HomeMy WebLinkAbout578-R SmithMr. William M. Smith
327 Center Street
Swedesburg, PA 19406
Re: 85 -066 -C
Dear Mr. Smith:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 578 -R
DATE DECIDED: 10/14/87
DATE MAILED: 10/14/87
The Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a
possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. On August 28, 1987, a hearing on the
matter was conducted at which you voluntarily appeared without counsel and
relevant evidence and testimony was presented. 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(a) of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Act which prohibits a public
official from using his public office or any confidential information received
through holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation
provided by law for himself, when you obtained such financial gain including
trips to England, Italy, Paris and New York City which were paid for by the
developer of the Rebel Hill and Port Henley Land tracts while that developer
had proposals pending before the township board of commissioners.
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 trips to England, Italy,
Paris and 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, 1970, to
December, 1975, and from September, 1983, to the present.
2. You served on the Upper Merion Township Planning Commission from January,
1975, to sometime in 1983. You served as chairman of that Commission for one
year.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 2
3. John S. Trinsey, Jr. is a land developer and also served as an Upper
Merion Township Supervisor from 1965 to 1970.
4. John S. Trinsey, Jr. is involved with 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, 1965.
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 first
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 first directors was available. 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 indicated.
5. 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.
Port Henley. An on going project involving seventeen (17) plus acres
.which are contiguous to the Upper Merion Boathouse Areas; 1.7
acres. This project was to consist of a senior citizens' highrise
complex along a river front property in the township.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 4
4) 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, which was seconded, and then you, Robinson and
Township Supervisor Volpe vote aye and Township Supervisors
Montemayor and Gulati voted nay. Therefore, the plan was approved on
a 3 -2 vote.
8. 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 -Kell 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. At this time, as a member of the
planning commission, you 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 you, 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.
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. You seconded this motion and
it passed unanimously.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 3
6. 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.
7. 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, Rebel Hill was owned by Tri -Kell,
Inc. (May 30, 1984 - The Rebel Hill tract was sold by Tri -Kell Inc.,
to Gulph Woods Corporation). At this meeting, Township Supervisor
O'Donnell made a motion that the tract, known as Rebel Hill, be
rezoned from R -2 residential to UR residential. This motion was
seconded by Township Supervisor Kellett. Supervisors O'Donnell,
Kellett and Kelm voted affirmatively, adopting Ordinance #75 -353
rezoning the Rebel Hill property. You voted nay as did Township
Supervisor Volpe and the motion was passed on a 3 -2 vote.
b. December 12, 1983. A vote was taken by the Upper Merlon Township
Supervisors to approve the preliminary development plan of Rebel
Hill -Gulph Mills Inc., with enumerated conditions set forth. At this
time, Township Supervisors Volpe, Kellett and Robinson voted aye and
you and Supervisor Gulati voted nay. You stated that you opposed
this plan because you thought the development of Rebel Hill would be
difficult to handle and also because you do not approve of the
preliminary sketch development plan requirement, and you believed
that the applicant should come in with a finished development plan
for approval or denial. You stated that you 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
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 entirely with his funds.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 5
9. 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 including Trinsey, his
engineer, architect, attorney, and the counsel for the Tri -Kell
bankruptcy proceedi ngs.
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
revi ew.
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 Montgomery County Planning Commission 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.
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.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 6
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
Commi ssion 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 the submission
currently held by the Upper Merion Engineering Division be 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.
p. November 18, 1983. The Upper Merion Engineering Staff met with
Trinsey, his design engineer and his soils engineer.
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.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 7
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 drawi ng for the Rebel Hill Project. This drawi ng did not
include all of the additions and revisions which were requested at
the meeting on November 18, 1983.
10. 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
Supervi sors to approve the rezoning of the Port Henley property. You
were not serving as a township supervisor at this point in time.
Township Supervisor Kellett made the motion to rezone the property
from HR to HR -1. The motion was seconded by Mr. Volpe with all
voting aye and the motion passed 4 -0.
11. 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 identifed 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.
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.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 8
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 a HR District.
g. 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.
Additional information which was promised by Trinsey was not
received, therefore, no decision was rendered.
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.
j. 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.
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.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 9
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 free standing 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 from 2
per unit to 1 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
commpliance by the First Port Henley Corporation with 13 conditions
which were set forth in this Upper Merion Zoning Hearing Board
deci Sion.
12. In a letter dated December 16, 1985, to township supervisor, Hunter
Robinson, from John F. Gehring, Esquire, it was noted that Ralph Volpe met
with Michael A. Cibik, bankruptcy trustee, relative to the Upper Merion Rowing
Association (John Trinsey) which held title to the boathouse property on
December 11, 1985 and "explained that Mr. Trinsey would definitely be
receiving some zoning variances for his project and that he would probably not
gather any more opposition."
a. On December 19, 1985, various variances and special exceptions were
granted to Trinsey by the township zoning hearing board (Finding
11.r.).
13. Reverend W. Burton Andrews was a member of the township zoning hearing
board from 1980 through 1985.
a. Reverend Andrews testified that he, as a member of the zoning hearing
board, opposed granting variances and special exceptions to Trinsey
for Port Henley because Trinsey's proposals could not be
accomplished.
b. It was further stated by Reverend Andrews that although there was no
outright attempt to persuade his decision, he believed that the
supervisors, through their actions and innuendoes, would not
reappoint him because of his opposition to Port Henley.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 10
c. Reverend Andrews specifically testified that he had a conversation
with you wherein he "felt that ...[you were] ...pressuring...[him] in
terms of the Trinsey ... the Port Henley ..."
14. Mr. Justus Barber was a member of the township zoning board from 1975 to
the present.
a. Mr. Barber testified that although he was not directly pressured as
to granting Trinsey variances and special exceptions, he perceived
that he would not be reappointed to the board because the zoning
board had continually turned down Trinsey applications.
15. In a December 27, 1984 memo to the township supervisors, Volpe criticized
the zoning hearing board for their decisions in relation to the John Trinsey
Development projects.
a. The board had expected the supervisors' decision regarding zoning
changes.
b. Volpe advised, per this memo, that unless there was a change in
this situation he would not vote to reappoint the board's solicitor
and one of the board members.
16. John Trinsey in June, 1984, provided an all expense paid trip for you,
your wife and several other township officials:
a. This trip was to points in Europe as identified below for a period of
two weeks.
17. At a meeting of the township board of supervisors on May 7, 1984, John
Trinsey made a presentation on behalf of Upper Merlon Regatta, Incorporated.
a. This entity was identified as a newly formed corporation. (Articles
of incorporation indicate that this entity had been formed four (4)
days earlier on May 4, 1984).
b. Mr. Trinsey explained the sport of rowing and his concept of using a
six -mile section of river in the township for an annual regatta.
c. Trinsey asked for a proposed resolution from the supervisors
proclaiming every third Saturday of June as the date for the annual
regatta.
d. Mr. Trinsey then invited, during this meeting, a committee of the
board to attend the Royal Henley Regatta in England.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 11
e. Mr. Volpe questioned whether the township would be required to be
involved any further in this proposed regatta. Trinsey advised that
the township need only adopt the resolution and no further
responsibility would ensue.
f. Mr. Trinsey also advised that the regatta would operate independently
of the present boathouse and not conflict with the township's
program.
g. The resolution was taken under advisement.
18. You confirmed that the trip was initially to be one week to attend the
Henley Regatta but then was expanded to a two -week trip which included side
visits to Italy and France.
19. Mr. Trinsey estimated the cost of the trip at $60,000.00 to host a group
of sixteen people who traveled to France, England and Italy during June 23,
1984 to July 7, 1984.
a. Financial records of the trip indicate that check #1669, for $665.00
drawn on the account of Anthony E. and Laura Cecilia Leodora, dated
July 10, 1984 was payable to you.
1) Ms. Leodora was in charge of the financial aspects of the trip
for Mr. Trinsey.
2) Mr. Trinsey alleges that this money was reimbursement to you for
an advance that you had made to Mr. Trinsey during the trip.
b. Financial records of the trip indicate that check 1670 for $320.00
drawn on the accounts of Anthony E. and Laura Cecilia Leodora dated
July 10, 1984 was payable to Mr. Volpe.
1) The conditions surrounding this payment are alleged to be the
same as above.
20. You stated that you initially declined Mr. Trinsey's invitation to go on
this expense paid trip. However, you changed your decision, when a mailgram
from the Mayor of Henley, England, invited you and other township supervisors
to attend The Royal Regatta in London, England.
a. You stated that you did not know what prompted the mailgram from the
Mayor of Henley but you believed that someone other than Mr. Trinsey
may have been instrumental in contacting the Mayor on behalf of the
Upper Merion Rowing Association.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 12
b. You stated that during the trip, a rowing course at Lake Albano,
Italy, was visited for the purpose of observing buoy markers, and
that the operation of a rowing club in Paris, France, was also
observed.
c. You indicated that the reason for this two -week trip was to learn how
to better operate an annual Upper Merion Regatta.
d. You related that you were opposed to the development of Rebel Hill by
John Trinsey because this was a beautiful natural area and you wanted
this preserved. You stated your concern that some of Trinsey's
development plans had too many units which would have adversely
affected the area.
e. You stated that during 1981, as a member of the Upper Merion Planning
Commission, you voted against two applications submitted by Mr.
Trinsey for the development of Rebel Hill.
f. You stated that in December of 1983, you did not vote affirmatively
for a preliminary plan for the development of Rebel Hill by Mr.
Trinsey.
g. You stated that you were in favor of zoning variances and special
exceptions granted to Trinsey concerning the Port Henley Development.
You offered your belief that it was in the best interest of the
township to develop this area.
h. You related that you were initially opposed to the development of
Rebel Hill by John Trinsey because you wanted a township park on this
site and wanted to preserve the density of trees and shrubbery. You
stated your previous belief that houses could not be built on the
side of a hill. During 1974 or 1975, you voted against the rezoning
of Rebel Hill from R -2 to UR (Unit Residential).
i. You stated that in December of 1983, you voted affirmatively for a
preliminary plan for the development of Rebel Hill by Trinsey. You
emphasized that strict conditions had to be met by Trinsey and that
requirements of PA Department of Environmental Resources had to be
satisfied.
j. You stated that in December 1984, you voted affirmatively for the
final Rebel Hill plan of Mr. Trinsey because he was made to accept
tougher than usual 'conditions because of his reputation as a
developer. You claimed that you acted in the best interest of the
Upper Merion Township on this vote. Since Trinsey already had his
preliminary plan approved, you questioned whether the township held
enough leverage to disapprove the final plan.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 13
k. It is submitted by you that the factual situation should be reviewed
"at the time when the alleged acts were committed and not from
subsequently discovered evidence which was not known at the time."
21. Subsequent to Mr. Trinsey inviting the township officials on the trip, an
invitation was received from the Mayor of Henley regarding the Royal Henley
Regatta.
a. The invitation was addressed to Ralph Volpe, Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors.
b. Robert Montemayor testified that he had mentioned to John Trinsey
that it would be helpful in justifying the trip if the supervisors
had such a formal invitation.
c. Mr. Trinsey indicated that he would obtain such an invitation.
d. Mr. Montemayor testified that he later learned that Mr. Trinsey did
not know the Mayor of Henley.
e. The "formal" invitation was obtained after Mr. Trinsey proposed the
trip in order to provide a justification therefor.
22. The European trip costs were financed from a checking account established
at the Provident National Bank in the name of Upper Merlon Regatta, Inc.
Account No. 453 - 889 -7.
23. Bank records disclosed the following information relative to the checking
account, No. 453 - 889 -7:
a. The account was opened on June 6, 1984 and closed on July 5, 1985.
Sole signator was John S. Trinsey, Jr.
b. Deposits from June 6, 1984 to May 9, 1985 totalled $58,185.00.
c. Deposits of $20,000.00 each were made on June 6, 1984 and June 18,
1984 by Hamilton Bank cashier check, No.'s 5150 and 5151 by John S.
Trinsey, Jr.
d. Other deposits included $3,000.00 on April 22, 1985 and $10,000.00 on
April 24, 1985 in the form of credit memos from the Gulph Woods
savings account.
e. Withdrawals from the account around the period of the European trip
were as follows:
June 12, 1984 - $7,091.00
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 14
June 13, 1984 - $7,413.00 - Wire transfer to Travel Tours, N.Y.C.
June 20, 1984 - $15,000.00 - Wire transfer to the checking account of
Cecilia Leadora.
June 21, 1984 - $6,000.00 - Provident Bank Draft #9011 payable to
John Trinsey.
Total: $35,504.00.
f. Other payments to developer John Trinsey or accounts in his control:
July 23, 1984 - $3,000.00 - check.
August 14, 1984 - $572.09 - check.
October 14, 1984 - $300.00 - check.
April 22, 1985 - $2,500.00 - transfer to John Trinsey - Catherine
Lacombe account 305 - 387 -3.
April 24, 1985 - $475.50 - transfer to account 305 - 387 -3.
May 24, 1985 - 3,000.00 - transfer to Rebel Hill Builders Account.
May 24, 1985 - $6,500.00 - Transfer to account 305 - 387 -3.
June 26, 1985 - $100.00 - check.
Total: $16,477.59.
24. John S. Trinsey confirms that the two $20,000 deposits made on June 6,
1984 and June 18, 1984 came from funds he received as the result of the
settlement of a $7.3 million construction loan obtained by the Gulph Woods
Corporation from Nassau Savings and Loan Association for the purpose of
construction on Rebel Hill.
a. The source of this money was from the $125,000.00 paid to, Belfont
Corporation at the time of the l oan settlement.
b. Trinsey stated this $125,000.00 was the return of the monies from
mortgages on his primary residence.
25. Settlement documents for the construction loan disclosed the following:
a. The Gulph Woods Corporation (John S. Trinsey, Jr., President)
obtained a $7.3 million construction loan from Nassau Savings and
Loan for the purpose of building on Rebel Hill. The settlement
occurred on May 30, 1984.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 15
b. At Settlement $125,000.00 was paid to John S. Trinsey on behalf of
Belfont Corporation for the purchase of property adjacent to Rebel
Hill owned by the Gulph Mills United Church of Christ.
c. Nassau officials and Gulph Woods Corporation partners believed the
$125,000.00 was to be paid to purchase the property.
26. Records of the Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds and information
obtained from the Gulph Mills Church of Christ Board of Trustees confirms that
a piece of property adjacent to the Rebel Hill development was sold by the
church to Belfont Corporation on August 7, 1981 for $25,000.00.
a. The church confirms that prior to 1980, $5,000.00 was paid toward the
purchase price but that no other payments were made by Trinsey or
anyone from Belfont Corporation.
b. Trinsey did not use the $125,000 for the property purchase.
c. The $125,000.00 was deposited in Trinsey's personal account at the
Hamilton Bank on May 31, 1987.
d. This sum of money was deposited on the same day as the settlement for
the Nassau loan.
e. Forty- thousand dollars ($40,000.00) of this amount was thereafter
used for the European trip. (See Finding 19.c.).
27. At the time of the May 30, 1984 settlement with Nassau Bank, final
approval for the development was not granted by the township.
a. Nassau bank officials confirmed that the standard procedure for
granting construction loans is that final approval be granted by the
governing body before construction loans are approved.
b. Nassau bank officials confirmed that John S. Trinsey gave assurances
at the time of settlement that final plan approval would be given by
the Upper Merlon Township Board of Supervisors.
28. Mr. Thomas Ward, a principal and secretary /treasurer in Farrell
Construction, a construction firm associated with Trinsey in the Rebel Hill
development project, testified as follows:
a. He worked with Trinsey on the Rebel Hill Development.
b. That Trinsey would not have been able to obtain financing for the
Rebel Hill project without Farrell Construction.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 16
c. That Trinsey advised him in May of 1984, prior to settlement on a 7.3
million construction loan, that he had all approvals which was taken
to mean those of the township supervisors as well.
29. Cecilia Leadora was chosen by John Trinsey to handle the funds for the
trip. She confirmed that a few days prior to the trip, Trinsey wired
$15,000.00 to her personal account. She withdrew these funds obtaining
$7,000.00 in cash and $8,000.00 in travelers checks.
a. Ledger book and travelers check receipts confirmed travelers check
no.'s 6023 - 620 -926 through 6023 - 620 -965 and 8422 - 151 -661 through
8422 - 151 -7000 purchased on June 22, 1984.
b. Cecilia Leadora confirmed that this $15,000.00 was taken by her to
Europe and that no Department of Treasury forms were filed indicating
that these funds were transported out of the country.
30. Records obtained from John Trinsey and ledger book maintained by Leadora
disclosed the following:
a. A group of (16) persons departed Philadelphia by chartered bus from
Werner Bus Lines on June 23, 1984 cost of charter (round -trip)
$900.00.
b. Dinner expenses at Kennedy Airport (16) persons $297.00.
c. June 25, 1984 Charter Flight Travac Tours to Paris, France, Round
trip cost $7,413.00. Arrive June 24, 1984.
d. June 24, 1984 - Dinner (16) persons Bateaux - Monches Restaurant
$608.00.
e. Lodging Hotel Warwick, Paris, France (16) persons $2,910.00. Other
room related costs $1,097.00.
1.) Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Volpe - Room 502
2.) Linda Volpe (daughter) - Room 403.
3.) Mr. & Mrs. William Smith - Room 501.
4.) John Trinsey - Room 520.
�. Related expenses Paris, France on June 25, 1984.
1.) Bus Tour of Paris - $260.00, meals $32.00.
2.) Tour Champs - Elysee's - $143.00.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 17
3.) Tour Eiffel Tower - $56.91.
4.) Tour Cathedral at Notre Dame $20.00.
5.) Dinner Ste. Lucullus Service $186.00.
6.) Breakfast $118.00.
Total: $815.91
g. Expenses of June 26, 1984.
1.) Breakfast - $118.00.
2.) Train tickets Paris to Bayeaux - $321.00.
3.) Taxi - train station to Chateau DuMoloy $172.00 and Normandy
Beach.
4.) Other taxi - $15.00.
Total : $626.00.
h. Expenses of June 27, 1984.
1.) Rooms Chateau DuMolay $311.00
2.) Telephone - $69.00.
3.) Bar - $48.00.
4.) Restaurant - $416.00.
5.) Interpreter - $200.00.
6.) Taxi - Chateau DuMolay to Bayeux) - $70.00.
7.) Train tickets - Bayeux to Paris $328.00.
St. Lazare
8.) Lunches on train - $184.00.
9.) Snacks - $19.92.
10.) Train from Ste. Lazare to Gare Nord - $3.00.
'11.) Train Gare Nord to Calais - $263.00.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 18
12.) Ferry - Calais to Dover, England - $374.00.
13.) Beverages on way to Henley $10.00.
Total: $2,295.92
i . Expenses of June 28, 1984:
1.) Lunches (2 persons) $4.15.
2.) Programs, hats at Regatta. $107.00.
3.) Petty Cash $477.00.
Total : $588,15.
j. Expenses of June 29, 1984:
1.) Breakfasts (2 persons) - $4.15.
2.) Gift, Mayor of Henley - $215.00.
3.) Dinner (14 persons), Sheekeys - $244.00.
4.) Food Expense Van Driver - $13.00.
Total: $476.15
k. Expenses of June 30, 1984.
1.) Travel reservations through Keith Bailey Travel from London to
Rome, Naples, Capri- return.
2.) Champagne at Ball, $66.00.
Total: $5,708.00.
1. Expenses of July 1, 1984.
1.) Breakfast (2 persons) - $3.00.
2.) Lunch (2 persons) - $11.00.
3.) Train fare for interpreter - $66.00.
Total: $80.00.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 19
m. Expenses of July 2, 1984.
1.) Taxis, Airport to Hotel Parco Del Principi, Rome - $90.00.
2.) Tip Hotel Porters - $14.00.
3.) Night bus tour (12 persons) - $198.00.
4.) Taxi Cafe De Paris & return - $6.50.
5.) Dinner Cafe De Paris (6 persons) $45.00.
Total: $353.50.
n. Expenses of July 3, 1984.
1.) Taxis to Vatican (16 persons) - $14.79.
2.) Tour Sistine Chapel (12 persons) - $35.00.
3.) 3 Taxis round trip to Rocca De Papa Lake Albano (9 persons)
- $153.00.
4.) Lunch at Vatican (13 persons) - $80.00.
5.) Snacks - Lake Albano (9 persons) - $7.10.
6.) Dinner Hotel Hassler $885.00.
7.) Taxis round trip to Hassler $16.27.
Total: $1,191.16.
o. Expenses of July 4, 1984.
1.) Two taxis from Hotel to St. Peters (8 persons) $7.10.
2.) Taxi to Bank Shops - $4.14.
3.) Hotel Del Principi (2 nights), (9 rooms).
Room 215 - John Trinsey, $14.00.
Room 505 - Ralph - Marie Volpe, $32.00.
Room 504 - Bill - Wanda Smith, $62.00.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 20
Room 507 - Linda Volpe, $48.00.
Other 5 rooms $314.00.
Total - 7 doubles, 2 single rooms)
Total: $2,051.00.
4.) Lunches on July 2, 1984 and July 4, 1984, (16 persons)
- $616.00.
5.) Phone bills - Trinsey ($97.00); Beth Chuck ($39.00) - $136.00.
6.) Four taxis, hotel to train - $17.00
7.) 16 train tickets; Rome to Naples $170.00.
8.) Food on train - $4.00.
9.) Hydrofoil, Naples to Capri; taxis - $154.00.
10.) Light dinner, drinks; Hotel Cassar - $210.00.
11.) Late Dinner (4 persons) Ristorante - $60.00 Fara Glioni.
Total: $3,905.24.
p. Expenses of July 5, 1984.
1.) Blue Grotto Tour (8 persons) $29.00.
2.) Europa Palace Hotel (16 persons) 9 rooms, 7 doubles, 2 singles
- $750.00.
3.) Breakfasts, snacks - $167.00.
4.) Tips - $6.00.
5.) Taxis on Capri - $300.00.
6.) Lunch, Hotel Caesar Augustus, (16 persons) - $475.00.
7.) HydroFoil, Capri to Naples $77.00 Taxis $77.00.
8.) Dinner on train from Rome to Basel - $62.00.
Total: $1,943.00.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 21
q. Expenses of July 6, 1984.
1.) Breakfast at Anth - Goldan $33.00.
2.) Lunch on train to Paris (5 persons) $15.00.
3.) Dinner Paris train Station $25.00.
r. Expenses of July 7, 1984 - $73.00.
1.) Train tickets from Victoria Station $71.00 to Gatwick Airport
(16 persons).
2.) Lunch; Gatwick Airport $11.00.
3.) Movie on plane (3) $8.00.
Total: $90.00.
s. Expenses of July 8, 1984.
1.) Porter JFK Airport - $6.00.
2.) Tip to bus driver - $20.00.
3.) Snacks - $23.00.
31. Information forwarded to the State Ethics Commission on June 21, 1985, by
Township Supervisor, Ralph Volpe, indicates as follows:
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.
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. Although the supervisors had previously declined
YTrinsey's invitation, the prior decision not to go on the
trip, previously made by you and Township Supervisor Ralph Volpe,
was changed following receipt of the mailgram. A mailgram was then
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 22
forwarded from Township Supervisor Volpe to the Mayor of Henley on
June 5, 1984, indicating that you and Volpe will attend the Henley
Regatta. Your wife, Wanda Smith, also accompanied you as the guest
of Trinsey on this expense paid trip.
32. You confirmed that during January, 1985, you accompanied Trinsey on a
trip to New York City. The reason for this trip was to see an opera.
a. You advise that your wife, Wanda Smith, Ralph and Marie Volpe, and
Robert and Patricia Montemayor also were on this overnight trip.
b. You stated that Trinsey organized this trip and made many of the
arrangements but did not solely pay for the expenses of the trip.
c. You stated that expenses were informally shared among Trinsey, Volpe,
Montemayor and yourself.
33. On your Statement of Financial Interests dated April 15, 1985, under the
gifts received caption, you indicated that for calendar year 1984, you
received a trip valued in the amount of $600.00 plus when you traveled to see
the Henley Regatta in London, England.
a. You stated that you listed the figure $600.00 plus because you did
not know the exact cost of the trip when you completed this Statement
of Financial Interests.
b. You stated that you used the figure of $600 because of a travel add
in the Philadelphia Inquirer which listed a charter flight to Paris
for seven days with breakfast and room at $599.
c. You further stated that you believed that you were guests of the
Mayor of Henley who you thought provided ground transportation,
receptions and entertainment.
34. Information obtained from the travel ledger maintained by Cecilia Leadora
confirmed the following regarding actual time spent in relation to rowing,
and rowing activities and the Henley Regatta:
a. June 25, 1984 - tour of boathouse Paris, France.
b. July 3, 1984 - tour of Lake Albano, Rocca, DePapa, Rome Italy.
c. June 28, 29, 30, July 1 - events related to Henley Regatta, Henley
England.
35. Upper Merion Township officials confirm that as of this date, Upper
Merion Township has not committed funding to regatta activities nor is the
township involved in an official capacity as a sponsor of regatta related
activities.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 23
a. The township does not, as of this date, own the riverfront land
needed to conduct a regatta.
36. Three other township Supervisors were offered the opportunity to go on
the European trip but refused.
a. Jack Gulati testified that it was clear that Trinsey was paying for
the trip and that he would not go on the trip because "it was highly
improper..."
b. Robert Montemayor testified that although he initially considered
going on the trip, he declined the offer because the trip was
extended and included side trips which had nothing to do with the
original stated purpose. Further, Mr. Montemayor stated that he knew
Trinsey was paying for the trip. Lastly, it was testified to by Mr.
Montemayor that Mr. Gulati, in a caucus meeting of the supervisors,
questioned the propriety of such a trip offered by Trinsey who had
plans for the Rebel Hill development project before them.
c. A third supervisor, Hunter Robinson, testified that he did not
consider going on the trip because he had no interest in rowing, he
did not care to spend time with Trinsey and lastly, he had already
been to England several times before.
37. No financial accounting has ever been made as to the European trip. No
written or formal report regarding this trip and what was learned has ever
been made.
B. Discussion: As a Township Supervisor you are clearly a public official as
that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Pennsylvania
State Association of Township Supervisors v. Thornburgh, 496 Pa. 324, 437 A.2d
1, (1981).
As such, you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act nad the
restrictions therein are applicable to you. 65 P.S. §401, et. seq.
The Ethics Act provides, in part:
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. William M. Smith
Page 24
(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, i nciudi ng 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).
This Commission in the past has reviewed several situations involving
trips that were taken by public officials at the expense of an individual who
was seeking to do business with or was attempting to obtain certain approvals
from the governmental body on which the officials served.
In Miller, 83 -006, this Commission issued an opinion as to the question
of whether the members of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission could accept
reimbursement from a developer for expenses related to the public
responsibilities of the members of that Commission. Typically, developers who
were proposing to build projects in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania often
maintained similar types of projects in other locations. As a part of that
Commission's responsibilities, the members thereof would travel to the place
where the real estate project was located to make an on -site inspection of the
quality and other elements of the applicant's project. When the inspection
was complete, the inspecting commissioner would file a report with the Real
Estate Commissioner. The developer was billed directly by the Commonwealth
for the per diem fee of the commissioner but the inspecting commissioner
himself would bill the developer for his out -of- pocket expenses for the
transportation associated with the trip.
In that case the Commission determined that the officials conduct created
at least the appearance of a conflict of interests.
In Daghir, 86 -012, there was a further review of the permissible
parameters of this type of conduct. This Commission determined that travel
provided by a vendor would be prohibited by the Ethics Act where such was
unreasonable in nature.
Certain criteria were set forth by the Commission when reviewing such
situations. Although this Commission determined that the Ethics Act presents
no per se prohibition upon a public official's travel at the expense of a
vendor in order to perform the official responsibilities of the official's
governmental body, any such travel, however, must conform to the requirements
and standards enumerated through the Ethics Act and by prior Commission
opinions. The factors considered and criteria to be employed in reviewing
such situations include:
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 25
(1) The traveling official may not directly bill or receive
reimbursement from the vendor or contractor.
(2) Such reimbursement should be arranged by the vendor with
the governmental body.
(3) the nature of the expenses incurred and the amounts paid
by the vendor should be specifically outlined and
enumerated to the governmental body. Such information
should also be available to the public.
(4) The nature and extent of the travel must be reasonable in
nature.
The following criteria should be considered in relation to whether the
travel is reasonable.
a. Is the trip necessary in order to review equipment,
material, facilities which the governmental body is
considering purchasing and which cannot be transported
to the location of the governmental body?
b. Is it necessary for the entire governmental body to
travel in order to review such facilities, equipment
or materials or is it more reasonable for one or two
members of the governmental body to review such items
and report back to the governmental body?
c. Is the location and extent of the trip including the
length of time during which the individual travels
reasonable in nature to the duties that are to be
performed by the official while traveling?
d. Has the vendor supplied additional items during the
trip including gifts, entertainment, and other
gratuities that are unreasonable in nature and in
relation to the official duties that are being
performed?
e. Would the travel, by the official, accord the vendor
any advantages over other vendors?
(5) Public officials may not accept travel expenses and
accommodations for spouses of the public official.
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 26
(6) The travel must be in accordance with the official duties
and responsibilities of the individuals involved. The
travel must not be related to any tangential items not
related to the official duties and responsibilities of the
public official.
In applying the facts in this case to the above two cited Sections of the
Ethics Act, it is clear that both Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act
have been violated.
As a township supervisor, you used your public position to obtain
financial gain other than compensation provided by law in that you received an
all expense paid trip to Europe from Trinsey, hereafter, the developer, who
had projects pending before the township; that clearly violates Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act. The financial gain you received from this all expense paid
trip to Europe is clearly not compensation provided for by law; furthermore,
you would not have been offered this trip but for your public position.
There is also a violation of Section 3(b) because you received this all
expense paid trip based upon the understanding that it would influence your
vote regarding actions which the developer had before the township for
approval.
At the time that this trip was taken the township was not even
considering the development of a boating course or the initiation of a
regatta. The township did not even own the land needed to accomplish such a
development project. Indeed the matter arose suddenly when the developer
asked the township to adopt a resolution merely endorsing an annual regatta.
At that meeting it was specifically noted that the township was to have no
further involvement in that project. (Finding 17.e.). Commissioner Volpe
specifically questioned the developer as to whether any further involvement
was necessary. This meeting occurred in May 1984. Only one month later with
no further public notice, explanation or township action, you traveled to
Europe with the developer.
This trip was taken under the guise of being associated with the
township's interest in developing a regatta. The trip was intended to
instruct the attending officials in how to operate such an event. This
purported justification is not supported by the facts. As noted, the township
had no interest in developing a regatta. In the event that it did, the
township could have arranged for this travel. This justification appears to
be even more ludicrous when one further reviews the facts which reveal that at
the most only six (6) days were spent on this "official business" (reviewing
boating events). Additionally, if such was in fact official business, why
then was it necessary for your wife to attend at the developer's expense.
Other factors confirm that this trip was intended to influence your
decisions as a township official. Upper Merlon Regatta, Inc., the corporate
entity sponsoring the trip was formed only four (4) days prior to the
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 27
developer's approach to the township regarding the regatta. (Finding 4.b.,
17.a.). Testimony and documentary evidence establish that the funds that the
developer used to pay for this trip came directly from funds related to his
Rebel Hill development project. This is the same development for which
township approval was being sought and that you were reviewing in your
township position. The Rebel Hill funds were merely passed through the newly
established entity, Upper Merion Regatta, Inc., in order to disguise the true
origin thereof.
In addition to the foregoing, the evidence clearly establishes that you
not only cast various votes in favor of the developer's project you also
pressured the township zoning hearing board to approve the developer's plans.
The developer also clearly made statements that he, at all times, had the
necessary approval. Indeed a bank loan to fund the development was obtained
prior to final township approval.
Furthermore, it is clear that this trip which was provided by the
developer who was seeking township approval of his development projects met
none of the criteria as outlined in the Daghir Opinion. In applying the
criteria set forth in Daghir seriatim to the facts of this case, it is noted
that the developer directly arranged and paid for the all expense paid trip.
Secondly, the developer did not arrange with the governmental body regarding
any reimbursements and in fact, did not even provide an accounting as he had
indicated. Thirdly, the nature of the expenses and the amounts paid by the
developer were neither enumerated to the governmental body nor the public but
were in fact only obtained through the ledgers of Mrs. Leodora and from other
sources. Fourth, it cannot be said that the nature of travel was reasonable
relative to the five enumerated criteria. In particular, the township was not
considering purchasing any type of equipment, material or facilities. The
township merely considered adopting a resolution that there be an annual Upper
Merion Regatta. Commissioner Volpe, in the meeting of May 7, 1984,
specifically questioned whether the adoption of such a resolution would entail
any further involvement by the township to which the developer indicated that
it would not. Therefore, since there would be no further involvement by the
township, there was absolutely no justifiable basis for going on such a trip.
The foregoing is equally apropos as to the second criteria regarding
reasonableness. It cannot be said that it would be appropriate for such a
large contingent of township officials, not to mention your wife, to travel to
Europe when there was no township involvement regarding the Regatta. Again,
it is noted that there were no facilities or equipment which the township was
considering purchasing. Thirdly, regarding the location of the trip and the
extent of the travel, it is ridiculous to assert a justification for a two
week all expense paid trip to Europe to view the Henley Regatta when there
were numerous side trips to Paris and Rome as well as extensive sight seeing.
Again, since the township would have no involvement with the Regatta, how can
there be any justification for your going to see the Henley Regatta, the
Albano buoy and the Paris Rowing Club. Furthermore, the question must be
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 28
asked what township business necessitated numerous side trips and
entertainment. In particular, how can it be said that the tour of the
Champs - Elysees, the tour of the Eiffel Tower or the tour of Notre Dame
Cathedral relate to the trifling matter of a Resolution relative to an annual
Upper Merion Regatta. The foregoing is equally applicable regarding the tour
of Rome, the tour of the Sistine Chapel, the side trips throughout the trip
and the lavish dinners. This trip does not meet the fourth criteria regarding
reasonableness as to the developer's supplying items such as gifts,
entertainment and gratuities throughout the trip to you and your wife as well
as other township officials. The travel to Europe benefited you and your
family in that it was paid for by the developer who received approvals
regarding his development projects before the townships.
As to the fifth criteria under the Daghir Opinion, there has been
non - compliance with that provision because the all expense paid trip was given
not only to you but to your spouse. The last criteria has not been met since
the travel was not in accord with your official duties. Even the purported
reasons for going on the trip, that is, to see the Henley - Regatta, cannot be
said to be part of your official duties because you had indicated that in the
Upper Merion board meeting of May 7, 1984, that there should be no further
involvement by the township. The all expense paid trip to Europe for your
spouse met absolutely none of the criteria as set forth in Daghir above.
Based upon an application of the Ethics Act and this Commission's opinions in
Miller and Daghir to this all expense paid trip to Europe, it is clear that
there are violations of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act.
In challenging the Commission's determination in this case, you urge that
the entire 25 years development of the Riverfront property should be
considered by the Commission and further that the Regatta should be viewed as
just one part of the development of the Riverfront. While the township may
have, for a number of years, looked into the development regarding the
riverfront property, the issue here is whether there has been a violation of
the Ethics Act for taking this all expense paid trip to Europe when the
township had no involvement in a regatta other than the consideration of
adopting a resolution for an annual Upper Merion Regatta. You nevertheless
assert that the township position has changed since you and other officials
have viewed the Henley- Regatta. In particular, you assert that the township
has attempted to help private groups utilize the river front area and that
there is a provision in the lease between the township and school district for
an annual Regatta. Such minimal activity, several years after the fact,
cannot be justification for going on the trip when it is clear that the
township would have no official involvement regarding the Regatta.
It is also asserted that your criticism of the zoning board was motivated
not because they failed to approve the developer's projects but because they
acted contrary to the expressed policy of the township supervisors. You also
note that you voted for the preliminary plan which placed many conditions on
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 29
the developer. In this regard, this Commission accepts the testimony from
Reverend Andrews and Mr. Barber which this Commission find to he credible.
Their testimony clearly establishes that the criticism was placed upon them
because of their refusal to grant the special exceptions to the developer.
Your counter - assertion that the testimony of witnesses like Mr. Montemayor and
Mr. Gulati must be discounted because they are political adversaries of
yourself who have political motivations is not accepted by this Commission
because you have made this charge against all those witnesses who were either
township supervisors or zoning board members who gave testimony which
contradicts your assertions.
You assert, however, that the township has received five major benefits
from the proposed development of Port Henley:
1. The township acquired an entrance to the river front;
2. The school district has access to the boathouse facility;
3. The township goal of developing the river front was enhanced;
4. The township would have better security and also prevent dumping; and
5. The township would benefit by the construction of a second boathouse which
might generate more recreational use.
Even assuming the above, it is equally certain that you, as a public
official, benefited by going on this all expense paid trip which was financial
gain other than compensation provided for by law for you and your wife. It is
equally clear that you would not have been offered this trip but for your
official status as a township supervisor. You then assert that you did not
think that the developer paid for this trip and suggest that perhaps it may
have been paid from some other source. Two points must be made in this
regard. First, since you readily admit that you did not pay for the trip, the
fact remains that you, through your public position, received an all expense
trip for you and your wife. This is a gain which is not compensation provided
for by law. Secondly, there is credible testimony from both Mr. Montemayor
and Mr. Gulati that everyone knew where the money was coming from, that is,
the developer. Further, even Mr. Volpe testified that in his years with the
township board, there never has been anything similar to this all expense paid
trip for the supervisors and their families. Further, your argument that the
Commission did not consider travel time for the trip is unavailing especially
when Mr. Volpe admitted that the side trips or tours were taken because "[w]e
had time to kill..." Parenthetically, this Commission does note that the
entry on your Statement of Financial Interests regarding this trip which shows
that the expenses were $600 seems to be unreasonable in terms of reporting
requirements under the Act. It is also argued that the matters concerning the
development of Rebel Hill and Port Henley were not before the supervisors at
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 30
the time of this trip to Europe. However, these development plans were of an
on -going nature before the township which would specifically include the
period of time of the European trip. Additionally, it is quite clear that the
trip was offered and accepted 6 months after the preliminary plan vote
(December, 1983) and six months prior to the final plan vote (December, 1984).
Further, there is competent and credible testimony that you exerted pressure
on zoning board members regarding the rezoning of the Port Henley property
around this time. Similarly, you voted in favor of the final plan as to Rebel
Hill in December of 1984.
As to the Rebel Hill development, the testimony Mr. Thomas Ward is most
persuasive. Mr. Ward, who cannot be said to have any personal or political
interest in this case, testified that the developer told him relative to the
Rebel Hill development that he, the developer, had all necessary approvals and
assurances.
This Commission also takes cognizance of both the timing and source of
the funds which can be traced back to the Rebel Hill development project.
From the 7.3 million construction loan for Rebel Hill, $125,000 was paid to
Belfont Corporation, one of the developer's corporations, purportedly for the
purpose of purchasing property adjacent to the Rebel Hill Development.
However, records indicate that the purchase price for that property was only
$25,000 and, in fact, only $5,000 (none of which came from the aforementioned
$125,000)was paid. It is clear that the remainder of that amount went into
the developer's personal accounts, in part, to finance the European trip.
Also, it should be noted that chronologically these monetary transactions
occurred in May and June of 1984, the same time at which the developer
incorporated the Upper Merlon Regatta, Inc. and also proposed the trip to the
township supervisors. Additionally, Mr. Trinsey, at this point in time,
desparately needed the township's final approval. This was so, in light of
the fact that contrary to normal procedures, the bank had approved and
transmitted 7.2 million dollars to Mr. Trinsey for the project's construction
prior to approval to initiate the project. Clearly, without township
approval, Mr. Trinsey would default on the loan. The facts and circumstances
surrounding the developer's activities at this time were sufficient to cause
two other supervisors, Mr. Montemayor and Mr. Gulati not take part in this two
week all expense paid trip. Thus, the fact remains that Mr. Gulati and Mr.
Montemayor did not go on this trip while you and your wife did at the
developer's expense. Lastly, it is argued that you have a defense in that you
relied upon the advice of your solicitor that there would he no problem in
taking this trip. Even aside from the fact that that the solicitor was
unaware of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this trip, it is
established that the reliance upon the advice of the solicitor is not a good
faith defense concerning an individual's actions. See McCutcheon v. State
Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Cmwlth. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1982).
Mr. William M. Smith
Page 31
Lastly, Commonwealth Court in the most recent case of Yocabet v. State
Ethics Commission, Pa. Cmwlth. , A.2d (1987), filed at 834 C.D.
1986 on September, 1987, specifically affirmed an Order of this Commission
wherein a township supervisor was found to violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics
Act by voting in matters which resulted in a financial gain to him that was
not compensation provided for by law.
Based upon a review of this matter in its entirety consisting of the
investigation, all the documentation and the testimony at the hearing, it is
clear that you have violated both Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Ethics Act.
Additionally, this Commission has received information that other laws
including customs, tax and banking provisions have been violated. As such,
this matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a township supervisor, you are a "public official" subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in that you, as a township
supervisor, used your office to obtain an all expense paid trip to Europe for
two weeks for yourself and your wife from a developer who had matters pending
before the township which trip was financial gain other than compensation
provided for by law.
3. You violated Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act in that you received something
of value, that is, an all expense paid trip to Europe for you and your wife
based upon the understanding that it would influence your action as a township
supervisor relative to matters that were pending before the township by a
developer concerning the Port Henley and Rebel Hill projects.
4. This Commission will refer this matter to the appropriate law enforcement
authorities with a recommendation that a prosecution for violations of the
Ethics Act be initiated. It is the further recommendation of this Commission,
in light of the potential implication of other laws, that further
investigation of this matter be initiated in order to determine if other
individuals have violated any other provisions of law.
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with
Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final
and will be made available as a public document 5 days after service (defined
as mailing).
By the Commission,
AF/ ® s.►
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman