HomeMy WebLinkAbout473 ColpoMr. John B. Colpo
Rear 11 Harmar Drive
Cheswick, PA 15024
Re: 84 -13 -C
Dear Mr. Colpo:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
May, 2, 1986
Order No. 473
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 hased are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, a Harmar Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act by having the township pay for major medical and dental
insurance plans in which you participated.
A. Findings:
1. You have served as a Harmar Township Supervisor from November 22, 1982
until the end of December, 1983. You are subject to the provisions of the
Ethics Act.
2. You were also appointed roadmaster in the township for the year
1983. There is no evidence that you worked as a roadmaster or received pay
for this position.
3. The township carried a group medical insurance plan administered by the
Trustees Insurance Fund, sponsored by The Pennsylvania State Association of
Township Supervisors and placed with State Mutual of America. This plan
included coverage as follows:
a. Hospitalization - Effective January 1, 1978 and still in force.
h. Weekly Indemnity - Effective Decemher 1, 1976 to April 1, 1984.
c. Hospital Indemnity - Effective Decemher 1, 1976 to April 1, 1984.
d. Dental - Effective August 1, 1981 and still in force.
4. Not all supervisors were covered hy these plans.
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 2
May 2, 1986
5. Minutes of township supervisors meetings record the following activities
relating to the insurance plan.
a. June 28, 1982: Prove Seibert, second Walkiewicz that the (2)
supervisors now receiving medi cal insurance wi l l
reimburse the township to remain on the program
after a (30) day period. Motion carried
unanimously.
Move Seibert, second Manning that the Board of
Supervisors pay for their current life insurance
premiums on a monthly basis. Motion carried
unanimously.
Move Seibert, second Domaratz that any supervisor
on the Denta, Program to have the same 30 day
option to pay for the insurance or option out.
Motion carried unanimously.
b. January 3, 1983 Motion Domaratz, second Manning to appoint
supervisors as roadmasters for 1983 with a
recommendation to the auditors setting the pay at
the same hourly rate as the road foreman. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by you, second Walkiewicz to set the
supervisors pay at $25.00 /meeting and award any
other legal benefits to the supervisors. Motion
carried unanimously.
c. May 23, 1983: Solicitor Edward Martin reports on supervisors
health insurance. Solicitor stated the State
Association advised that this is a proper expense.
He recommends that the auditors be requested to
approve insurance coverage as part of the
compensation for supervisors.
d. October 10, 1983: Motion by you, second Walkiewicz to pay all
tabulated bills. (Included was Trustees bill in an
amount of $6,113.00).
e. February 13, 1984: Supervisors Liberati, Adams and Domeratz state on
the record that they are not covered by the
township medical /hospitalization insurance.
f. March 12, 1984: Motion Adams, second Walkiewicz to cancel the
Trustees Insurance policies for hospital and weekly
i ndemnity. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 3
9.
May 2, 1986
January 14, 1985: Walkiewicz stated he will reimburse the township
for health insurance received through Trustees
Insurance Company (Pennsylvania State Association
of Township Supervisors sponsored) for 1984 and
1985; providing, that in the event that future
legislation makes this expense allowable, Mr.
Walkiewicz and Mr. Yakopec are reimbursed.
6. Auditors actions and related activities involving the insurance plan were
as follows:
a. April 15, 1982: Letter from the auditors to the supervisors listing
recommendations following the audit. Item No. 4
recommended that the township stop paying for
insurance for any appointed or elected official who
does not work full -time because it creates a
financial burden.
b. May 26, 1983: Letter from township secretary /treasurer to the
auditors requesting that insurance be approved as
part of the compensation for supervisors.
c. January 26, 1984: Letter from Solicitor Edward Martin to Harmar
Township secretary /treasurer regardi ng
medical /hospitalization insurance for supervisors.
Solicitor Martin opined that the payments were
proper but specifically noted that payment of
premiums was a form of additional compensation and
should be specifically approved by the auditors.
d. February 21, 1984: Letter from the auditors to the supervisors
allowing expenditures of funds for medical
insurance for supervisors only in 1983. The
auditors stated they made this decision because
legal costs would offset any money recovered. They
noted that they would not approve expenditures for
medical insurance after February 21, 1984 and
suggested that the supervisors reimburse the
township for any 1984 premium paid out of township
funds.
e. March 7, 1984: Letter from the auditors to the supervisors
reaffi rmi ng February 21, 1984 letter and denyi ng
approval for 1984 medical insurance expenditure.
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 4
7. The township paid the following premiums on your behalf:
A. Dental Premiums (Policy #440)
1. Coverage - January 1, 1983 to October 31, 1983:
a) You
b) Dependent
a) You
b) Dependent
- $ 89.20
- $175.04
$264.24 paid January 19, 1983:
2. Coverage effective November 1, 1983 to January 4, 1984:
- $ 26.50
May 2, 1986
- $ 52.25
$ 78.75 paid October 17, 1983
3. The township received a refund of $228.42 from payments made for
your dental plan. This refund was paid to the township by
Trustees Insurance Fund on November 20, 1984, by check #2618.
B. Hospitalization Premimums (Policy #43971)
1. January 1, 1983 to October 31, 1983:
a) You - $461.60
b) Dependent - $631.70
$1,093.30 paid January 19, 1983.
2. November 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984:
a) You
b) Dependent
- $158.75
- $380.75
$539.50 paid October 17, 1983.
3. Plan terminated January 3, 1984. The township received check
#2330 from Trustees Insurance Fund reimbursing the township for
$1,121.22 for premiums which had been paid beyond January 3,
1984.
C. Hospital Indemnity Premiums (Policy #15610)
1. January 1, 1983 to January 31, 1983:
a) $3.52 - paid January 19, 1983.
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 5
May 2, 1986
2. February 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984:
a) $42.25 - paid January 19, 1983.
3. Plan terminated January 3, 1984.
D. Weekly Indemnity Premiums (Policy #19647)
1. January 1, 1983 to October 31, 1983:
a) $5.83 - paid January 19, 1983.
2. February 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984:
a) $48.00 paid January 19, 1983.
3. Plan terminated January 3, 1984.
8. You did not reimbursed the township for any of these premiums.
9. The premiums paid by the township were all for coverge during 1983. The
auditors approved premium payments for this year.
10. The township was reimbursed for all premiums paid on your behalf for
coverage after January 1984, because plans were terminated when you left
office.
11. The township paid premiums for your benefits only for 1983. All other
premiums were refunded because your coverage was cancelled on either January
3rd or 4th, 1984.
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, i s d d in the State Ethics Act. � o
65P.Sr §402; So yens, 8 r al 0. that
conduct as such an official must, therefore, conform to the requirements of
the State Ethics Act.
Generally, 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).
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 6
May 2, 1986
Within the above provision of law, this Commission has previously determined
that a township supervisor may not receive at the township's expense, health,
medical and life insurance benefits when such supervisor acts only in the
capacity of a supervisor. Krane, 84 -001; Cowie, 84 -010. Additionally, even
if such a supervisor is employed by the township as a roadmaster in accordance
with the Second Class Township Code, such benefits are considered compensation
and must, therefore, be fixed as such by the township board of auditors. See
Synoski v. Hazle Township, Pa. Commw. , 500 A.2d 1282, (1985);
In re: Appeal of the Auditors Report of Muncy Creek Township., 16 Lycoming,
Rep 159, (1985); Hunt, No. 348 -R. Any benefits received other than as
provided for above, would constitute a financial gain obtained in violation of
the State Ethics Act. See, McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa.
Comm. 529, 466 A.2d 283, (1983); Conrad v. Exeter Township, 76 Berks L.J. no.
2p. 7, (1983). These principles of law are now well settled and constitute
the law under which this situation must be reviewed. See, In re: Report of
Audit of South Union Township, 47 Pa. Commw. 1, 407 A.2d 906, (1979).
You served as township supervisor in Harrier Township from November 1982
until December 1983. You were appointed as roadmaster in the township during
the year that you served in that position. You received various medical
insurance benefits in this position at the expense of Harmer Township. While
it is clear that under existing law, you were eligible, as a working
supervisor to receive certain benefits paid for by the township, in order for
those benefits to constitute compensation provided for by law, said benefits
must have been fixed as part of your compensation by the township board of
auditor3. As noted in the findings of fact, these benefits were not fixed as
such in 1982. In 1983, although you received the benefits prior to auditor
approval, the supervisors had indeed notified the auditors that such benefits
were being requested as early as May, 1983. The auditors, however, for
reasons unknown, delayed their approval of these benefits until a later time.
We believe that these benefits regarding the year 1983 were thus,
appropriately approved by the township board of auditors. We do note at this
point that this Commission has previously determined that the attempted
retroactive approval of these types of benefits by a township board of
auditors comprised of individuals who are not the same as at the time the
benefits were obtained by the supervisors, would not constitute the
appropriate auditor approval. See, Saunders, 85 -006. We believe, however,
that the instant situation is distinguishable from our previous opinion in
that the auditors who approved the benefits in your situation are the same
auditors who were in service at the time said benefits were received and the
approval was obtained in the same year that the benefits were received.
Additionally, these auditors were aware of the fact that the benefits were
being requested and, did in fact, approve them. cf: Ki ni ry, 84 -008;
Marcello, 85 -003 (Auditors in service at time benefits received may affirm
their intent that said benefits were to be part of the compensation provided
for by law). You received no benefits for 1982. The benefits paid on your
behalf for 1983 were approved by the township board of auditors and, therefore
part of the compensation provided by law. While the township had prepaid
certain benefits on your behalf for the year 1984, you left office in
December, 1983 and the premiums for 1984 were refunded to the township.
Mr. John B. Colpo
Page 7
May 2, 1986
Based upon all of the foregoing, it does not appear as though you
received any financial gain other than the compensation provided by law.
Thus, there was no violation of the State Ethics Act.
In closing, we note that in relation to your part -time employee status,
this Commission has ruled that any benefits received by a part -time supervisor
employee must bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of work performed.
See, Na_, 85 -006. You should, in the future, be aware of our analysis of
that issue as set forth in that opinion.
C. Conclusion: Based upon the foregoing, we find no violation of the State
Ethics Act i n that you did not receive any financial gain other than the
compensation provided for by law.
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 findi
2.38. During this 15-day n9s• See 51 Pa. Code
period, his right to challenge this n Order, may l violate h this s c c onfidentialit h b
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. y by
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,
R
ittAsttA.
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman