HomeMy WebLinkAbout475 WalkiewiczMr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Harmar Township Supervisor
425 Meadow Street
Cheswick, PA 15024
Re: 84 -15 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
May 2, 1986
Order No. 475
Dear Mr. Walkiewicz:
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 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 since 1976. You are
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. You were routinely appointed roadmaster for the township. This was
standard township practice. There is no evidence that you worked as a
roadmaster or were paid 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 by these plans.
Mr. Joseph Wal ki ewi cz May 2, 1986
Page 2
5. Minutes of township supervi scr s meetings record the following activities
relating to the insurance plan.
a. June 28, 1982: Move Seibert, second by you that the (2)
supervisors now receiving medical insurance will
reimburse the township to remain on the program
after a (30) day period. Motion carried
unanimousiy. You voted.
Move Seibert, second Manning that the Board of
Supervi sors pay for their current life insurance
premiums on a monilhry basis.- Motion carried
r:na,1imously. You voted.
Move Seibert, second Domaretz that any supervisor
o;, the Dental Program to have the same 30 day
option to pay for the insurance or option out.
Motion carried unanimously. You voted.
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 Colpo, second by you 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 Colpo, second by you 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 by you to cancel the Trustees
Insurance policies for hospital and weekly
indemnity. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Page 3
January 14, 1985: You stated you 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, you
and Mr. Yakopec are reimbursed.
6. Auditors actions and related activities involving the insurance plan were
as follows:
g.
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
reaffirming February 21, 1984 letter and denying
approval for 1984 medical insurance expenditure.
7. Premium statements for the coverages listed in 3a thru d confirm the
following payments since 1979.
A. Hospitalization (Policy #42694)
May 2, 1986
Mr. Joseph Wal ki ewi cz May 2, 1986
Page 4
1. 1979 (Coverage November 1, 1978 to November 1, 1979)
a) You - $247.50
b) Dependent - $370.00
$617.00 paid November 20, 1978:
2. 1980 (Coverage November 1, 1979 to November 1, 1980)
a) You - $325.00
b) Dependent - $489.00
$814.00 paid October 12, 1979
3. 1981 (Coverage effective November 1, 1980 to November 1, 1981)
a) You - $420.00
b) Dependent - $575.00
$995.00 paid October 24, 1980.
4. 1982 (Coverage November 1, 1981 to November 1, 1982)
a) You - $503.00
b) Dependent
a) You - $55.00
- $689.00
$1,192.00 paid September 21, 1981
5. 1983 (Coverage November 1, 1982 to November 1, 1983)
b) Dependent - $757.00
$1,310.00 paid October 18, 1982
6. 1984 (Coverage November 1, 1983 to November 1, 1984)
a) You - $635.00
b) Dependent - $870.00
$1,505.00 paid October 17, 1983
7. 1985 (Coverage November 1, 1984 to November 1, 1985)
a) You - $635.00
b) Dependent - $870.00
$1,505.00 paid October 15, 1984
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz May 2, 1986
Page 5
B. Dental (Policy #296)
1. 1981 (coverage August, 1981 to October 31, 1981)
a) You - $30.00
b) Dependent - $56.18
$86.18 paid August 17, 1981
2. 1982 (Coverage November 1, 1981 to October 31, 1982)
a) You - $106.00
b) Dependent - $209.00
$315.00 paid September 21, 1981.
3. 1983 (Coverage November 1, 1982 to October 31, 1983)
a) You - $106.00
b) Dependent - $209.00
$315.00 paid October 18, 1982
4. 1984 (Coverage November 1, 1983 to October 31, 1984)
a) You - $106.00
b) Dependent - $209.00
$315.00 paid October 17, 1983
5. 1985 (Coverage November 1, 1984 to October 31, 1985)
a) You - $106.00
b) Dependent - $209.00
$315.00 paid October 15, 1984
C. Weekly Indemnity (Policy #9818)
1. 1978 (December 1, 1977 to November 30, 1978)
a) $48.00 — paid Novmeber 16, 1978
2. 1979 (December 1, 1978 to November 30 1979)
a) $48.00 - paid December 20, 1978
3. 1980 (December 1, 1979 to November 30, 1980)
a) $48.00 - paid January 16, 1978
Mr. Joseph Wal ki ewi cz May 2, 1986
Page 6
4. 1981 (December 1,
a) $48.00 - paid
5. 1982 (December 1,
a) $48.00 - paid
6. 1983 (December 1,
a) $48.00 - paid
7. 1984 ( December 1,
a) $x'1.00 - paid
1980 to November 30, 1981)
January 16, 1978
1981 to November 30, 1982)
February 17, 1978
1982 to November 30, 1983)
January 19, 1983
1983 to November 30, 1984)
January 13, 1984
8. P1&u terminated April 1, 1984. May 10, 1984 township received
refund check no. 2427, your refund $32.50. .
D. Hospital Indemnity (Policy #15415)
1. 1978
a) Premium $42.25 - paid January 16, 1978
2. 1979
u) Premium $42.25 - paid December 20, 1979
3. 1980
a) Premium $42.25 - paid January 18, 1980
4. 1981
a) Premium $42.25 - paid January 16, 1981
5. 1982
a) Premium $42.25 - paid April 27, 1982
6. 1983
a) Premium $42.25 - paid January 19, 1983
7. 1984
a) Premium $42.25 - paid January 13, 1984
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Page 7
May 2, 1986
8. Plan terminated effective April 1, 1984. May 10, 1984 Harmar
Township received refund check #2427. Your refund, $32.70.
8. You reimbursed the township for $656.90 in 1982 and $1,820.00 in 1984 and
$1,213.66 up to September 1985. Total reimbursements were $3,690.56.
9. The premiums paid by the township in 1983 totalled $1,745.25. Premiums
for this year were approved retroactively by the auditors.
10. The township was reimbursed $65.20 of premiums paid on your behalf
because plans were terminated or you stopped coverage.
11. The reconciliation of township paid premiums, refunds, auditor approved
premiums, and your reimbursements is as follows:
Total premiums paid by township - $7,025.00.
Less refunds
65.210
$6,959.80
Less auditor approved premiums - $1,745.25
$5,214.55
- $3,690.56
- $1,523.99
Less your reimbursements
Balance not reimbursed or
approved by auditors
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official as that
term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Sowers, 80 -050. Your
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. Joseph Walkiewicz
Page 8
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,
hospitalization 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: A.peal of the Auditors Report of Muncy
tek 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. Commw. 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 A42d 906, (1979).
You served as township supervisor in Hamar Township since 1976. You
were appointed as roadmaster in the township during the years of your service.
You received various medical insurance benefits in this position for several
years at the expense of Harmar Township. While it is clear that under
existing law ycu 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 auditors. As noted in the
findings of fact, these benefits were not fixed as such during the years
1979 -1982 and for 1984. 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 i nstant situation i s distinguishable from our previ ous opi nion 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
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; Marcel lo,
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).
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Page 9
May 2, 1986
Additionally, we note that while the benefits that you received in your
position as a township supervisor /roadmaster were not approved or fixed as
your compensation by the auditors for the years 1979 -1982 and for the year
1984, certain reimbursements were made by you to the township for your receipt
of these benefits. Our calculations in the instant matter, however, indicate
that the township expended a total of $7,025.00 in reference to the benefits
that you had received. Our analysis further indicates that refunds to the
township totalled $65.20; auditor approved premiums totalled $1,745.25 and you
reimbursed the township for $3,690.56. There is outstanding, however, a
balance of $1,523.99 that had been paid by the township for your benefits.
This amount represents premiums paid by the township that were not approved by
the auditors, refunded to the township or reimbursed by you. This, therefore,
would consitute a financial gain received by you other than the compensation
provided for by law.
We note that even under the law as it currently exists, while you have
received a financial gain that was not provided for in the Second Class
Township Code, we believe that your receipt of this benefit was not an
intentional violation of the State Ethics Act, but rather based upon the
advice that you had received from others including your solicitor. Good faith
receipt of such benefits, however, even when based upon a solicitor's advice,
will not alleviate the necessity of a public official reimbursing his
governmental body for the receipt of such financial gain for which he was not
entitled. See Allegheny County v. Grier, 179 Pa. 639, 36 A. 353, (1897);
McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. 529, 466 A.2d 283,
(1983); Kestler Appeal, 66 Pa. Commw. 1, 444 A.2d 761
we believe that you must reimburse Harmar Township for this
The State Ethics Act provides as follows:
Section 9. Penalties.
(a) Any person who violates the provisions of Section 3(a)
and (b) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years,
or be both fined and imprisoned. 65 P.S. 409(a).
(c) Any person who obtains financial gain from violating
any provision of this act, in addition to any other
penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State
Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the
financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S.
409(c).
In addition to the above, the State Ethics Act provides that the Commission
may forward the results of any investigation to the appropriate prosecuting
authority unless the alleged offender removes himself from the conflict of
interest by divesting himself of any financial gain received in violation of
the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §407 9(iii). As such, the Commission in the
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Page 10
May 2, 1986
past has, based recommendations for referrals for prosecution upon the
willingness of an individual to divest himself of the financial gai in violation of the Act. See McCut cheon v. State Ethics Commissiion, supra.
In the instant situation and in light of the fact th we do not h that
you intentionally violated the State Ethics Act, we helieve this result is
appropriate. Thus, you must reimburse Harmar Township in the amount of
financial gain that is still outstanding. This would total $1,523.99.
In closing, we note that in relation to your part -time employee status,
this Commission has ruled..that any benefits received hy a part -time supervisor
employee must hear a reasonahle relationship to the amount of work performed.
See Nano_ vic, R5 -006. You should, in the future, he aware of our analysis of
that issue as set forth in that opinion.
C. Conclusion: We believe that your receipt of various health and medical
insurance benefits at the expense of the township was not in. accord with
Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act and
previous
and the courts of this Commonwealth. You have, however, nr reimbursed the
township for a substantial portion of the funds that have been expended on
your behalf. Our analysis of the instant situation, however, also reveals
that $1,523.99 was expended by the township in excess of the amount approved
hy the auditors or reimbursed hy you. As such, we helieve that p
within thirty days of this order, forward a check to the State Ethics��
Commission made payable to Harmar Township in that amount. upon receipt of
that payment our files in this matter will be closed and we will take no
further action in reference hereto. Failure to reimburse the township as
provided above, will result in our referral of this matter to the appropriate
law enforcement authority for further review and action.
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with
Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S.
and will be made available as a 408(a). However, this Order is final
puhlic document 15 days after service (defined
as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsidleration 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 confidentialit h
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. y y
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding
is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall he fined not more than $1,000 or
imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e).
Ry the Commission,
2 . J1 fin., aa.h.ce-a
2. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman
Mr. Joseph Walkiewicz
Harmar Township Supervispr
425 Meadow Street
Cheswick, PA 15024
EMS /na
cc: Public Binder
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
May 29, 1986
Re: Order No.475, File No. 84 -15 -C
Dear Mr. Walkiewicz:
On May 29, 1986, the State Ethics Commission received
for reimbursing Harmar Township as required by Order No. 475. payment
We have forwarded your check in the amount of $1,523.99 to the township.
This letter will be part of the Order and a public record as such.
Si ncerely,
Edward M. Seladones
Executive Director