Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout569 O'MalleyJames O'Malley c/o Carl Marcus 505 Court Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Re: 86 -034 -C i, \ STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 569 DECIDED: May, 26, 1987 MAILED: June 2, 1987 Dear Mr. O'Malley: 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 Pittsburgh City Councilman, violated Section 3(a) of the State 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 and 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 in that: a. You used your position to lobby for the Urban Redevelopment Authority's approval of.a project to be constructed on city owned land on Herr's Island in which Oliver Realty, a real estate firm with which you were associated was interested. b. You voted against a proposal on Council Bill No. 3746 authorizing the City Water Department to lease office space from a competitor of Oliver Realty, the firm with which you were associated, to afford said company an opportunity to present a proposal to lease; c. You distributed a memo in January, 1986, on City Council stationery to fifteen (15) city officials urging them to give their "full support and cooperation" to a vice - president of the realty firm with which you were associated regarding a study that firm was to perform on the Public Safety Building, for which the city was contemplating a $6 million rehabilitation; Mr. James O'Malley Page 2 d. You voted in favor of a $26,000.00 no -bid extension of an insurance contract between the city and the John G. Beck Agency which employs your brother, Pearse O'Malley, Agent of Record for that contract. e. You used confidential information obtained through your City Council position, relative to public financing, for an employee purchase of the Armour Meat Packing Plant by Pittsburgh Provision and Packing Incorporated, to benefit the real estate agency with which you were associated, Oliver Realty. A. Findings: The Findings in relation to each of the specific allegations are set forth below. The findings in relation to allegation I. a. are as follows: 1. You have served as an elected councilman in the City of Pittsburgh since 1980 and as such are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. a. You also have served as chairman of the City Finance Committee since 1986. 2. Records of the Oliver Realty, Inc..(ORI) disclosed the following information regarding your employment with that firm: a. Biographical Data Sheet of James O'Malley dated May 20, 1985, listed your job title as Brokerage Representative and included other biographical data. b. Undated "New Employee" form for James O'Malley listing start date of May 1, 1985 and an annual salary of $18,000 drawn against commissions. c. June 26, 1985, correspondence from Roger Edwards, Vice - President, Brokerage and Investment Properties, Oliver Realty, Inc. to you which states that you are employed by ORI as an indepenent contractor at a monthly draw of $1,500 to be credited against commissions from sales or losses. The letter also states that since the company generally employs only full -time sales people, it is understood that your agreement was experimental. Your progress was to be reviewed in six months. d. 1985 Federal W -2 Wage and Tax Statement, Item 10, Wages, Tips, Other Compensation - $12,000, received from Oliver Realty, Inc. Mr. James O'Malley Page 3 NOTE: Pay records for May and June, 1985, were not provided. However, W -2 form for 1985 indicates that you were paid an additional $3,000 which would be reflected as wages for May and June. (7) 1/15/86 $ 750.00 $ 557.25 122 (8) 1/31/86 $ 750.00 $ 557.18 280 f. February 1, 1986, correspondence from you to Ronald Puntil, President, ORI, in which you announced your resignation from ORI. Personnel Action Form, termination action. Voluntary resignation effective February 3, 1986. Your name is listed on this form. 3. Both Ernest Buckman, Chairman of the Board of Oliver Realty and Ronald Puntil, President of ORI, confirm that they received telphone calls on your behalf from Mayor Richard Caliguri and Ronald Schmeiser, City Finance Director, requesting that you be hired. a. Both Buchman and Puntil stated there was no coercion to hire you. 4. Records of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, confirms that you were licensed on July 25, 1985, as a real estate salesperson, Certification No. RS- 147447 -B. a. You had no prior experience as a real estate salesperson. 5. The following information was developed relative to a project to be constructed by Fuhrer Holdings, Inc. on city owned land on Herr's Island. a. Prior to November, 1985, David Progar, Agent for Howard Hanna Realty and a prior employee of Frank Fuhrer, was contacted by Fuhrer to put a plan together for a project being considered by Fuhrer. Property on Herr's island was discussed and considered. 9. e. Payroll records: Pay Period (1) 7/31/85 (2) 8/31/85 (3) 9/30/85 (4) 10/31/85 (5) 11/30/85 (6) 12/31/85 Gross Net Check No. $1,500.00 $1,098.93 62995 $1,500.00 $1,098.93 63178 $1,500.00 $1,098.93 63333 $1,500.00 $1,098.93 63490 $1,500.00 $1,098.93 63710 $1,500.00- $1,098.93 63875 Mr. James O'Malley Page 4 b. Progar discussed property on Herr's Island with Jack Noonan of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, the city agency controlling the property. c. By correspondence dated November 11, 1985, directed to Jack Noonan, Frank Fuhrer submitted a proposal to purchase seven acres of land on Herr's Island for the purpose of developing and constructing a temperature controlled warehouse. d. By correspondence dated December 3, 1985, Paul Brophy, Executive Director of the URA, denied the Fuhrer proposal stating that the plan did not conform to the uses recommended by the Herr's Island Redevelopment Plan adopted by City Council in October, 1983. e. Progar admitted that he then discussed the project and URA's rejection with a friend, Richard Stampahar, a Brokerage Manager for ORI. Stampahar said he would set up a meeting with you. f. Stampahar admitted to approaching you at the ORI offices and discussing the situation. You told Stampahar to put the information in writing. You also advised Stampahar to set up a meeting with Progar and Fuhrer in your city office. (1) Both Stampahar and Progar admitted that they met with you in your city office to discuss the proposal. By correspondence dated December 15, 1985, Stampahar wrote to you on ORI stationery outlining the Fuhrer plan and urging you to consider the project. h. On December 13, 1985, you wrote to Paul Brophy enclosing the Stampahar letter and stating that the Fuhrer proposal was operable and could act as a catalyst for development in the area. You also requested a meeting as soon as possible. You sent copies to Mayor Caliguri, all members of council and David Matter. These letters were forwarded in your capacity as a city councilmember. i . Brophy and Progar confirm that a meeting was subsequently held which was also attended by Stampahar, Frank Fuhrer and David Fuhrer to discuss the Fuhrer proposal. The meeting was scheduled for December 20, 1985. On January 21, 1986, you wrote to John Robin, Chairman of the URA, and enclosed the Brophy letter to Fuhrer which denied the Fuhrer request. In that letter, you stated that you and a number of your colleagues disagreed and felt that the Fuhrer proposal was an appropriate use. You also stated that revisions should be made to g. • Mr. James O'Malley Page 5 the adopted area plan and that Fuhrer's proposal should be reconsidered by the URA board members and a report made to council. Copies were also sent to all URA board members, Paul Brophy, Mayor Caliguri and all councilmembers. k. On February 5, 1986, John Robin responded to your earlier correspondence and advised that the board voiced a strong opinion to uphold Brophy's decision. 6. You admit to having the discussion with Richard Stampahar, meeting with the Fuhrers and writing various letters to URA officials to assist Fuhrer in obtaining approval of his proposal. (Related to Findings 5 a. through k.) a. You did not mention to anyone from the URA your association with Stampahar and ORI. b. You deny that you would have received any compensation from Progar or ORI if the URA would have approved the Fuhrer proposal. c. Both Dave Progar and Richard Stampahar deny that you would have received any form of compensation for your assistance. 7. Oliver Realty, Inc. officials confirm that you did not produce any business during the period you acted as a brokerage agent for ORI. 8. The Fuhrer proposal did not come before Pittsburgh City Council for a vote. The findings in relation to allegation I. b. are as follows: 9. In the latter part of 1985, the City of Pittsburgh's Department of General Services and Deputy Finance Director were assigned by the Mayor to obtain a lease for office space for the City Water Department. a. George Jacoby, Director, Department of General Services, confirms that he took over the Water Department lease project from Paul Evers, Deputy Finance Director. 10. Records obtained from George Jacoby disclosed the following: a. November 18, 1985, Ronald Schmeiser, City Finance Director, presented council with a proposed resolution for the lease of property in the Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, from the Allegheny Forbes Company (Lehman Company) for a term of ten (10) years, effective January 1, 1986 at $9,500 per month, for the Department of Water's administration purposes. Mr. James O'Malley Page 6 t. The Resolution became known as Bill No. 3746. c. Minutes of City Council meetings: (1) November 25, 1985 - Council referred the bill to the Committee on Water. (2) December 11,, 1985 - The first reading of Bill No. 3746 before City Council. December 16, 1985 - Bill No. 3746 before council. Motion Madoff, second Givens to hold the bill indefinitely. Motion carried, you voted in favor of the motion. (4) December 23, 1985 - Bill No. 3746 before council, Motion Madoff, second Masloff to recommit 8i11 No. 3746. Motion carried by a 6 to 2 vote, you voted against recommitting. d. January 30, 1986 - memorandum from Paul Evers to Councilpersons Madoff, Wagner and O'Malley, stating that per their request proposals from Oxford Development Company and Oliver Realty for the Water Department have been received and that a proposal from Bucher Company i s forthcoming. e. February 24, 1986 - memorandum from George Jacoby to David Donahue, Administrative Assistant to the Mayor, regarding Water Department relocation, summarizing rates and making a recommendation. (1) Jacoby recommended 441 Smithfield Street which was offered through Oxford Development Company. 11. Records obtained from city files disclosed the following proposals regarding space leasing for the Water Department. (3) a. Oxford Development Company (1) 441 Smithfield Street - $11.75 per square foot for first five years, $13.25 per square foot for second five years. b. Lehman Company (Allegheny Building) (1) 429 Forbes Avenue - $13.00 per square foot for first five years, $15.00 per square foot, second five years. c. Oliver Realty (1) Centre City Tower - $11.50 per square foot for five years, $3.00 per square foot construction allowance. Mr. James O'Malley Page 7 (2) 300 Sixth Avenue - $11.06 per square foot for five year term, $2.00 square foot construction allowance. (3) 610 Smithfield Street - $11.00 per square foot. d. Others: (1) Park Building - $14.50 square foot (2) Frick Building - $18.50 square foot (3) Grant Building - $18.00 square foot 12. Councilperson Michelle Madoff, Chairperson of the City Water Committee confirms that she contacted a number of real estate firms in Pittsburgh regarding the leasing of space of the City Water Department. This included Oliver Realty. 13. By memo dated February 17, 1986, Councilperson Madoff informed Mayor Richard Caliguri that she contacted all of the building owners or representatives bidding on the Water Department space. She advised that with the exception of the Allegheny Building, all bidders agreed that the contract should go to the lowest bidder. The memo is marked cc: to Oxford Development Co., Oliver Realty, Bucher Company, M. Berger Co., Allegheny Building. A copy of this memo was received by Oliver Realty. 14. Peter Hackney, Leasing Manager, Oliver Realty confirms that he submitted proposals to the city for possible sites for the Water Department relocation. a. Hackney learned of the city's search from Oliver Realty employees Tom McChesney and Roger Edwards. He then contacted Michelle Madoff. b. He submitted a proposal on January 3, 1986 with follow -up. 15. Hackney, in January and February, 1986, admits to talking to you relative to the procedures when dealing with the city. a. This meeting occurred in the ORI offices. b. Hackney inquired of the status of the search, how to submit proposals /bids and who made the decisions. c. Hackney denied having any additional contacts with you regarding the lease. 16. Hackney confirmed that he is a salaried employee of ORI and that any Commission earned would be credited toward his goal for the year. a. Hackney denies that there was ever any discussion regarding a commission percentage for you. Mr. James O'Malley Page 8 17. Oliver Realty files pertaining to proposals for leasing space to the City Water Department disclosed: a. January 3, 1986 - letter to Paul Evers from Hackney enclosing proposals for three buildings for the City Water Department. b. January 15, 1985 - Letter to Hackney from Evers enclosing floor plan for the Water Department. c. January 31, 1986 - Pittsburgh Post - Gazette article which states Ethics panel may look into O'Malley's real estate job. The lease for the City Water Department is discussed. d. February 17, 1986 - Oliver Realty interoffice correspondence from Hackney to Robert Puntil, ORI President, which outlines steps taken by Hackney regarding the proposal. The memo confirms Hackney's contact with you but only to confirm that the city was looking for a new site. 18. Jerome Lehman, President, Lehman Company, one of the bidders, said he met with both you and Councilwoman Michelle Madoff to try and obtain support for his proposal. a. Councilwoman Madoff confirms that she met with Lehman at a dinner meeting. b. You deny ever meeting with Lehman to discuss why you voted against the Lehman proposal. (The vote of December 23, 1985). You stated your only contact with Lehman was when he came to City Council prior to the vote on the lease on December 23, 1985. 19. You admit to discussing the Water Department lease with Peter Hackney, Leasing Manager for ORI. t. You stated that you told Hackney to contact Michelle Madoff because she was handling the project. This discussion occurred at the ORI offices. b. You deny providing Hackney any information regarding the city's procedures for space leasing because you have no knowledge of those procedures. c. You could not recall referring anyone from Oliver Realty to Paul Evers, City Deputy Finance Director in charge of the leasing project. d. Your only concern was obtaining space at the lowest cost to the city. Mr. James O'Malley Page 9 20. The city eventually leased space from the Oxford Development Company. The findings in relation to allegation I. c. are as follows: 21. On November 1, 1985, the City of Pittsburgh, Department of Engineering and Construction, submitted a proposal for the rehabilitation of the Public Safety Building as an alternative to a new building. This proposal was submitted to the Mayor's Office due to requests for office updating, departmental reorganization and safety factors. 22. You sent an inter - office memorandum dated January 25, 1986, to fifteen (15) city officials regarding a preliminary study of building facilities for the Department of Public Safety. a. These officials associated with the City Law Department, Police Department, Fire Department, Finance Department and General Services were: Paul Brophy, Glenn Cannon, Lou Gaetano, Paul Imhoff, George Jacoby, Bob Lurcott, Dante Pellegrini, Melanie Smith, Louise Brown, Ronald Schmeiser, John Norton, Jim Turner, Lou DiNardo, Bob Coll and Fire Chief Leahy. b. Your memo stated your feelings that, "needs would be better served by the construction of a new building that would fulfill the current and future needs of the Department of Public Safety and provide additional space for any future expansions within any department." c. The memo further stated, "I have asked Ned Doran, Vice President of Oliver Realty, to conduct a preliminary study into how our needs would be best served. Ned will be contacting each of you in the near future, please give him your full support and cooperation. Thank you" 23. By an inter - office correspondence dated February 14, 1986, Edward P. Doran, a Vice - President of Oliver Realty, advised Ronald M. Puntil, President of Oliver Realty, of his involvement with you regarding real estate business. Doran's memo advised as follows: a. On January 22, 1986, you asked Doran to think about the Public Safety Building and come up with an approximate fair market value as is today. b. On January 23, 1986, Doran visited the site. c. On Janury 27, 1986, 4 :00 p.m., Doran and you met with John Norton, Director of the Public Safety Building, to discuss the short range /long range plans for the Public Safety Department. Doran gave Norton a figure -of $1,183,000.00 for the land and $3,780,000.00 for the building. Mr. James O'Malley Page 10 d. As of January 27, 1986, you asked Doran if he would agree to a free written opinion of value and some recommendations on the real estate. e. You stated that you would send letters of introduction to the department heads under the Public Safety Department. f. Nothing written or orally occurred by Oliver Realty Inc. since January 27, 1986. During an interview with State Ethics Commission investigator, Doran confirmed the above. 24. You stated that you and a number of city officials irom the Public Safety Department believed that the Public Safety Building was not worth rehabilitating. You believed that a new building was needed. 25. You stated that you approached Ned Doran, a Vice - President for ORI, to conduct a preliminary report to determine whether the public safety building was worth renovating. a. This contact was made only to determine the value of the property and whether the renovations would be feasible. b. You deny that either you or ORI would have benefitted from the Doran review. g. The findings in relation to allegation I. d. are as follows: 26. Records obtained from City of Pittsburgh, Department of General Services, Department of Finance and City Controller disclosed the following relative to the sale of Excess Worker's Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance and the extension of the policy: a. In May, 1984, City Council presented Resolution No. 490 authorizing the Mayor and the Director of Finance to secure Surety Bond and Excess Worker's Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance in the amount of $5,000,000.00 to further secure its worker's compensation program, costs not to exceed $145,000.00. b. Council approved Resolution No. 490 on June 4, 1984, you voted in favor of the resolution. The Mayor approved on June 14, 1984. c. On August 29, 1984, bids were advertised by the Department of General Services. Mr. James O'Malley Page 11 i J d. On September 21, 1984 bids were received as follows: Excess Work - Proposal men's comp. & No. Surety Bond Liability - John Beck Agency B -164 $12,000.00 #B -164 $45,000.00 - MVI Group -0- $50,470.00 - Volpe Insurance $25,000.00 $83,037.00 All bids for the worker's compensation liability were based on a twelve (12) month contract. e. On October 23, 1984, a memo was sent from Ronald Schmeiser, Finance Director, to George Jacoby, General Services Director, recommending that the bids be awarded to the John Beck Agency. f. November 15, 1984, Neil Brown, Beck Agency, wrote to Jacoby enclosing the policy written as per the specifications prescribed by the city. The original estimated annual.premium of $45,000.00 was prorated due to the shorter term requested by the city and was reduced to $41,805.00 policy period from October 26, 1984 to September 30, 1985, The correspondence is cc to Pearse O'Malley. g. January 9, 1985, Contract No. 27347 (Proposal B -164) for Surety Bond and Contract #27348 (Proposal B -164), Excess Worker's Compensation signed. h. September 27, 1985, correspondence from Neil Brown to Schmeiser discusses the renewal of Contract No. 2738. Brown stated that the original policy period of October 26, 1984 to October 26, 1985 was shortened at city request to September 30, 1985. To keep the policy in effect, the Beck Agency annualized the policy to the original October 26, 1985 dated a premium of $3,195.00. Brown advised the policy could remain in effect beyond the annual policy period at terms dictated by the underwriter. • October 2, 1985, Brown again writes Schmeiser requesting execution of an indemnity agreement to continue the policy. . October 7, 1985, Patricia Barnes, Benefits Coordinator, Department of Finance, replied to Brown requesting further extension or the policy through December 31, 1985, due to bid procedures that must be followed by the city. Mr. James O'Malley Page 12 k. October 25, 1985, Brown wrote to Barnes advising of the extension of both the bond and worker's compensation policies. Premiums requested were: ▪ Extension Worker's Comp. Policy No. X5442 - Extension of Bond Bond No. U736943 9/30/85 to 10/26/85 - $3,195.00 10/26/85 to 12/31/85 - $18,175.00 10/26/85 to 12/31/85 - $ 5,000.00 Total $26,370.00 1. On December 12, 1985, Marvin Fein, Deputy City Solicitor, wrote to members of City Council advising of the insurance extension because of the city's self- insurance status with regard to worker's compensation, the Commonwealth has required the city to maintain a $5,000,000.00 bond. Approval and authorization for extension requested. m. December 12, 1985, Schmeiser submits request to City Council for emergency approval of $26,370.00 to Beck Agency. Request signed by Councilmembers Woods, Wagner, Givens, Masloff and Stone, 27. Records of City Council confirm that on January 13, 1986, you presented Bill No. 29, providing for the issuance of a warrant in favor of John G. Beck Insurance Agency in the amount of $26,370.00 for the extension of a surety bond securing the city's workers' compensation program. a. The bill was affirmatively recommended by the Finance Committee (which you chair) on January 22, 1986. b. The bill was passed unanimously by council on January 27, 1986. You were present and voted. 28. City records further disclosed the following regarding the purchase of a Surety Bond and Excess Workers' Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance for 1986: a. City Council passed Resolution 746 of 1985, authorizing the purchase of Surety Bond and excess Workers' Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance. b. On October 23, 1985, the Department of General Services sends out bid specs to nineteen (19) area insurance agencies. Included was the John Beck Agency. Mr. James O'Malley Page 13 c. On December 20, 1985, bids were opened. Only the Beck Agency submitted bids: - Surety Bond, Proposal B -162 - $18,950.00 - - Excess Workers' Compensation and Employer Liability, B -163 - $63,440.00 d. On December 31, 1985, City Finance Director Schmeiser sent a memo to George Jacoby recommending the bid be awarded to the John Beck Agency. e. On January 6, 1986, articles of agreement for the policy and bond were signed by Jacoby and the Beck Agency. f. On January 28, 1986, Contract No. 28016 (Surety Bond) and No. 28017 (Workers' Compensation and Liability) became effective. 29. City records disclosed the following information relative to the bid and purchase of the Workers' Compensation Insurance and Surety Bond for 1987. a. June 9, 1986, City Council passed Resolution 505 authorizing the Director of the Department of General Services during the 1987 calendar year to invite proposals and award contracts, including insurance. b. October 8, 1986, the Department of General Services advertised for bids for the Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance. c. The Department of General Services sent bid specifications to fifteen (15) area insurance agencies, including the Beck Agency and a new vendor, North Hills Insurance Exchange. d. December 12, 1986, bids were opened. The only bid received was from the North Hills Insurance Exchange in an amount of $105,000.00. e. December 15, 1983, Schmeiser sends a memo to Jacoby recommending awarding the bid to the North Hills Insurance Exchange. f. Contracts signed by Pearse O'Malley as Secretary Treasurer of North Hills Insurance Exchange. 30. Information obtained from the John Beck Agency disclosed the following: a. In 1984, Neil Brown approached William Beck about hiring Pearse O'Malley. They agreed to do so after O'Malley was licensed to sell insurance. A 20% commission was agreed upon. Mr. James O'Malley Page 14 b. On June 24, 1984, Pearse O'Malley became licensed to sell property and casualty insurance. Subsequently, the Beck Agency had him licensed with the carriers that Beck Agency represented. c. Both Neil Brown and William Beck agreed that the only reason Pearse O''Malley was hired was to keep an eye on city insurance business being let for bid. d. Prior to Pearse O'Malley's employment, Beck Agency did not have any insurance business from the city. e. Brown and Beck stated they obtained the insurance bid based on the strength of their surety bond. The Alcosan policy was sold because of the limited avenues to obtain such insurance. f. Pearse O'Malley was paid the following amounts: April 10, 1985 - $1,556.10 April 19, 1985 - $1,174.50 March 27, 1986 - $ 727.40 $3,458.00 Pearse O'Malley submitted a letter 1986, effective February 15, 1986. media and the city controller. He existing markets to him and not to policies. 31. Pearse O'Malley subsequently became employed by the North Hills Agency. 32. In addition to the insurance policies sold to the City of Pittsburgh, your brother also sold an insurance policy to the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (ALCOSAN) where you serve on the board of directors. The policy was initially sold through the Beck Agency and renewed through the North Hills Insurance Exchange. The ALCOSAN board consists . of three (3) members appointed by the City of Pittsburgh and two (2) members appointed by the Allegheny Commi ssioners. a. You have served on the ALCOSAN board as a city representative since 1980. 33. ALCOSAN officials related the following regarding the purchase of insurance from the John Beck Agency in 1985: a. ALCOSAN was in need of Environmental Liability Insurance. This type of coverage was previously included in general liability policies, but was now excluded. g. of resignation dated February 6, He cited criticisms from the also requested the release of challenge his renewals of existing Mr. James O'Malley Page 15 b. Pearse O'Malley contacted ALCOSAN Executive Director James Creehan relative to the authority's insurance needs. Creehan informed of the need for the environmental liability coverage. c. On November 13, 1985, Neil Brown of the Beck Agency submitted a proposal for a $3,000,000.00 Environmental Liability policy. No other quotes were sought. The policy was awarded to the Beck Agency effective November 18, 1985 at an annual premium of $96,000.00. 34. James Creehan, ALCOSAN Executive Director, advised as follows: a. Pearse O'Malley called him directly relative to the authority's insurance needs. At that time the Environmental Liability Insurance was discussed. He did not know what prompted that call. Anyone else would have had a difficult time getting an appointment, but he made an exception for a friend. b. ALCOSAN had tried to secure such insurance through two agencies for over a year but were unable to do so. c. You, as an authority member, would have known about the problem with Environmental Liability Insurance because he brought it to the board's attention. d. No bids were sought from other firms because as a result, bids would be received from other companies and that he did not want. 35. ALCOSAN records further disclosed that the Environmental Liability Insurance was renewed in November, 1986, at an annual premium of $110,400.00 from the North Hills Insurance Exchange. a. Pearse O'Malley was working with the North Hills Insurance Exchange at the time and was paid a $3,312.00 commission on November 20, 1986 for the ALCOSAN account. 36. You stated as follows in regards to the sale of insurance to ALCOSAN by your brother: a. You introduced your brother to James Creehan sometime within the past six years. b. You told Creehan that your brother was in the insurance business. You thought you could have told Creehan your brother might be able to help out with the insurance. c. You did not know if the policy was ever put out for bid before being awarded to your brother. Mr. James O'Malley Page 16 d. You did not participate in the awarding of the insurance policy. 37. Records of the State Insurance Department confirm the following regarding Perry O'Malley's status as an insurance agent: Licensed under Pearse J. O'Malley. Licensed to sell property and casualty insurance. Earliest licenses September 20, 1984, licensed to sell for twenty -seven (27) a. b. companies. c. Licenses terminated from June 13, 1986 to December 15, 1986. Presently not licensed to sell insurance. In addition to selling insurance, records of the Pittsburgh Housing Authority confirm that your brother initially hired on January 26, 1986 as a management trainee and has progressed to the position of Regional Supervisor which he currently holds. The findings in relation to I. e. are as follows: 38. Pittsburgh Provision and Packing Inc., a group of former employees of the Armour Meat Packing Plant, were attempting to purchase the facility from the parent company, Con -Agra Corp., Omaha, Nebraska. a. The group was trying to obtain funding which included seeking the support of Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh. 39. Records confirm that the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County authorized funds to support a study to determine the feasibility of Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. as a viable business candidate. 40. Records of Allegheny County disclose that on March 20, 1985 the County Department of Economic Development requested the autohrization of the Board of Commissioners to submit a Technical Assistance Application under the Employee Ownership Assistance Program to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of Pittsburgh Provision and Packing Inc. and the City of Pittsburgh; and to authorize a commitment of CDBG Year X funds at a cost not to exceed $25,000.00. a. The Application for Technical Assistance was to provide funding for feasibility studies to determine if Pittsburgh Packing Plant, Inc. is a viable start -up business candidate. b. The resolution was approved at the Commissioners meeting of March 21, 1985. Mr. James O'Malley Page 17 41. City records confirm that the City of Pittsburgh, through the Urban Redevelopment Authority's Economic Development Department agreed to support a multi - faceted feasibility analysis for the start -up of a meat processing company and facility by the workers of the former Armour Plant in Crafton, who incorporated under the name of Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. a. By memo dated June 3, 1985, Paul Brophy, Urban Redevelopment Authority Executive Director, notified the Economic Development Department that the Urban Redevelopment Authority support would be in the form of a $25,000.00 contract for management of the feasibility study and additional management services related to implementation of the project if the study is favorable. 42. By memo dated June 12, 1985, Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. notified the Urban Redevelopment Authority that the group had selected Philadelphia Association for Cooperative Enterprise (PACE) as project manager. 43. City records further confirm that on May 28, 1986, Ronald Lurcott, City Planning Director, submitted to council: a. Proposed resolution which authorized the mayor and the city planning director to enter into an agreement with the "Pittsburgh Employee Ownership Charitable Trust Fund" to be used as the city's share of a local match of funding to develop a business plan for an employee owned and operated meat packing plant. Costs not to exceed $15,000.00. (1) The proposal was presented to council as Resolution No. 501 on June 2, 1986 and approved on June 9, 1986. 44. Con -Agra Inc., the owners of the Armour Plant, were interested in selling the plant. a. The firm hired Bill Green Realty to market the property for sale. 45. Officials of Bill Green Realty disclosed the following information: a. The firm had a contract from May, 1984 to May, 1985, with Con -Agra to sell the Armour plant. The firm hoped to renew the contract. The firm prepared a brochure which was used in trying to market the property. b. Robert McClurg, the Broker handling the Armour property for Bill Green Realty, was with representatives of Pittsburgh Packing, Inc., and PACE when he met you and Ned Doran of ORI at the plant on September 9, 1985. Doran introduced you as a city councilman who was Mr. James O'Malley Page 18 working for Oliver Realty. Doran also informed McClurg that he was contacted by Con -Agra officials who wanted ORI to represent Con -Agra in the sale of the property. Con -Agra officials confirm to McClurg that they were trying to get information on who to contract with. c. The firm no longer represents Con -Agra. 46. John Lichtenstein, consultant for PACE advised as follows: a. PACE was hired by Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. to do a feasibility study and to manage other consultants hired to participate in the study. b. He met with you on at least three occasions regarding the Armour property. The first meeting occurred on Septebmer 9, 1985 at the Armour site. You were accompanied by an individual unknown to Lichtenstein. You told Lichtenstein that "we are here to help you guys and to keep in touch." c. A second meeting occurred sometime later, possibly a few weeks, in a room outside City Council chambers where the possibility of Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. leasing a portion of the Armour property was discussed. You are reported as questioning whether the project would qualify for federal funding, but to keep you apprised. d. The third meeting occurred on Janury 22, 1986. At that meeting you are reported as being pessimistic about the leasing of a portion of the building and the financing. At that time you also are reported as stating that you were associated with ORI and that ORI was potentially interested in the property. 47. James Ferlo, member of the. Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. Board, advised that any other potential interests or buyers for the Armour Plant would have been a death blow to the employee's plan. 48. Paul Brophy, Excecutive Director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, stated as follows: a. He was asked to attend a meeting in your office. You made a proposal that the Urban Redevelopment Authority purchase the Armour Building and lease portions to interested firms. Brophy advised you that the proposal was not timely due to the recent completion of the Pittsburgh Provision and Packing, Inc. Project. Mr. James O'Malley Page 19 b. A subsequent meeting was held with you and Ned Doran. Again the proposal of Urban Redevelopment Authority buying the building was discussed. You said it would be a good idea if the Urban Redevelopment Authority was involved. Doran wanted the Urban Redevelopment Authority to buy the property and convert it to an incubator plant. One week later, Brophy told you the proposal would not be considered. c. Brophy stated that he felt "crowded" by you on the Armour Building Project. 49. You and Doran furnished Brophy with an exact replica of the Bill Green Realty Brochure. Over the Bill Green Emblem was posted an ORI logo. 50. Jack Noonan, Director of Real Estate for the Urban Redevelopment Authority, advised as follows: a. Sometime during the late summer of 1985, he accompanied Paul Brophy to a meeting in your office. Doran was also present. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether the Urban Redevelopment Authority would be interested in purchasing the Armour facility to run it into a job development center. Doran did most of the talking and advocated an incubator plan, an industrial facility which would start manufacturing companies. Doran was trying to sell the property and trying to get Con -Agra to lower its asking price. You were present throughout this meeting and made no mention of your association with ORI. b. The proposal advocated at that meeting would have been counter to the former Armour employees' plan. The Urban Redevelopment Authority plan would have benefitted the employees if funding could be located. c. Doran was not opposed to the Urban Redeveloment Authority buying the property from Con -Agra and selling it back to the employees. 51. Ned Doran, an ORI Vice - President, advised as follows: a. Sometime during the summer of 1985, at a Tuesday brokerage meeting, he discussed the Armour plant with you. He had been contacted by Con -Agra officials who wanted to sell the property. You wanted to know what Doran thought of the property. ORI had no listing at that time and was not authorized to sell the property. b. After the sales meeting, you suggested meeting with Paul Brophy. Doran had previously met with Jack Noonan when the Urban Redevelopment Authority owned the property. Mr. James O'Malley Page 20 c. You and Doran met with Brophy on approximately September 27, 1985. Doran revealed his plan for the property. Doran pushed for the Urban Redevelopment Authority to buy the property particularly since they already owned most of the land around the plant. Doran said if he got Con -Agra to lower its asking price, the Urban Redevelopment Authority could make the purchase and sell the property back to the empl oyees. d. You showed an interest in the Armour Building as a salesman, not a councilman. e. This was not your deal. You would not have received any money if Doran had arranged the sale. He said you were only doing a favor, one that he could return in the future. f. You never said anything about what you could do for ORI as a councilman. g. You also arranged another meeting for him. You asked Doran to meet with ALCOSAN Executive Director James Creehan to see if they had any areas of cammon interests. The meeting occurred on January 15, 1986 in your office. You did not contribute to that meeting. Doran did not know you served on the ALCOSAN Board. There were no further meetings. 52. Roger Edwards, Vice- President for Brokerage for ORI, stated as follows: a. Doran discussed the Armour property at a round table brokerage meeting. Doran told of his proposal to have Armour either sell or donate the property to the Urban Redevelopment Authority. The Urban Redevelopment Authority then could sell or develop the property. b. You were not specifically assigned to work with Doran. Doran may have asked to have you work with him. 53. During an interview with a State Ethics Commission investigator, you stated as follows in the presence of your attorney: a. City Council, along with the county, authorized funding to conduct studies to determine if it would be feasible for the former Armour employees to buy the plant. b. You accompanied Ned Doran and Roger Edwards to Armour site as part of your training as a new brokerage agent. The purpose of going to the site was because the Green contract was expired and to determine if it would be worth ORI's time to act as sales agent for Con -Agra. Mr. James O'Malley Page 21 c. You talked to John Lichtenstein and informed him of your affiliation with ORI and that ORI might be interested in representing Con -Agra if the Bill Green deal fell through. d. You might have asked Paul Brophy to meet with Doran. You thought the meeting was insignificant because you have no influence over the Urban Redevelopment Authority. e. Your attorney stated that no conflict existed because the property was for sale and wasn't being sold by you. He stated that there was no conflict because neither you nor the city was involved. The sale was Doran 's not yours. B. Discussion: [the following discussion relates to allegations I. a. - e. inclusive] As a member of the Pittsburgh City Council, you are clearly 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 that law. Markham, 85 -013. The instant situation must be reviewed under two particular provisions of the State Ethics Act which we will set forth herein. The Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate 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). In addition to the foregoing, the Ethics Act also 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). Mr. James O'Malley Page 22 We have reviewed the instant situation within the above provisions of law. Initially, in relation to the foregoing allegations, while certain questions have been raised under Section 403(b) of the State Ethics Act, regarding each of the above outlined situations, we have developed no evidence or other information which supports the conclusion that you had received or accepted a payment from Oliver Realty, Inc., or a position or employment from that company based upon the understanding that your conduct as a councilman would be influenced thereby. While it is true that you had received a position of employment from that company prior to your being officially licensed as a real estate sales person in the Commonwealth and while it is also true that you had no prior experience in real estate business, these factors alone would not support a conclusion that offer of employment to you was based upon the understanding that your official conduct as a city councilman would be influenced thereby. As such, we believe that there is insufficient evidence to find a violation of Section 403(b) of the Ethics Act, although` substantial questions regarding this provision of law have been raised by your conduct. Additionally we found no evidence that you received anything of value based upon the understanding that you would use your public position to influence or assure that city or authority insurance business was awarded to your brother or the company with which he was associated. As noted above, we must also review your conduct within the provisions of Section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act. As noted above, that provision of law would prohibit a public official's use of his position to obtain a financial gain for himself or for a business with which he is associated. The Ethics Act 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. As an employee of the Oliver Realty, Inc., you were clearly associated with that entity within the above provision of law. As such, you could not use your public position in order to obtain financial gain for that company or any representative thereof. In the instant situation, certain facts are clear. You were on a compensation plan with that company whereby you received a certain fixed salary which was to be credited against commission for sales that you consummated. You did, in fact, receive that compensation from the period of time that you were employed by Oliver Realty, Inc., until the date of your termination. That compensation would be credited to whatever business you brought into Oliver Realty, Inc., as a real estate salesperson. Mr. James O'Malley Page 23 In relation to the "Herr's Island" project, the foregoing factors also indicate that an employee of Oliver Realty, was extemely interested in obtaining the approval of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of the City of Pittsburgh for the initiation of a project on URA owned property. The URA had originally declined that project when it was initially proposed. You, however, agreed to meet with the representative from Oliver Realty, Inc., Richard Stamphar, and a representative of the individual who was interested in initiating this project. The original meeting took place at the offices of Oliver Realty. It is not clear from this meeting, whether you were acting as a city councilmember in this situation or whether you were acting as a representative of Oliver Realty. In any event, on December 13, 1985, you wrote to Paul Brophy, the Executive Director of the URA, and supported the proposal that was being presented by the developer and the representative of Oliver Realty. You forwarded copies of this correspondence to the mayor and all members of City Council. This letter was prepared and authored by you as a member of City Council. This was clearly done in your official capacity. On January 21, 1986, you wrote to John Robin, Chairman of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, and stated in your letter that you and a number of your City Council colleagues disagreed with the Urban Redeveloment Authority's conclusion wherein the proposal was denied and further indicated that the proposal being offered was within the parameters of the appropriate use. The appropriate use, of course, for that property had been determined by a redevelopment plan which had been adopted by City Council on October of 1983. Copies of your letter to Chairman Robin which was written in your capacity as a city councilmember and wherein you requested URA reconsideration of this proposal were made available to all URA board members and the mayor of Pittsburgh as well as the executive director of the URA. The URA, however, refused to reconsider its opinion and upheld their original decision. You similarly were involved in the City Water Department project. The City of Pittsburgh Water Department was interested in obtaining leased office space for operation purposes. Originally, a bill was introduced into City Council which contained a proposal to lease office space from a certain real estate company. That bill was voted on in December, 1985, and at that time you voted to hold the bill indefinitely. You later voted, during that same month, against recommitting the bill. During the course of the Water Department's attempt to lease space, you had meetings with certain individuals in relation to this situation. Peter Hackney, Leasing Manager for Oliver Realty, has stated that he met with you in order to determine the methods and procedures for bidding on the Water Department's property. Hackney's contact with you was verified in an internal Oliver Realty Office memo dated February 17, 1986. You indicated that you did, in fact, meet with Hackney but advised him to contact another city councilmember because that member was handling the project. You denied providing Hackney with any information regarding the city procedures for space leasing because you have no knowledge of those procedures. Additionally, a memorandum from Paul Evers, the former Deputy Director for Finance in the Water Department had executed a memo on January 30, 1986, indicating that partially based upon your request, a proposal was Mr. James O'Malley Page 24 solicited from Oliver Realty Company for the Water Department office facilities. This memo was dated January 30, 1986, which was approximately one month after you voted against recommitting the bill regarding the leasing of space. You indicated that you could not recall referring anyone from Oliver Realty to Paul Evers, the City Finance Director. The city eventually leased space from -the Oxford Development Company instead of Oliver Realty. In relation to the City Public Safety Building, the city Department of Engineering and Construction was interested in rehabilitating the public safety building as an alternative to acquiring, purchasing or constructing a new building. The proposal was submitted to the mayor's office. This took place in November of 1985 a time when you were associated with Oliver Realty Incorporated. You contacted, as an official of the City Council, fifteen city officials requesting those individuals to give their cooperation to a representative of Oliver Realty, Inc., who was going to be conducting a study regarding the renovation of that building. This individual, an employee of Oliver Realty, Inc., had been requested to perform the study by you. The City of Pittsburgh was not paying for this study and you had arranged to have this done at no cost. No financial gain was received by Oliver Realty, Inc., or by yourself. As noted in the findings, your brother was involved in the placement of insurance relating to the City and ALCOSAN. The Ethics Act provides that you may not use your public position in order to obtain a financial gain for yourself, a business with which you are associated or a member of your immediate family. A 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. In the instant situation, the facts reveal that you did participate in certain actions, as a member of City Council, regarding the insurance policies that were placed through the John Beck Agency. Your brother was an employee of that entity. He received commissions in relation to the placement of that policy. It has been confirmed by your brother's employers that the reason he was hired was in order to keep abreast of potential business with the City of Pittsburgh. Curiously, after your brother terminated his association with the Beck Agency, the agency with which he thereafter became associated, North Hills, then obtained the city business. Similarly, your brother obtained for both the Beck Agency and the North Hills Agency the insurance business for ALCOSAN. You are a member of the board of directors of ALCOSAN and you, in fact, introduced the ALCOSAN executive director to your brother. The ALCOSAN executive director confirmed that other individuals would have had a problem in obtaining an appointment with him but, in light of the fact that you were a Mr. James O'Malley Page 25 friend, your brother was offered the opportunity of such an appointment. You, as a member of City Council, and as a board of director for ALCOSAN, were knowledgeable and involved, to some degree, in the activities of those governmental bodies. - Your brother is not, however, a member of your immediate family as defined above and pursuant to prior opinions of the State Ethics Commission, as well as the statutory definitions as set forth in the Ethics Act, we cannot find a violation of the Act in that you did not obtain a financial gain for a member of your immediate family as defined. See Phillips, 451; Todaro, 434. We have found no evidence that you, personally, received a financial gain through the award of these contracts and, thus, your activities would not be in violation of the State Ethics Act and we are constrained to so find. Finally, the findings of fact reveal that Oliver Realty was interested in becoming the agent of record for the sale of the property owned by Con -Agra which formerly was the Armour Meat Packing Plant. The former broker of record was unable to sell that property. As a result, a plan was developed to attempt to have the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh purchase that property and then resell that property to the employees who were interested in an employee take over. Funding would be available for these employees under certain programs and, as a result, Con -Agra would be able to sell the property. You were working behind the scenes in an attempt to influence the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh to purchase this property. You arranged a number of meetings and were involved in a number of discussions. What is not clear in the instant situation is whether you were doing so as a city councilmember or as an Oliver Realty, Inc., employee. A review of the facts indicate that you did not disclose your relationship with Oliver Realty, Inc., to most of the individuals involved in this situation. As such, it had appeared as though you were operating as a city councilperson throughout your dealings in the instant situation. While we maybe constrained in certain circumstances, such as the award of the insurance business to your brother or his firm, to find no specific violation of the State Ethics Act, we are extremely concerned with the pattern of activity that has been developed through the findings contained herein. In all of the foregoing situations, you did not appear to clearly divide the duties that you owe to the public as a representative on City Council and those interests which you were engaged in privately as a real estate broker. You constantly participated or attempted to influence governmental decisions in relation to matters in which your private company was involved. We believe that this type of activity by a public official is not consistent with either the intent or spirit of the State Ethics Act. In one particular situation we note that you i Oliver Realty, Inc., to the the executive director board member of that entity. Clearly, you had infl control over that organization. You had asked Mr. ntroduced a salesman from of ALCOSAN. You sat as a uence, responsibility, and Doran to meet with the Mr. James O'Malley Page 26 ALCOSAN executive director on January 15, 1986, to see if these individuals had any areas of common interests. While you did not affirmatively participate in that meting, the mere fact that you as a member of the board of directors of that governmental body introduced a member of your private real estate firm to the executive director of the board over which you had authority, "influence and control clearly creates public perceptions that you are using your public position to aid your own canpany. Your conduct, in this respect, clearly exhibits that you have no concept or concern for ethical considerations. In yet another situation, you attempted to obtain approval for the project which would thereafter benefit his company. You clearly acted in your capacity as a city councilmember to attempt to influence the decisions of the Urban Redevelopment Authority. You met with and counseled with the representatives of Oliver Realty, Inc., and later wrote on their behalf to city officials. These letters were written in your capacity as a city councilmember. In one letter, you indicated that the purposes proposed for the use of the project were appropriate and in accordance with the council's authorized use plan. The City Council, as noted in the findings, had approved a redevelopment plan authorizing certain uses. You, writing as a councilmember, interpreting a council resolution and indicating that your colleagues on council further agreed with your interpretation could be considered to be using your official position in an attempt to obtain a financial gain for Oliver Realty. Of extreme importance is the fact that you were receiving a salary from ORI in the form of a draw against Commission. This compensation; $1,500 per .month, totaled $13,500. You had been employed at an annual rate of $18,000. In order to ensure your continued employment with ORI and justify the salary received you were obligated to product business for that organization. When, this factor is considered along with your many attempts to advance the interests of ORI it becomes clear that you were using your public position to obtain a financial gain for yourself and the business with which you were associated. This use was further heightened by the fact that prior to your association with ORI there is no evidence that you attempted to advance the interest of that entity. Act. We thus believe that you violated section 403(a) of the State Ethics As a result of the foregoing and based upon the authority vested in this Commission as set forth in the law, 65 P.S. §407(ii). This matter is being referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities with a recommendation that consideration be given to further investigation of this matter both in relation to your conduct within section 403(a) of the Act as well as the questions raised under section 403(b) of the Act. Mr. James O'Malley Page 27 C. Conclusion and Order: You violated section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act when you as a city councilmember in the City of Pittsburgh used your public position to advance the interests of the realty business with which you were associated. This use of public office was aimed at obtaining a financial gain for yourself and the business with which you were associated. Additionally, while we do not herein find a specific violation of section 403(b) of the Act, we note that questions regarding the implication of that provision of the law have been raised. Based upon the foregoing it is hereby ordered that this matter be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency with a recommendation that consideration be given to further investigate this matter under the applicable provisions of law. II. Allegation: You used your public title "Councilman" oft your Oliver Realty business cards. B. Findings: 54. Officials of Oliver Realty Inc., confirmed that it is standard company policy to purchase business cards for employees. a. Subsequent to your hiring in May, 1985, business cards would have been ordered for you as a new employee. 55. Ronald Puntil, President of Oliver Realty, Inc., advised that the ORI employee responsible for ordering and purchasing business cards questioned why you wanted your title of councilman on business cards. Puntil stated cards were ordered with the title "Councilman" because you wanted them that way. 56. Oliver Realty, Inc., records disclosed the following regarding the purchase of business cards for you: a. P.T. Lewis Co. Invoice No. 1894 dated May 31, 1985, which reflects an order being placed on May 13, 1985 (Order No. 51586) for 1 lot of 500 business cards for James O'Malley at a price of $20.00. 57. Your Oliver Realty business card states: Councilman James O'Malley. 58. You stated that your reason for wanting Councilman on your business cards is because that is your title. a. You also stated that every elected official uses his title or log on stationery and business cards. You said your actions were an oversight. Mr. James O'Malley Page 28 b. You denied ever receiving any financial gain by having your title "Councilman" on your ORI business cards. B. Discussion: The issue presented by the instant situation is whether there was a violation of Section 403(a), under the circumstances.where you used the title councilman on your private business cards. The relevant provision of law has been outlined in the previous sections of this order. This Commission, in the past, has issued a number of rulings regarding the parameters of a public official's use of certain aspects of his official position in relation to his private endeavors. For example, in Williams, No. 76, the Commission determined that a public official may use a facimile of an official seal as well as his official title on private stationery supporting an election campaign. Similarly and more recently in Fee, 86 -542, the State Ethics Commission determined that use of an official seal, and the official title of the public officer would be permitted as long as the stationery containing the aforementioned items set forth a disclaimer indicating that such was not official governmental stationery and had been paid for by private funds. Under the above rulings of this Commission, we do not believe that the current circumstances would occasion a violation of the State Ethics Act. Your use of the title councilman on a private business card would be in accord with our previous rulings. The business card was not paid for with governmental funds and did not, in any other respect, appear to be an official document or lead to the impression that it was part of your governmental office. As such, we do not believe that there is a violation of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion: There was no violation of the State Ethics Act when you used the title councilman on a personal business card. D. Summary of Conclusions: 1. You violated counci l member in the interests of This use of yourself and the section 403(a) of the State Ethics Act when you as a city the City of Pittsburgh used your public position to advance the realty business with which you were associated. public office was aimed at obtaining a financial gain for business with which you were associated. Additionally, while we do not herein find a specific violation 403(b) of the Act, we note that questions regarding the implication provision of the law have been raised. Based upon the foregoing it is hereby ordered that this matter referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency with a recommenda consideration be given to further investigate this matter under the provisions of law. of section of that be tion that applicable Mr. James O'Malley Page 29 2. There was no violation of the State Ethics Act when you used the title councilman on a personal business card. 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 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, X! ic&Cm. G. Sieber Sieber Pancoast Chairman