Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout543-R BohrMr. Thomas H. Bohr c/o John E. Jones, Esquire P.O. Box 149 217 Mahantongo Street Pottsville, PA 17701 Re: 85 -101 -C Dear Mr. Bohr: 042D STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 306 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 543 -R DECIDEDMAR 11 1987 MAILEq A: 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 Minutes reflect that the motion carried. b. A statement submitted by you tr the State Ethics Commission indicates that the vote on the above motio;, was unanimous. c. Township funds were previously deposited in the Tower City National Bank. 3. Theodore Green, member of the township board of supervisors in 1985, attested to the following: a. He was present a'. the aforementoncd meeting of January , 1985. b, participated in the motion to appoint Upper Dauphin Bank as Township depository, c. YclA did not participate or vote on said moti r. 4 . Daniel Daub attested as follows: _ a. He was present at the January 7, 1985 meeting of the township board of supervisors. b. You did not vote or participate in the township's motion and decision to appoint the Upper Dauphin Bank as the township depositcry. 5. ownship Supervisor William Carl could not recall y ether there was a roll call vote at the January 7, 1985 meeting. a, He stated that if there was no roll call vote, you would not have voted 6. You assert that. while you informed the State Ethics Commssion that the vote on January i', '2.85 was unanimous, Ws was intended. to indicate that two supervisors voted to approve the motion regarding the township depository. a. You assert that the decision was unanimous regarding the township supervisors who voted. 7. You are a licensed Pennsylvania real estate agent. 8. On or about December 26 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. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 3 9. 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. f. You, thereafter, found a site for the bank, as requested, and the bank purchased the tract of land that you had found. g. 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. i. You were to be compensated for attending board meetings at $50 per meeting. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 4 10. The purpose of the Upper Dauphin National Bank Schuylkill Area Advisory Board was to promote growth, secure accounts and tc voice opinions on what the bank should be accomplishing in this lora&e. 11. Records of the Upper Dauphin National Bank reflect t':at as an advisory board member, you participated in a contest to obtain new business for the bank during September - October, 1985. Thf; contest was known as the Marketing Incentive Program and the winner was awarded $6('G.GO, 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. g. Point values were prorated if lesser accounts were deposited. 12. 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 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.. 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 Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 5 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; Chimicles, 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 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. Asset forth in your statement to this Commission, the most important reason, as far as you were Mr. Thomas H . Bohr Page 6 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. While you clearly were closely involved with the bank, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not you voted to appoint this bank as the township depository. Two individuals have submitted information indicating that you did not vote. A third individual could not recall what occurred at the township meeting. The official records of the township (the minutes) indicate that you were present at this meeting and that the vote was unanimous to appoint the bank F:s `she depository. In light of the conflicting evidence, we are constrained to find no violation of the Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: In light :f the conflicting evidence, we do not believe that there is sufficient informa. ion to find a violation of the State Ethics Act. 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. 13. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference. 14. 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 Carol and seconded by Supervisor Green. a. You state that the former solicitor was fired due to unacceptable performance. 15. Your wife, Nancy Bohr, has been employed by the iaw firm of Williamson, Friedberg and Jones from May 10, 1983 to the present date. She resided with you at the time of your vote. 16. Both you and this law firm deny that your wife's employment was dependent on the selecting of a member of the law fine as township solicitor. 17. Both you and this law firm deny that your wife benefitted directly or indirectly from this appointment. Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 7 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. 18. You do not contest or ortherwise deny the above findings. 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 derined 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. 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 Mr. Thomas H. Bohr Page 8 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 appoirt the employer of your wife as township solicitor, thereby resulting in a financial gain to that entity. C. Conclusion: You violated the State Ethics Pct as a township supervisor when you voted to appoint a law firm as township '.licitor when that law firm was the employer of your spouse. In this respect, you used ;'otr pr tji is cf'f ice to obtain financial gain for a business with whi you are assciatd. Because your wife received no specific or unique fi . ial gain as a result of this particular transaction, we do not believe tfat any f: Zher action should be taken in relation to this specific allegation. d;:. .o;ch we wi71 recommend no further act icn in relation to this particular conduct. Summary of Conclusions: a. I,r .Y i ght of the conflicting evidence, we do not believe that there is sufficier1'; information to find a violation of the State Ethics Act. b. You violated the State Ethics Act as a township supervisor whe. you voted tie appoint a law firm as township solicitor w: that law firm was thr.• c:mr oyer of your spouse. in nis respect, you ;.:sad Dubuc office to obtain financial gain for a business with w'i c . you arc: associated. We do not, however, believe that any furtkar action is warranted in this matter, based upon the c r °cumstances of the situation. 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 5 business days after service (defined as mailing). 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, $1.4- 2ars-f-v G. Sieber Pancoast `• Chairman