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