HomeMy WebLinkAbout551 HolcombMr. H. L. Holcomb
R.D. 2, Pittsfield
Pittsfield, PA 16340
Re: 86 -075 -C
Dear Mr. Holcomb:
a. Policy No. KSM 8098:
1979 9/5 $ 77.76
$311.12
1980 7/5 $ 77.76
9/5 $438.71
a. Policy No. 57342 -00:
1981 4/9 $304.02
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order Nu. 551
DECIDEDMAR 1 1..19g7
NAILEDMAR 17 1987
The 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 un
which those conclusions are based are as follows:
I. Allegation: That you, Eldred Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use
of office to obtain financial gain, in that you had the township pay fur you
medical insurance premiums from 1979 through 1981.
A. Findings:
1. You have been an elected supervisor in the township of Eldred since 1958
and as such, you are subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act.
2. Eldred Township paid the Columbia Accident and Health Insurance Company
and the Columbia Life Insurance Company the following amounts in the years
noted on your behalf for health and medical insurance:
3. Eldred Township paid the Blue Cross Company of Western Pennsylvania the
following amount, on your behalf, for hospitalization insurance.
Mr. H. L. Holcomb
Page 2
4. Eldred Township paid the Muricpal Employers Insurance Trust the following
amounts, on your behalf, on the dares noted for additional insurance.
a. Policy No. 7534 -00:
1981
6/5 $101.34
7/6 $101.34
8/5 $101.34
9/5 $101.3
10/5 $101.34
11/5 $101.34
12/5 $101.34
1982 1/5 $144.69
2/20 $144.69
2/20 $289.38 (two months)
5/5 $144.63
6/5 $144.69
7/6 $144.6:
8/5 $144.69
9/7 $144.69
10/6 $144.59
11/22 $144.63
12/6 $147.13
1983 12/6 $166.42
5. An examination of the Board of Auditors' minutes for the year 1978 through
1982 do not indicate that the auditors had approved the foregoing expenditures
in writing.
6. An examination of the towns hi rn pay records show that you worked full-time
during the year 1979 during the months of January through May.
a. You worked throughout t!-e year as township secretary, earning
$2,125.45. (3% of the monies expended).
b. Your earnings as a road Worker totaled $4,655.00 during that year.
7. The township pay records r_fi ct that you worked full -time on the township
roads during the months of Jarnrar+, through May and October through December,
1980, earning $6,522.00.
a. Your earnings as town_rr secretary during 1980 amounted to
$2,292.97.
Mr. H. L. Holcomb
Page 3
8. The pay records for 1981 reflect that you worked full -time as a roadworker
in the year, earning $500.00 in each bi- weekly pay period for a total of
$12,000.00 that year. Figures on your secretary fees for that year were not
available due to the destruction of township records by water damage.
9. The township pay records for the year 1982 reflect that you worked
full -time during that year, earning $13,351.59 as a road worker, and
$3,005.55 as the township secretary.
10. You asserted that you started to work full -time during 1981 and,
thereafter, because Merle Voisson, a township supervisor, could only work
part -time hours.
11. Mrs. Pat Brown, an auditor from the mid -60's until January, 1985, said
that although it may not have been written in the minutes, hospitalization
and insurance were always presumed to be part of the supervisor's package
along with their pay.
a. Mrs. Brown said that you were only getting a small hourly salary a
few years ago and that the hospitalization and insurance were given
to make up for the small salary.
12. Mrs. Elizabeth Burleigh, an auditor from 1975 until January, 1985, said
that the auditors always approved the hospitalization and life insurance and
that it was considered part of your pay.
13. Mrs. Esther Reynolds, an auditor from January, 1982 up to the present
said that she knew immediately upon looking at the township records that the
supervisors were receiving hospitalization and life insurance. Mrs. Reynolds
said that she saw nothing wrong with the supervisors receiving
hospitalization insurance.
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor in a second class township, you are
a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S.
§402; Sowers, 80 -050; Welz, 80 -001. Your conduct, as such must, therefore,
conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. 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).
Plr. H. L. Holcomb
Page 4
Within the above provision of law, this Commission has previously
determined, on a number of occasions, 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 a 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. Hazel Township, : Pa. Commw. , 500 A.2d 1282, (1985); In re:
Appeal of the Auditors' report of Muncy Creek Township, 16 Lycoming Rep. 159,
(1985); Hunt, 348 -R. Any benefits received, other than as provided for above,
constitute a financial gain other than the compensation provided by law and,
thus, in violation of the State Ethics Act. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics
Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d, 283, (1983); Conrad v. Exeter
Township 27 D & C 3d 253, (1983). These principals of law are now well
settled and constitute the law pursuant to which this situation must be
reviewed. See, In re: report of Auditor of South Union Township, 47 Pa.
Commw. Ct. 1, 407 A.2d 906, (1979).
In the instant situation, the facts reveal that you did serve as a
township roadmaster /worker for Elder Township. Elder Township paid premiums
on your behalf to various insurance companies for the receipt of
hospitalization and health insurance. As a roadmaster /worker for the
township, you would have been eligible to receive these benefits as long as
such benefits were part of the compensation provided for by law. As noted
above, the Second Class Township Code is the standard for which compensation
for township supervisors, who serve as township workers, is to be set. That
code provides that these benefits must be fixed by the township board of
auditors as part of your compensation. We have reviewed the township auditor
minutes for the years in question and have found that there was no written
confirmation that these benefits were provided for you as part of your
compensation as a township employee. We have, however, also received the
statements of the township auditors who were in service during the years in
which these payments were made. These auditors unanimously confirm that it
was their intention to provide these medical and insurance benefits to you as
part of your compensation as road worker for the township. Because of the
fact that these auditors confirm that they had affirmatively fixed these
benefits for you, we believe that there was no violation of the State Ethics
Act'and that the financial gain received by you was part of the compensation
fixed by law.
C. Conclusion: You did not violate the Ethics Act when you, as a township
supervisor, received hospitalization and medical benefits at the township's
expense. You are a township employee and such benefits were\fixed by the
township board of auditors as part of the compensation to be paid in that
position.
Mr. H. L. Holcomb
Page 5
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
2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he
waives his right to challenge this may violate this confidentiality by
releasing, discussi ^g or circulating this Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceed 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,
R7 ,4..Q4 i
O. Sieber Par coast
Chairman