Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout574 MontemayorMr. Robert J. Montemayor Sweetbrier Circle King Of Prussia, PA 19406 Re: 85 -065 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 574 DATE DECIDED: July 21, 1987 DATE MAILED: July 28, 1987 Dear Mr. Montemayor: 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 on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That you, a Supervisor in Upper Merion Township, violated Section 3(b) of the Pennsylvania Ethics Act which prohibits a public official from accepting or soliciting anything of value with the understanding that his official action will be influenced when you participated in a trip to New York City paid for by the Developer of the Rebel Hill and Port Henley land tracts while participating in the township's consideration of development plans for these tracts. A. Findings: 1. You served as an Upper Merion Township Supervisor from January 1984 to December 1985. 2. John S. Trinsey, Jr. is a land developer and also served as an Upper Merion Township Supervisor from 1965 to 1970. Mr. Robert Jo Montemayor Page 2 3. John S. Trinsey. Jr., is involved in the following entities: a. Belfont Corporation - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on August 6, 1980. b. Upper Merion Regatta, Inc. - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on May 4, 1984. c. Tri -Kell, Inc. - Trinsey was listed as one of three incorporators; incorporated in Pennsylvania on July 9, 1985. d. Gulph Woods, Inc. - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on July 12, 1982. e. .Port Henley, Inc. - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on July 12, 1982. f. Rebel Hill Builders, Inc. - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on May 25, 1984. g. East Redley, Inc. - Sole incorporator; incorporated in Pennsylvania on August 23, 1977. h. River Park Development, Inc. - Listed incorporators and Trust Directors were Edward Fackenthal, John F. Solomon, Jr., and Joseph F. Keener, Jr.; incorporated in Pennsylvania on October 17, 1968. i. Upper Merion Rowing Association, Inc. - No record of incorporators or - Trust Directors was obtained. However, the corporation address was listed as 216 Gypsy Hill Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which was a former residence of John S. Trinsey, Jr. No date of incorporation was available. 4. Mr. Trinsey has been involved in the following development projects in Upper Merion Township: a. Rebel Hill. He has submitted numerous applications over the last twenty -five to thirty years to develop this area. This project was to consist of a combination of apartments, townhomes and single- family detached units. b. Port Henle . An on going project involving seventeen (17) plus acres w is are contiguous to the Upper Merion Boathouse Areas; 1.7 Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 3 acres. This project was to consist of a senior citizens' highrise complex along a river front property in the township. 5. The township supervisors, the township engineering division plus six township planning commissioners, and the township zoning hearing board were presented with various applications and other items for review and decision in relation to the Rebel Hill and Port Henley projects. 6. Minutes of the meetings of the township supervisors disclose the following actions and discussions concerning the Rebel Hill project: a. December 15, 1975. At this time Inc. (May 30, 1984 - The Rebel to Gulph Woods Corporation). At O'Donnell made a motion that the rezoned from R -2 residential to seconded by Township Supervisor Kellett and Keim voted affirmati rezoning the Rebel Hill property Supervisor Smith and the motion , Rebel Hill was owned by Tri -Kell, Hill tract was sold by Tri -Kell Inc., this meeting, Township Supervisor tract, known as Rebel Hill, be UR residential. This motion was Kellett. Supervisors O'Donnell, vely, adopting Ordinance #75 -353 . You voted nay as did Township was passed on a three to two vote. b. December 12, 1983. A vote was taken by the Upper Merion Township Supervisors to approve the preliminary development plan of Rebel Hill -Gulph Mills Inc., with enumerated conditions set forth. At this time, you along with Township Supervisors Kellett and Robinson voted aye and Smith and Supervisor Gulati voted nay. Smith stated that he opposed this plan because he thought the development of Rebel Hill would be difficult to handle and also because he did not approve of the preliminary sketch development plan requirement, and he believed that the applicant should come in with a finished development plan for approval or denial. Smith stated that he did not believe this was the proper way to handle this matter. This plan was passed subject to the following conditions: 1) That the developer provide two access roads with a minimum of 30 feet wide - and will include the widening of the eastern end of Rebel Hill Road and, if requested to by the board, will complete all of the road system in its entirety and not in phases. 2) That the developer would pay the cost incurred in upgrading the pumping station for the sewage system. 3) That the developer provide that portion of the funds necessary to complete the storm water system that the township would normally Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 4 provide, in conjunction with the county, so that the Rebel Hill storm water project can be completed. If the county funds were not available, then the developer would have to complete the system with entirely his funds. That this approval is not the approval of the 238 unit density; that this approval of the preliminary development plan is not a final approval of the storm water controls and basins that have been presented. 5) That, if necessary, the entrance roads to the premises be relocated. c. December 3, 1984. A final development plan for Rebel Hill passed with almost the same conditions approved as those that were approved on December 12, 1983, to wit; the conditions which were agreed to by Developer Trinsey including the stipulation that no building permit be issued in any case where the township engineer is not satisfied with the performance of the agreement. Township Supervisor Robinson made this motion, Supervisor Smith seconded the motion, and Smith, Robinson and Township Supervisor Volpe vote aye but you and Township Supervisor Gulati voted nay. Therefore, the plan was approved on a 3 -2 vote. 7. Minutes of the meetings of .the Upper Merion Township Planning Commission reflect the following pertinent information with regard to the Rebel Hill Development: a. February 25, 1981 - John Trinsey, President of Gulph Mills Townhouse, Inc., the successor of Tri -Kel in this project, presented a tentative sketch revision of the approved rezoning plan for the Rebel Hill Development. This plan, dated January 16, 1981, showed a proposed 238 unit development of residential units of 183 feasible lots, and 53 condo /apartments. Township Supervisor Smith, as a member of the planning commission, moved to take the matter under advisement for further consultation with the township solicitor and the receipt of engineering studies. Planning commission member Kunda, seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Minutes of a planning commission meeting of March 25, 1981, also reflect that Supervisor Smith, as a member of the planning commission, made a motion to have the commission take the matter under advisement again. Planning commission member Kunda also seconded this motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 5 b. April 8, 1981 - The Upper Merion Planning Commission again reviewed Trinsey's application for Gulph -Mills Townhouse Village, Inc. At this time, planning commission member Weiss moved that the application be recommended for denial. Supervisor Smith seconded this motion and it passed unanimously. 8. Review of the Upper Merion Engineering Division Records revealed the following concerning the Rebel Hill Development. a. December 1, 1982 - A development plan application for Rebel Hill was received by the Engineering Division and was designated as a final plan. The plan submitted was found to be inadequate as a final plan, and on January 20, 1983, the applicant chose to provide a waiver of the review time expiration in order to provide further provisions. b. March 15, 1983 - A general review meeting, requested by Trinsey, was held. Ten people attended the meeting to include Trinsey, his engineer, architect, attorney, and the counsel for the Tri -Kell bankruptcy proceedings. c. On April 20, 1983 and May 19, 1983, Trinsey met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff. d. June 27, 1983 - New drawings on Rebel Hill were received, which were transmitted to the Montgomery County Planning Commission for their review. e. July 15, 1983 -.Mr. Trinsey and a new engineer for his development - met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff. New information was submitted by Trinsey for their review. f. July 25, 1983 - A letter was received by the Upper Merion Engineering Division from the Montgomery County Planning Commission indicating that among other things, Mr. Trinsey had submitted two plans and had not indicated which plan he wanted to have reviewed by this Commission. Thus, the MCPC was unable to log in Trinsey's application. Additionally, no hydrology or traffic report was submitted. g. August 9, 1983 - Mr. Trinsey's engineer met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff. At this time, new information was submitted for review. It was indicated that a tentative sketch will be submitted for review at a later date. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 6 h. The Upper Merion Engineering Division was informed by Trinsey's engineer, that he intends to submit a sketched development plan by the end of the month. An extension to November 15, 1983 was later received from Trinsey's attorney, Richard S. Watt. i. September 28, 1983 - Trinsey's engineer met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff. New information was submitted for review. It was noted that a preliminary plan was to be submitted at a later date. j. September 29, 1983 - A report from the Montgomery County Planning Commission strongly recommended denial of this plan. This Commission found that there were serious problems which centered around the proposed density of the development. Additionally, this Commission found that the design and location of the entrance drive does not recognize the curve grade and radius requirements of the township road specifications. k. October 6, 1983 - New drawings, which were labeled sketched development plan were received from Trinsey's new engineer. These drawings were transmitted to the Montgomery County Planning Commission for their review. 1. Mr. Trinsey met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff and Township Manager Ronald Wagenmann. These meetings occurred on November 1 & 2, 1983. m. November 4, 1983 - Trinsey's attorney requested that this submission _currently held by the Upper Merion Engineering Division he revised to a sketched /preliminary plan. As a result of this letter, the expiration date of the application was extended until December 15, 1983. Additional drawings were submitted at this time. n. November 7, 1983 - Mr. Trinsey delivered, to the Upper Merion Engineering Division, additional and revised traffic analysis data. o. November 11, 1983 - an application was received from Trinsey for the final development plan for phase 1 of the project. The Upper Merion Engineering Division responded that submission was essentially the same single drawing as was previously submitted for the sketch /preliminary development plan and that it was not a final plan. . November 18, 1983 - The Upper Merion Engineering Staff met with Trinsey, his design engineer and his soils engineer. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 7 q. November 22, 1983 - The Montgomery County Planning Commission submitted their review on the revised drawings. This Commission still recommended denial of Trinsey's plan. However, on November 1, 1984, this Commission reviewed a final plan submitted by Trinsey on August 13, 1984. Review of this final plan as a new submittal was completed; it was not considered to be a continuation of the previously approved preliminary plan. At this time, the MCPC offered suggestions and stated that it had no objection to the Rebel Hill Development moving forward. r. November 28, 1983 - Mr. Trinsey, his engineer, and architect met with the Upper Merion Engineering Staff and presented a single copy of a revised drawing for the Rebel Hill Project. This drawing did not include all of the additions and revisions which were requested at the meeting on November 18, 1983. 9. The minutes of the meetings of the township board of supervisors disclose the following information and action relating to the Port Henley project. a. September 12, 1983. A motion was taken by the Upper Merion Township Supervisors to approve the rezoning of the Port Henley property. Township Supervisor Kellett made the motion to rezone the property from HR to HR -1. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Volpe with all voting aye and the motion passed 4 -0. 10. Review of the Upper Merion Engineering records revealed the following information concerning the Port Henley Development: a. August 18, 1982 - The Port Henley Corporation forwarded an application to the Upper Merion Board of Supervisors for rezoning of a tract of land from HI (Heavy Industrial) to HR -I (Residential). This tract consisted of 17.2677 plus acres which were owned by East Redley Corporation and the Upper Merion Rowing Association, Inc. The principals of Port Henley Corporation were identified as John S. Trinsey, Jr., Michael F. Walsh and Thomas F. Ward. John S. Trinsey, Jr. was identified as the principal of East Redley Corporation and Upper Merion Rowing Association, Inc. and, additionally, was named as the principal, equitable and /or legal owner of the tract in one form or another since 1964. b. October 4, 1982 - A rezoning hearing was held before the Upper Merion Board of Supervisors on this matter and the supervisors, by unanimous vote, referred the matter back to the planning commission for additional study. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 8 c. July 25, 1983 - A continuation of the rezoning hearing was again before the board of supervisors and, at this time, the matter was taken under advisement. d. September 12, 1983 - The board of supervisors approved the rezoning of Port Henley tract by a unanimous (4 -0) vote. e. September 16, 1983 - An application by John S. Trinsey, Jr., agent for Port Henley Corporation, was forwarded to the zoning hearing board for various forms of relief. f. November 15, 1983 - The Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board denied the above application on the basis that no evidence was presented to show why 6 buildings were necessary as opposed to fewer buildings of greater heights. It was noted that three buildings had violated the minimum height requirement of HR District. December 15, 1983 - A notice of appeal from the decision of the zoning hearing board was filed. Records indicated that no further action was taken with regard to this appeal. h. May 3, 1984 - An application was filed by the Port Henley Corporation asking the zoning hearing board for various forms of relief. i. July 10, 1984 - A public hearing was held by the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board. The applicant promised to provide additional information at a later date and, therefore, no decision was rendered at this time. g- October 11, 1984 - An application was again filed by the First Port Henley Corporation to the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board for various forms of relief. This application described a Port Henley tract as 15 plus acres. k. November 8, 1984 - A public hearing was held by the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board incorporating all prior testimony from the July 10th hearing. 1. December 13, 1984 - The Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board denied the above application. m. December 31, 1984 - An appeal was taken by the First Port Henley Corporation from the decision of the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board. Records indicated that no action was taken concerning this appeal. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 9 n. July 1, 1985 - An application was made to the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board by the First Port Henley Corporation for various forms of relief. o. August 8, 1985 - A public hearing was held by the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board. It was decided that additional information was required from the applicant. At this time, the matter was taken under advisement. p. August 21, 1985 - The Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board received a letter from Conrail which denied approval of any crossing of Conrail property. q. October 7, 1985 - The First Port Henley Corporation requested an amendment to the prior application to include a bridge from Valley Forge Road to the Port Henley property. r. December 19, 1985 - The Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board granted variances to the First Port Henley Corporation to allow the construction of a freestanding structure in the flood plain, to permit the construction of a restaurant to serve residents and their guests, and to permit a reduction of required parking spaces to two per unit to one and a half per unit. Also, at this time, the Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board granted special exceptions to the First Port Henley Corporation to permit storm sewer construction, a pumping station for sewerage, roads, parking lots and grading in the flood plain area. A special exception to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units from 17 units per - acre to 20 units per acre was also granted. All of the above relief was subject to strict compliance by the First Port Henley Corporation with 13 conditions where were set forth in this Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board decision. 11. In an information packet forwarded to the State Ethics Commission on June 21, 1985, Township Supervisor Ralph Volpe provided the following pertinent information: a. March 21, 1984 - Mr. John S. Trinsey, Jr. wrote to the Upper Merion Township Supervisors requesting their support for a regatta in Upper Merion which would be similar to the Henley Royal Regatta in London, England. b. April 25, 1984 - Mr. Trinsey wrote to the Upper Merion Township Supervisors requesting to be placed on the agenda at the public meeting of May 7, 1984. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 10 c. June 4, 1984 - Mr. Trinsey invites the Upper Merion Township Supervisors to attend the Upper Merion Regatta. d. June 8, 1984 - A mailgram was received from the Mayor of Henley, . England, which invited the township supervisors to attend the Royal Regatta in London. The township supervisors had previously declined Trinsey's invitation but the decision not to go on the trip, previously made by Township Supervisors Smith and Volpe was changed following receipt of the mailgram. A mailgram was then forwarded from Township Supervisor Volpe to the Mayor of Henley on June 5, 1984, indicating that Supervisors Smith and Volpe will attend the Henley Regatta. The wives of Smith and Volpe and also daughter, Linda Volpe, were guests of Trinsey on this expense paid trip. 12. You stated you were offered an expense paid trip to attend the Henley Regatta in London, England, during June -July 1984 by Developer John Trinsey. a. You stated that you initially planned to go on this trip with your wife and daughter who was involved in Upper Merion rowing activities. At this time, the trip was scheduled to be only a four day excursion. If you would have accepted the expense paid trip to the Henley Regatta, it would have been with the rationalization that this was a trip that would be beneficial to the township's rowing future. b. You mentioned that you are a member of the township's Rowing Booster Club. c. You stated that when the trip was expanded to a two week itinerary, you changed your decision. You advised Mr. Trinsey of your change of plans about a week to ten days prior to the group's departure. d.. You stated that you had serious reservations concerning the propriety of yourself, as a township supervisor, taking the expanded trip. You stated that prior to the decision to expand the trip, you believed that the invitation from the Mayor of Henley, England, to the group and the fact that the township solicitor advised of no legal problems in taking the trip, convinced you that you could participate. e. You stated that you were apprehensive about going to Europe as Mr. Trinsey's guest on the two week trip to England, France and Italy, and then possibly having to make decisions on his applications at a later date. 13. You stated that during January 1985, you accompanied Mr. Trinsey on a trip to New York City. The reason for this trip was to see an opera at Lincoln Center. You related that your wife, Patricia Montemayor, William and Wanda Smith and Ralph and Marie Volpe also were on this overnight trip. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 11 a. You stated that Trinsey organized this trip and made many of the arrangements but did not solely pay for the expenses of the trip. b. You stated that Trinsey paid for the cost of the opera tickets at $13.00 each. c. You stated that you paid your share of the travel expenses when you paid directly to Trinsey an amount of $35.00. This cost involved the use of limousines to transport the group from King of Prussia to New York City and back. d. You stated that the cost of $70.00 for a night at the Americana Hotel, as well as other small miscellaneous expenses were borne by you. B. Discussion: As a Township Supervisor for Upper Merion Township, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. Accordingly, your conduct must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides: 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). Factually, as Upper Merion Township Supervisor, you voted on various phases of two development projects submitted by Mr. John Trinsey: Rebel Hill and Port Henley. In addition to the land development projects, Mr. Trinsey requested support from the Upper Merion Township supervisors regarding an Upper Merion regatta. Following the receipt of a mailgram invitation from the Mayor of Henley, England, to attend the Royal Regatta, some of the township supervisors accepted Mr. Trinsey's offer of an expense paid trip to London, England. Although you initially contemplated attending the trip, you state that you changed your decision when the trip was expanded to a two week itinerary because you were concerned about decisions you might have to make on Mr. Trinsey's applications. Subsequently, you and two other township supervisors accompanied Mr. Trinsey to a trip to New York City for the purpose of attending an opera performance at Lincoln Center. Although Mr. Trinsey Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 12 made the arrangements, you state that he did not solely pay for the expenses. You paid for your appropriate share of the travel expenses as well as your overnight hotel lodging. Mr. Trinsey did pay for the opera tickets which costs $13.00 each. Based upon the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish a violation under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. In addition to the foregoing, however, we must note that Section 1 of the State Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The Legislature hereby declares that public office is a public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office other than compensation provided by law is a violation of that trust. In order to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the State in their government, the Legislature further declares that the people have a right to be assured that the financial interests of holders of or candidates for public office present neither a conflict nor the appearance of a conflict with the public trust. Because public confidence in government can best be sustained by assuring the people of the impartiality and honesty of public officials, this act shall be liberally construed to promote complete disclosure. 65 P.S. §401. The above Section clearly sets forth that the financial interests of a public official must neither conflict nor create the appearance of a conflict of interests. The fact that you traveled with a developer who had been actively seeking township action on various proposals and the fact that you accepted opera tickets from this individual created the appearance of a conflict of interests. You must, in your future actions, be cognizant of public perception and act in accordance with the provisions of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. You as a township supervisor are a "public official" under the State Ethics Act and are subject to the provisions set forth therein. Mr. Robert J. Montemayor Page 13 2. There was no violation of Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act by your accompanying Mr. Trinsey on a trip to New York wherein you accepted opera tickets but paid for your own expenses. 3. Your actions, in accompanying a developer who was seeking township approvals did, however, create the appearance of a conflict of interests. 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. Curing 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, G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman Mr. G. Sieber Pancoast, Chairman State Ethics Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Re: 85 -065 -C Dear Mr. Pancoast: August 6, 1987 I have received the Commission's report regarding the investigation and findings promoted by a Complaint filed with the Ethics Commission in 1985. I would like to state at the onset of this letter that, while I was heretofore not aware of the provision of Act 170, which deals with "even the perception of conflict of interest ", I nevertheless accept the Commission's decision. This letter is not intended, nor should be taken to be an appeal to your decision. However, it is necessary to call attention to many facts in your report that are not correct as they pertain to me. Ironically, these points could easily impact public perception of your report and conclusions. Therefore, I respectfully request this letter be made part of the public record. In Part A, Findings, the following sections are incorrect or misstated: #6, paragraphs A and B, I was not a member of the Board of Supervisors until January, 1984; therefore, reference made to votes taken in 1975 and 1983 regarding Rebel Hill pertain to another individual, not me. #12, paragraph A, omitted was the fact that the Board saw a regatta as a way to possibly develop our riverfront as an area for general recreation, not just rowing and as leiason to the Park & Recreation Board, I initially felt it was my responsibility to go. #12, paragraph B, I stated I was at the time a member of the Crew Boosters. #12, paragraph D, Two important points to be made are that the invitation had no impact on my opinion to initially accept the offer of the trip, in that I was aware that the only unsolicited invitation had come from Mr. Trinsey. And secondly, I never asked our solicitor, Mr. Dean, nor did he offer to me an opinion regarding the propriety of accepting the trip. My sole rationale for the initial acceptance is reflected in 12A with the addendum I've attached. Omitted was the fact that the Board saw a regatta as a way to possibly develop our riverfront as an area for general recreation, not just rowing and as leiason to the Park and Recreation Board, I initialy felt it was my responsibility to go. Conversely, it then became impossible for me to understand why the expanded itinerary was necessary in that it had nothing to do with my obligation as a Supervisor. Therefore, as you correctly state, the questions of propriety and objectivity made it necessary for me to decline the offer. Finally, I wish to correct, for the record, a statement made in Part B, Discussion. This particular point is the most critical point to be made in that it serves to explain my rationale in agreeing to go on the 'Opera' outing. In Part B, Discussion, it is stated that "as Upper Merion Township Supervisor, I voted on various phases of two development projects submitted by Mr. Trinsey." That statement is factually incorrect. As a Supervisor, I voted on only one Trinsey proposal, the final development plan for Rebel Hill. That vote came on December 3, 1984. I voted to deny the plan. The New York outing was not even proposed until the last week in December of that year. Finally, and most significantly, is the fact that at no time during the year 1985 was the Board of Supervisors scheduled to take any action or vote on any of Mr. Trinsey's projects. Port Henley was before the Zoning Hearing Board, and their final vote came on December 19, 1985, just 12 days before my leaving office. Therefore, it was impossible for my actions to be influenced in any way thsrcould benefit Mr. Trinsey as a result of the outing. Finally, after carefully reviewing the Commission report and findings, I must call your attention to the fact that no mention is made of the conclusion reguarding the alleged violation of Section 3B. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert Caruso on August 6, 1987, Mr. Caruso indicated that the ommission of said conclusion regarding Section 3B was an oversight, and would be corrected in writing, this correction would then become an addendum to the final report. A copy would be forwarded to me. I request that this document not be made public until this oversight has been corrected, and the addendum added to the final report. Should this required correction alter the release date of August 13th, please advise me as soon as possible. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to reiterate that the statements and points of clarification in this letter pertain only to me and my involvement in this matter. RJM /amr Respectfully yours, Rober 'l Mr. Robert Montemayor 241 Sweetbrier Circle King of Prussia, PA 19406 JJC /sfd Me Add,ess State Ethics Commission 308 Finance Building P. 0. Bo:: 11470 Harrisburg, Pa. 17108 -1470 August 7, 1987 Re: Order No. 574 85 -065 -C Dear Mr. Montemayor: This acknowledges your letter of August 6, 1987, wherein you set forth certain facts relating to the above referenced matter. Initially, it should be noted that the Commission's finding that there was no violation of the State Ethics Act encompassed both allegations contained in Order No. 574. Additionally, your letter of August 6, 1987, will be made part of the public record in this matter and a copy thereof, along with this correspondence, will be appended to Order No. 574. Since hn Execu nti o, ve Director State Ethics Commission • 308 Finance Building • Harrisburg, Pennsylvania