Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout543 BohrMr. Thomas 11. Bohr c/o John E. Jones, Esquire P.O. Box 149 217 Mahantongo Street Pottsville, PA 17701 Re: 85 -101 -C Dear Mr. Bohr: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 543 DECIDED DEC 9 1986 MAILED 7 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 Porter Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits the use of public office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain and /or Section 3(b) which prohibits a public employee, public official or candidate from offering, soliciting or accepting anything of value based on an understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official, public employee or candidate will be influenced, when you initiated action to transfer township accounts to the Upper Dauphin National Bank immediately prior to being,appointed to an advisory board of this bank. A. Findings: 1. You served as a supervisor in Porter Township from January, 1982, to the present. a. You served as Secretary /Treasurer from November, 1984, to either August or September of 1985. 2. Township minutes of the supervisors' meeting of January 7, 1985, reflect that on a motion by Supervisor Carl, seconded by Supervisor Green, a decision was made to use the Upper Dauphin National Bank as a repository for township funds. You were present at this meeting. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 2 a. Minutes reflect that the motion carried. b. A statement submitted by you to the State Ethics Commission indicates that the vote on the above motion was unanimous. c. Township funds were previously deposited in the Tower City National Bank-: 3. You are a licensed Pennsylvania real estate agent. 4. On or about December 20, 1985, you submitted a signed statement to the State Ethics Commission outlining certain facts regarding the transfer of township funds to the Upper Dauphin National Bank. 5. Specific facts, as set forth in the aforementioned statement, are as follows: a. You believed that Upper Dauphin National Bank offered more in savings to Porter Township in that they would do payroll at no charge; there were no service charges and transfers were permitted without charge between the township's checking and money market accounts. b. You stated that your reasons for wanting a new bank was to promote competition and to allow township citizens the opportunity to earn more on their money. c. You also stated the following as a reason for wanting a new bank in the township: "and most of all that it depends on who you are to get mortgage money, which to me is a part of my chance to earn a living as a real estate salesman." d. Representatives of the Upper Dauphin National Bank had appeared before the township board of supervisors prior to the January 7, 1985 meeting to explain what services could be provided to the township. This presentation took place on December 1, 1984. e. In July, 1984, prior to the Bank's interest in- receiving the township accounts, you were approached by Thomas Miller, President of Upper Dauphin National Bank, as a real estate agent, and asked to find an appropriate site in the township for a branch office for Upper Dauphin National Bank. Mr. Miller offered to compensate you for your services but you advised that you would be compensated by the broker involved. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 3 g. f. You, thereafter, found a site for the bank, as requested, and the bank purchased the tract of land that you had found. You assisted the bank in securing authorization from the State Banking Commission to open a new branch office in the township. h. On or about March 15, 1985, after the transfer of the township funds to the bank, you were asked by Thomas Fasnacht, the Branch Manager, and the bank Vice President, Ernie Lowe, to serve on the Schuylkill Area Advisory Board of Upper Dauphin National Bank. g. i. You were to be compensated for attending board meetings at $50 per meeting. 6. The purpose of the Upper Dauphin National Bank Schuylkill Area Advisory Board was to promote growth, secure accounts and to voice opinions on what the bank should be accomplishing in this locale. 7. Records of the Upper Dauphin National Bank reflect that as an advisory board member, you participated in a contest to obtain new business for the bank during September - October, 1985. The contest was known as the Marketing Incentive Program and the winner was awarded $600.00, the second place amount was $300.00 and for the third place an award of $100.00. A point system was used to determine the winner and rules were set forth as follows: a. $10,000.00 deposited in new account - 10 points. b. $10,000.00 deposited in current account - 8 points. c. Each new trust account - 6 points. d. Each new data processing service account - 4 points. e. Each new safe deposit box rental account - 2 points. f. Each new $100.00 club account - 1 point. Point values were prorated if lesser accounts were deposited. 8. You would have been the contest winner but at the time the winners were announced, you corrected a listing of a $100,000.00 township deposit which was erroneously credited to your contest efforts. When the change was made, you were downgraded to second place and received $300.00. The winner accumulated Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 4 108 points to your 42 points and third place was awarded to a contestant who gathered 17.80 points. 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. As such, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Act, Sowers, 80 -050; Welz, 86 -001. Generalry, 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). The Act also defines business with which one is associated as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Business with which he is associated." Any business in which the person or a member of the person's immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or holder of stock. 65 P.S. §402. Within the above provision of law, this Commission has in the past, indicated that a township supervisor may not participate in a township's decision to appoint a bank as the township's depository if that township supervisor stands in a relationship as identified above. In such a situation, the township supervisor would be associated with that banking institution and - as such, could not use his public position in order to obtain a financial gain for that entity. Kopko, 84 -588; Ch- imicles, 83 -508. In the instant situation, the facts clearly reveal that at the time the township acted, in January of 1985, to appoint the Upper Dauphin Bank as the depository for township funds, you were not associated with that entity within the aforecited definition. Therefore, it is equally clear that you did not use your position as a township supervisor to obtain a financial gain for "a business with which you were associated." We must, however, further review your conduct and your activities as a township supervisor within the further restrictions of Section 3(a) of the Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 5 State Ethics Act which indicate that you may not use your position in order to obtain financial gain for yourself. You were clearly acting on the bank's behalf prior to the January 19, 1985 township meeting. You obtained, at the bank's request, a suitable location for the banking institution's branch office in your township. You similarly were offered to be compensated for that position. While you did not have to accept the compensation from the bank, you nevertheless would be compensated for the placement of that real estate with the bank. Additionally, you admittedly indicated in your statement to this Commission, that you assisted the bank in obtaining the appropriate authorizations from the State Banking Commission to open up a branch office in your township. You were clearly interested in insuring that this bank opened a branch office in your township. You stated in your letter, as set forth in the previous findings of fact, your various reasons for wanting to see this new entity operate in your township. As set forth in your statement to this Commission, the most important reason, as far as you were concerned, for hoping to see the new branch office open in your township was so that you would have a better opportunity to secure mortgage money for real estate transactions in which you were involved as a private real estate agent. Clearly, your actions as a township supervisor, in this respect, were completely geared toward obtaining a financial gain for yourself. As such, we believe that your actions in voting to appoint this bank to act as the township depository as evidenced by your statements to this Commission were done in an effort to induce this bank to initiate operations in the township, to heighten your position with this bank and as a result, benefit yourself financially. We, therefore, believe that you violated Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. The Ethics Act also provides as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (b) No person shall offer or give to a. public official or public employee or for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. §403(b). We have also reviewed your activities within the above provision of law. It is clear that you acted on behalf of this bank in order to obtain various Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 6 benefits for them including authorization from the State Banking Commission as well as a suitable location for their branch office. You, thereafter, acted on behalf of the bank in an effort to have them appointed as the township depository. You subseqently became associated with the bank as a member of an advisory board. That board was responsible for overseeing the continuing activities of the bank and for obtaining new clients. While all of these factors seem to indicate that the above provision of law is implicated and that your decision to appoint that bank was based upon an understanding that you would benefit financially from that bank, we do not have sufficient information in order to clearly indicate that you violated Section 403(b) of the Ethics Act. We do, however, believe that eu ough circumstances are evidenced by the factors set forth herein to indicate that a further review of this matter is warranted by appropriate law enforcement authorities. We hasten to point out that in addition to all of the foregoing, you were eligible to participate in a bank contest relating to the amount of business that individuals could bring in to the bank. While the evidence indicates that the township accounts were erroneously credited to your benefit in one such contest and that those accounts were later not credited toward your contest score, there is no doubt that you were associated with this bank closely, in attempting to obtain new business. This additional factor clearly indicates that further review of this matter is warranted. C. Conclusion: Based upon all of the foregoing, we believe that there has been a violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. This matter will, therefore, be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for further review. II. Allegation: That you, a Porter Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits the use of public office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain and /or Section 3(b) which prohibits a public employee, public official or candidate from offering, soliciting or accepting any thing of value based on the understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official, public employee or candidate will be influenced when you voted to hire a township solicitor who was a member of a law firm which employed your wife. 9. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference. 10. At the township re-organization meeting in January, 1985, you participated in a unanimous vote to hire Attorney Jim Diehl of the law firm of Williamson, Fredberg and Jones as township solicitor. The motion was made by Supervisor Carl and seconded by Supervisor Green. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 7 a. You state that the former solicitor was fired due to unacceptable performance. 11. Your wife, Nancy Bohr, has been employed by the law firm of Williamson, Friedberg and Jones from May 10, 1983 to the present date. She resided with you at the time of your vote. 12. Both you and this law firm deny that your wife's employment was dependent on the selecting of a member of the law firm as township solicitor. 13. Both you and this law firm deny that your wife benefitted directly or indirectly from this appointment. a. She did receive a higher than usual increase in her salary during April, 1985, but this was due to her experience and marketability as a legal secretary. b. Payroll records of the law firm disclosed that your wife received a pay increase from $190.00 to $230.77 per week in April, 1985. c. A member of the law firm explained that your wife was offered a higher paying position with another law firm which led to a counter -offer by her employer and, thus, a higher than usual pay raise. d. Interview of Attorney Stanley Katz, the unsuccessful recruiter of your wife, confirmed that an offer of employment was made to her. B. Discussion: Your conduct, as a township supervisor, in voting to appoint the law firm identified in the findings of fact to the position of township solicitor, must also be reviewed within the purview of Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. As noted, that provision would prohibit you, as a township official, from using your position to obtain a financial gain for a business with which you are associated. Also, as noted previously, the definition of business with which one is associated would include a business in which a member of the official's immediate family is an employee. 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. Your wife is clearly a member of your immediate family. She is an employee of the law firm that obtained the township's business as solicitor. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 8 Her employment, in this capacity, would bring you within the definitional aspect of business with which one is associated in that your wife, a member of your immediate family, is an employee of that business, the law firm. Based upon this analysis, it is clear that you could not use your position to obtain a financial gain for that business. Your vote as a township supervisor to appoint the law firm in question to the position of township solicitor was a violation of the State Ethics Act. We do note, however, that as a result of this particular appointment, there is no evidence that your wife received any special or unique treatment or compensation in return for the appointment. There is no evidence to indicate that her salary raise, in the time subsequent to the appointment of the law firm, as township solicitor, was in any way related to that appointment. As such, we do not believe that any further penalty should be associated with this particular conduct. We must, however, find that you violated the State Ethics Act when you voted to appoint the employer of your wife as township solicitor, thereby resulting in a financial gain to that entity. C. Conclusion: You violated the State Ethics Act as a township supervisor when you voted to appoint a law firm as township solicitor when that law firm was the employer of your spouse. In this respect, you used your public office to obtain financial gain for a business with which you are associated. Because your wife received no specific or unique financial gain as a result of this particular transaction, we do not believe that any further action should be taken in relation to this specific allegation. As such we will recommend no further action in relation to this particular conduct. Summary of Conclusions: a. Based upon all of the foregoi►g, we believe that there has been a violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act. This matter will, _ therefore, be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities for further review. b. You violated the State Ethics Act as a township supervisor when you voted to appoint a law firm as township solicitor when that law firm was the employer of your spouse. In this respect, you used your public office to obtain financial gain for a business with which you are associated. 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 Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 9 2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including 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 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, RJ • an.r,e ct G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman Mr. Thomas H. Bohr c/o John E. Jones, Esquire P.Q. Box 149 217 Mahantongo Street Pottsville, PA 17701 Re. Order No. 543, File No. 85 -101 -C Dear Mr. Bohr: JJC /rda Attachment STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 March 17, 1987 Please be advised that the State Ethics Commission has granted your request for reconsideration filed January 21, 1987. As a result thereof, the attached order has been issued based upon said request and the information provided in conjunction therewith. Ver , yours, ohn J. Execu a Director