Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout529 SippleRaymond Sipple, Sr. Star Route White Haven, PA 18661 Re: 85 -155 -C Dear Mr. Sipple: included i n that vote. STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 529 DECIDEDAUG 2 0 1986 MAILED 6 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 in Buck Township, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain by being compensated for hours worked on the roadcrew at a rate of pay not approved by the auditors. A. Finding: 1. You served as a supervisor in Buck Township from January, 1981 and at least through 1984. As a supervisor, you were a public official and subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 2. At the June 15, 1984 meeting, the township supervisors appointed you as assistant roadmaster on a motion by Supervisor Hudack and a second by Supervisor Blakeslee. A. T he minutes say 'all approved" — but do not — indicate whether you were h. The minutes also note that you were to secure materials, laborers and apply dust inhibitor. 3. You worked on June 20, 21 and 22 of 1934 and were compensated at the rate of $5.50 an hour plus $8.00 an hour for the use of your truck. a. At the supervisors reorganization meeting of January 2, 1984, Mr. Douglas Hunter had been appointed roadmaster and the supervisors had recommended a salary of $5.50 per hour plus an $8.00 per hour rate for the use of his truck. Raymond Sipple, Sr. Page 2 b. You were paid $324.00 by township check no. 237 dated July 20, 1984. 4. There are no auditor minutes available. a. The minutes of supery :ors May 20, 1983 meeting note that a letter was received from no auditors stating that they had establishcc' a $5.25 rate for roadmaster for 1933. b. There are oo similar nntatinos for i7:81 in June c'' 12C4 the t..wnsh ,:+ F!.:di tors r frc: 'office; leaving the tc mshi r without auditors. 50 You ' tate t e'iL at th ° tine you accepted the assistant roadmaster position, the Township had difficulty getting the road work done because ':he current roadmaster did not have a truck. In addition, you took the position only for the job that needed to be done at that time. a. The minutes of the supervisors meeting of June 15, 1984 note that there: was considerable discussion about the problem of taking care of the township roads. B. Discussion: As a township supevisor in a township of the second class you are clearly a pudic; official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 F.S. §402. As such, your conduct must c;,: rY: ":o the requirements of the law. Sowers, 80 -050; Welz, 86 -001. The E:;,hics Vt provides as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (a) No public official or p_51ic ca;ioycc sa7 t us.: his public office or any confidenti l information received through his folding public l'fie. ' c'Ltar finarcial gain other than compensation provided by law for h'iai:_c ±f, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). As it can be clearly observed from the above provision of law, no public official may use his public position in order to obtain a financial gain other than the compensation that is provided for by law. From this situation, we must detennine whether you, in fact, received the compensation provided for by law or whether you used your public position in order to obtain some other financial gain. Raymond Sipple, Sr. Page 3 The Second Class Township Code provides a statutory salary for township supervisors who serve only in that capacity. 65 P.S. §65515. In addition to the foregoing, however, the township code also allows township supervisors to be appointed as roadmasters, laborers, secretary- treasurers and superintendents, and to be compensated therefor. Such compensation must be fixed by the township board of auditors in order to be in accord ;•lith the law. McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1982). In the instant situation you did work for the township in the capacity of assistant roadmaster in 1984. During that year you worked for three days and were compensated at a rate of $5.50 per hour plus $8.00 for the use of your truck. Total payment to you during that period was $324.00. While we note that your title, Assistant Roadmaster, is not one provided for in the Second Class Township Code, it appears as though the work you perform would actually have been more in line with that work performed by a township supervisor serving in the roadmaster capacity. Your appointment was made by the township board of supervisors. Thus, we do believe that you were operating in a position which was authorized pursuant to the Second Class Township Code. The only question remaining, therefore, is whether your compensation was provided for by law. In the instant situation, we are confronted with a unique situation. While the auditors did, in fact, set a salary for someone operating in your position during the year 1983, there is no township record to indicate what, if any, action the auditors took in 1984 in relation to this matter. Indeed, we have received evidence that indicates that during the year 1984, the auditors, then in service, resigned and the township was left with no township auditors. It was during this time period that your received your compensation as a township supervisor. This is the only time that you had received such compensation and it appears, from a review of the facts available, that such was done in order to cure various problems on the road that had existed at that particular point in time. A review of the instant situation also indicates that the fees you received were in accord with those fees that had been set by the township auditors in 1983. Because of the unique nature of this situation and because of the fact that the township auditors had resigned leaviny the township in a questionable position, we believe that no further action should be taken in this matter. C. Conclusion: You did not violate the State Ethics Act when you, as a township roadmaster, received compensation for three days worked performed on a township road. Your work for the township appears to have been in accord with your appointment to a position of employment within the township as set forth and as permitted by the Second Class Township Code, and the fees that you received appear to be in accord with those previously set by township auditors for similar positions. Raymond Sipple, Sr. Page 4 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 finding:. See 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15 -dav period, no one, including the Responde.,:; 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 confidentiality of a Coraii s i o ' proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more that $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(c1. By the Com 7 1 G. Sieber Pancoat Chai rman