, 1982 payable to Clairton Slag. Check authorized by Vincent Julian a' - Audrey Julian. ,38. Roadwc : Frank Fascarella stated he was compensated for eight (8) hours road work on Jure 24, 1982 but actually worked on your pool. a. Copy of . ;township payroll records for the pay period June 16, 1982 to Jurie 30, 1982 does not list Pascarella as working on June 24, 1982. 39. Carl Fekula Forward Township on May 8, 1981 in an amount of $3,200 for grader, backhoe and truck use on Guffey Road, Tunnel Hollow Road, Sadler Road and Manown Road. a. There was no documentation attached to that invoice. b. Fekula was paid by the township from the General Fund by Check #783 on June 2, 1981. Check was deposited by Fekula in his account on June 12, 1981. c. Records supplied by Fekula reflect that work was completed on the above roads on: 7/3/80 - 6 hrs. 7/14/80 - 5 1/2 hrs. 7/15/80 - 6 1/2 hrs. 7/17/80 - 7 hrs. 25 hrs. All work done on Guffey Road. d, No record for work done on the other roads listed above. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 19 May 2, 1986 B. Discussion: Once again, the above allegation must be reviewed in light of Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act and we are called upon to determine whether you used your public position in order to obtain a financial gain for yourself. In the instant situation, it is clear, that a pool was installed on your private residential property in July of 1981. While township employees were used for the blacktopping of the area surrounding this pool, there is no evidence that the township paid the wages of these individuals for that work. That is, there is no evidence that these individuals were on township time when they performed this personal task for you. The materials purchased, however, were obtained from the Clairton Slag Company. You have advised that only one load of blacktop was obtained on the date that the blacktopping work was done. One of the individuals, who had worked on the pool, has confirmed that the work was performed on June 24, 1982. This employee, however, also asserts that two loads of blacktopping material were obtained from Clairton Slag for use at your pool. While he confirmed that one load was paid for with a personal check that he had obtained from you, he also indicated that the second load was charged to the township. We have reviewed the facts in this matter and have determined that, in fact, a personal check, #327 dated June 24, 1982 was made payable to Clairton Slag. The records also indicate, however, confirming the statement of the employee, that a Clairton sales ticket, dated June 24, 1982 and a Clairton Slag invoice relating thereto, were submitted to and paid for by the township. The amount of that payment was $178.90. The check made payable to Clairton Slag from the township was authorized by you as township supervisor and your wife as township secretary /treasurer. In light of the foregoing, we believe that you used township funds in order to purchase materials for your own personal use. As such, we believe that you have violated the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: You violated the State- Ethics Act when you used township funds, as a township supervisor, to purchase blacktopping materials that were used on your private property. Allegation #5: That you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by taking a salt spreader motor belonging to the township. A. Findings: 41. In 1981 Forward Township purchased a Briggs and Stratton gasoline motor to be mounted on a salt spreader. 42. It was alleged that during the summer months of 1982 the motor was taken to your horse by township roadworkers James Large and Franklin Pascarella. The motor was hauled in Large's truck. a. Pascarel la and part -time roadworker Robin Davis confirmed that this occurred. Large denied the incident. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 20 May 2, 19516 b. Pascarella and Davis confirm that after the motor was taken to your home, you went to the township garage and informed the roadworkers that the motor was stolen. c. A Briggs and Stratton motor was subsequently returned to the township at a later date. B. Discussion: The instant situation must also be reviewed under Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. The facts indicate that township employees, in fact, dismantled the township salt spreader and transported the motor to your home. You later informed the workers that the motor had been stolen, but after a question was raised, a motor was returned to the township building. Indeed, even if the above factual situation would not result in a finding that the Ethics Act had been violated, there is a clear indication that other provisions of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code may have been violated in your receipt of the salt spreader motor that had belonged to the township. As such, we believe that this matter should also be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. C. Conclusion: We believe that the act that a salt spreader motor was dismantled and delivered to your home, and that you serve as a supervisor in the toidrs4 :ip ;_nd roadmaster with authority over the individuals who performed th :s task and who delivered it to you, requires our referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority. Even though the motor had later been returned, we believe that a substantial question as to your activities has been raised. As such, this matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority for further review and disposition. Allegation #6: That you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by using township gasoline in your persona's vehicle for private use. A. F i n d i n g s : 43. Forward Township maintains its own gasoline supply at the township garage. a. The town hip maintains a supply of leaded and unleaded gasoline. b. The supplier is Paul Stracelsky Oil Co., Monongahela, PA. 44. Prior to April, 1983 the township did not meter gasoline usage. a, A meter was put on the township tanks in April, 1983 by Supervisor Lewis Davis following allegations that gasoline was being stolen. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 21 May 2, 1gR6 45. At least three township employees and one township resident have observed you putting gasoline from township supplies into vehicles owned by you or members of your family. These individuals report that this has occurred on a regular basis from at least 1981 at odd hours and times including Sundays. 46. Only a few instances were documented, although it has been affirmed that your use of township gasoline occurred with much greater frequency. Those dates are: a. 3/19/83 - 15.4 gallons 4/1/83 - 28.2 gallons 4/13/83 - 8.6 gallons 4/17/83 - 14.5 gallons 47. You admit to putting gasoline in your personal vehicles but claim you did so only when you used your vehicle for township business. a. You also stated that on one occasion you instructed Audrey Julian to deduct (1) hours wage from your pay for your use of township gasoline. Township payroll records do not reflect when this occurred. B. Discussion: We have also reviewed the allegation that you have place township gasoline in your private vehicles for personal use under Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. While there is no doubt that you did, in fact, place township gasoline in your personal vehicles, there is insufficient evidence available that would enable us to decide or determine that you, in fact, did not use this for official township purposes. Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act, however, proscribes the receipt of any financial gain that is not part of the compensation provided by law. Your compensation as a supervi sor i s general ly establi shed by the Second Class Township Code and provides for the payment of compensation for attendance at supervisor meetings. 53 P.S. §65515. Additionally, you are entitled to other compensation as an appointed roadmaster. Such compensation, however, must be fixed by the township board of auditors. 53 P.S. 65515. This compensation may include an expense allotment for the use of a personal passenger car. In the instant situation, the township board of auditors did not fix an allowance for the use of a supervisor's personal vehicle. They did not fix or authorize the use of township gasoline by you for any purpose. Thus, it appears as though you obtained a gain that was not part of the compensation provided for by law. As such, this matter will be referred for further review by the appropriate authorities. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 22 May 2, 19B6 C. Conclusion: Because, the auditors of the township did not fix, as part of your compensation, the use of townshp gasoline or an allowance for the use of your personal vehicle, it appears that you obtained a financial gain that was not part of the compensation provided by law. This matter will be referred for further review by the appropriate authorities. Allegation #7: That you violated Section 3!.) of the Ethics Act when you had your wife, niece a'+d other relatives placed on the township payroll. A. Fi y rdi ngs: 48. You have served as a For.ard Township Supervisor for at least the past (16) years. 49. Your wife, Audrey Julian.. has been employed as township secretary /treasurer for at least the past (17) years. 50. Appointment of a Secretary /Treasurer is made at annual reorganization meet; ngF of the township supervisors. Salary was set at speci al meeti ngs approvi ng the budget. 53., Mi nutes of Forward Township supervisors meeti ngs confirm the fol1owi ng regardi ng Audrey Juli an's appointment of Secretary /Treasurer and setting of salary. The salary for your wife was a specific item set forth in the budget for each year. a. November 22, 1978 Special Meeting: Resolution R -78 -8, adoption of budget for 1979. Motion Pellegrini, second Julian to adopt resolution as read. d<iotion Pellegrini , second Julian to hold special meeting on December 18, 1978 for final adoption. b. December 18, 1978 Speci al Meeting: Motion Fel legri ni , second Julian that budget for 1979 be adopted as displayed, all yes, so ordered. Resolution R -78 -11 Fixing Compensation of Township Officials and Employees. Motion Pelligrini, second Julian to adopt Resolution as presented. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. c. January 2, 1979 Reorganization Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Julian that Audrey Julian be retained as secretary /treasurer.. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. d. November 29, 79 Special Meeting: Secretary reads Resolutions R -79 -5 and R -79 -6, budget resolutions. Motion Pellegrini, second Julian that budget be tenatively approved as read. e. December 2C, 1979 Speci al Meeting : Second readi ng of budget for 1980. Motion Pellegrini, second Julian that budget be adopted as read. All yes, so ordered. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 23 J. • May 2, 19R6 f. January 7, 1980 Reorganization Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that Audrey Julian retain the position as secretary. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. g. November 24, 1980 Special Meeting: Resolutions 80 -6 and 80 -7 read. Motion Pellegrini, second by Davis that resolutions be adopted as read. Questions the motion, all yes, so ordered. h. December 22, 1980 Special Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that 1981 budget be adopted as presented. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. i. January 5, 1981 Reorganization Meeting: Motion Davis, second Pellegrini that Audrey Julian retain the position of secretary /treasurer. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. November 25, 1981 Special Meeting: Secretary read budget resolutions 81 -8 and 81 -9. Motion Davis, second Pellegrini that budget be accepted as read feflecting (3) mill increase. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. k. December 28, 1981 Special Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that budget for 1982 be adopted as presented. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. 1. January 4, 1982 Reorganization Meeting: Motion by Pellegrini, second Davis that Audrey Julian retain position as secretary. Questions on the motion, all yes, so ordered. m. November 24, 1982 Special Meeting: Budgets for 1983 was read including Resolution R -82 -11 and R- 82 -12. Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that budget be approved as read. Question on the motion, all yes, so ordered. n. January 3, 1983 Reorganization Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that Audrey Julian retain position as secretary /treasurer. Motion carried. o. December, 1983 Special Meeting Budget: You voted to approve budget for 1984 as was presented. p. January 3, 1984 Reorganization Meeting: Motion by Davis, second by Pellegrini that Audrey Julian retain position as secretary /treasurer. Julian abstained. q. December 21, 1984 Special Meeting: Motion Pellegrini, second Davis that budget that had been on dislplay be approved for 1985. 2 ayes (Pellegrini and. Julian). Mr. Davis voted no. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 24 May 2, 1986 52. During an initial interview on September 12, 1984 you admitted to voting for Audrey Julian's appointment as secretary /treasurer and to participating in budget di scussions setting her salary. a. During a subsequent interview on April 8, 1985 you could not recal 1 voting on her appointment as secretary /treasurer but you admitted to particirating i r. budget di scussio3s and voting to approve annual budgets. b. Township records indicate that as a supervisor you issued the checks made payable to your wife. 53. Township payroll records confirm that Audrey Julian was paid as follows: a. 1979 - $50C.00 /bi- weekly, $14,300 /annual b. 1980 - $605.00/bi- weekly, $15,730 /annual c. 1981 - $665.50/bi-weekly, $17,303 /annual d. 1982 - <4,730.10 /bi- weekly, $18982.60 / annual e. 1981 - $783.33 /bi- weekly, $20,366.58/annual 54. Township payroll records also confirm that Audrey Julian is the highest paid township employee. 55. Your sons Michael and James Julian have also been employed on a part -time basis by Forward Township. a. A review of the township minutes of supervisors meetings reflects that th2 hirings were not made at any public meeting. b. Payroll records confirm that you approved !lours worked for your sons and that you and Audrey Julian signed those pay checks. c. Both sons were di rectea to report to work by either you or Audrey Juli an. d. At the time of t'reir respective periods of employment, both of your sons were dependent and residing in your home. You admit that both were college students and reliant upon you for support. 5b. Forward Township payroll records confirm the following amounts paid to your son Michael Julian, DOB: 4/28/62. a. 1981 - $52,58 h. 1982 - $703.50 Mr. Vincent Julian Page 25 May 2, 1986 57. Forward Township payroll records confirm the following amounts to your son James Julian, DOB 5/6/59. a. 1981 - $1,548.72 b. 1982 - $441.00 58. W -2 wage and tax statements for the years 1981 and 1982 for both Michael and James Julian list their home address as R.D. #3, Box 40 -A, Monongahela, PA, your home address. 59. You admit that there was no open and public process to hire your sons. You claim that you cleared their hiring through Supervisor Alfred Pellegrini. B. Discussion: As noted previously, the State Ethics Act would prohibit you, as a public official, from using your public position in order to obtain a financial gain for yourself or a member of your immediate family. Member of one's immediate family is defined as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. Within the above provision of law, we have already determined that a township supervisor may not participate in the appointment of his spouse to the position of township secretary /treasurer. See Marcinek, No. 399; McCaigue, No. 392 -R. In the instant situation, you routinely voted for your wife's appointment to the position of secretary /treasurer i n al 1 years that you served, except for 1984. In 1984, you abstained from the appointment of your wife as secretary /treasurer. You voted on the township budget in the years as outlined in the findings of fact. Your wife's salary was a specific item set forth in the budget. You also participated in the hiring of your minor dependent children to positions of employment with the township. There is no doubt that you participated in an action in which you had a direct personal financial interest. This is the type of activity that has been proscribed by the State Ethics Act and which has generally been prohibited under the common law. See e.g. Genkinger v. Newcastle, 368 Pa. 547, 84 A.2d 303 (1951); McCreary v. Major, 4034 Pa. 355 22 A.2d 686, (1941). C. Conclusion: You violated the State Ethics Act when you participated in the appointment of your wife to the compensated position of township secretary /treasurer, the salary fixed for her in that position, as well as the appointment of your minor dependent children to positions of employment within the township. Mr. Vincent Julian Page 26 May 7, 1966 Based upon all of the foregoing allegations, findings and conclusions, we believe that this matter should be referred to the Office of Attorney General for further review of each or the aforementioned matters and with the recommendation that this matter be seriously reviewed for determination as to whether further criminal or civil actions should be initiated by that office. 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, i ncludi ng 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 confident al i ty of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned fcr not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, so o. .t„ G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman