Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout580 TeyssierMr. Donald R. Teyssier c/o Templeton Smith, Jr. Rose, Schmidt, Chapman, Duff & Has l ey 900 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, PA 15222 -5369 Re: 85- 117 -C Dear Mr. Teyssier: A. Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 580 DATE DECIDED: July 21, 1987 DATE MAILED: July 28, 1987 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That you, a school director in the Canon - McMillan School District in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public official's use of office or confidential information gained from that 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 when you acted to have remedial work performed at the Canon - McMillan Junior High School by a company with whom you or your corporation was retained as consultant. 1. You serve as an elected member of the Board of Directors of the Canon - McMillan School District, Washington County, Pennsylvania. a. You served in this position from at least January 1981. 2. You are the president and director for the DECI Corporation, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania. a. This entity is a design engineering and consultant firm. 3. Joseph Celento, operator of Celento & Associates was employed by the Canon - McMillan School District as the District Architect from approximately 1962 through 1985. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 2 4. During 1981 the Board of School Directors became interested in renovating the sewage treatment facility at the Cecil Junior High School. a. This facility had been constructed in 1962. b. Joseph Celento was the architect who designed the original plant. 5. Minutes of meetings of the Canon - McMillan School Board disclosed the following information: a. September 15, 1980: Motion Miller, second Dzikowski that Joseph S. Celento, Jr. be named architect for the locker room project at the stadium and that the board enter into a contract with Celento at a fee of 6% of the construction costs. Motion carried by a 6 to 3 vote. You are recorded as voting no. b. November 24, 1980: Motion Buchannan, second Resetar to appoint the firm of Foreman, Dorach, Bashford, Wallace architects for the Senior High and first street projects. Motion defeated by a 5 to 4 vote. You are recorded as voting no. c. May 18, 1981: Motion by you, second Resetar to authorize the administration to engage architects to pursue correcting the sewage system at the Cecil Junior High School. Motion carried unanimously. d. - September 21, 1981: Motion Miller, second Resetar to authorize the architect to conduct a study of the sewage treatment plant and advertise for bids to complete the necessary work at the Cecil Junior High. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Celento & Associates performed the study on the sewage treatment facility. a. Celento & Associates retained your firm, DECI Corporation, as the engineering /design firm on the Cecil Junior High School project. b. Celento & Associates was paid $2,668.20 by the school district representing 6% of the project costs. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 3 c. Celento & Associates paid your firm $3,465.60 for work performed on the Cecil Junior High School project. d. Your firm billed Celento an additional $3,522.00 which was never paid. 7. Records obtained from Joseph Celento disclose the following payments made by Celento & Associates to DECI Corporation or associates of DECI in relation to projects for the Canon - McMillan School District. a. November 16, 1981: Richard A. Kasmer, P.E., Invoice No. 81002 -61 -1 amount $1,600. For topographical survey of First Street School, Canonsburg. Paid January 20, 1982 by check #7772. b. November 16, 1981: Richard A. Kasmer, P.E., Invoice No. 81002 -70 -1 amount $970.00. Topographical survey of proposed locker facility and district administration offices. Paid January 20, 1982 by check #7772. c. October 13, 1981: DECI Corporation, Invoice No. 81078 -1, amount $874.00. Engineering services for period ending September 30, 1981 for sewage treatment plant, Cecil Junior High, 23 hours at $38.00 /hour. d. October 13, 1981: DECI Corporation, Invoice No. 81078 -2, amount $1,444.00. Engineering services October 1, 1981 to October 31, 1981 for sewage treatment plant, Cecil Junior High, 38 hours at $38.00 /hour. e. November 30, 1981: DECI Corporation, Invoice No. 81078 -3, amount $1,147.60. Engineering services November 11, 1981 to November 30, 1981 for sewage treatment plant, Cecil Junior High, 29 hours at $38.00 /hour, $45.60 reproduction costs. (1) Total of b, c, d invoices $3,465.60 paid by Celento & Associates, check No. 7780 on January 27, 1982. f. March 23, 1982: DECI Corporation, Invoice #81078 -4, amount $3,522.00. Engineering services February 1, 1982 to February 28, 1982 for sewage treatment plant Cecil Junior High. (1) Both you and Celento confirm this amount was never paid. 8. Mr. Joseph Celento stated that he was hired, as architect, by the school district based upon his qualifications and not because he employed you as a consultant. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 4 Mr. Celento also indicated as follows: a. Your firm had never done any work for him before the Cecil Junior High project and none after the project. b. Celento & Associates was not in the sewage facility business and you may have mentioned to him that you were a sewage treatment specialist. c. He started as the school district architect in 1962 and remained in this position until 1985. d. You were, in part, responsible for having him replaced. e. The project cost was $44,470.00. His architectural fee was 6% of the project ($12,668.20). f. Your firm was paid $3,465.00 as a subcontractor to Celento & Associates. This payment was made on January 27, 1987. g. Celento was billed for an additional $3,522.00 by your company but he never paid that bill. h. Celento issued another check to your firm on January 20, 1987 in the amount of $2,570.00. i. This payment was for work done by Richard Kasmer, P.E. of your firm ir, relation to a proposed locker room and the district administration offices and on the First Street School. j. Payment was made by check No. 7772, dated January 20, 1982 to DECI Corporation. (See Finding 7a). k. Celento & Associates lost money on the project and did not request additional funds from the district because he did not want to bring your fees ino the discussion and thus alienate you. The locker room project was neither part of nor associated with the Cecil Junior High School project. 9. Celento & Associates is a small business and subcontracts for much of the work that is obtained. 10. Members of the school board were aware of your involvement with Celento & Associates regarding the Cecil Junior High School project. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 5 11. Members of the school board indicated that the prior solicitor, John Costello, saw no conflict of interest in your actions. a. There was no written opinion on this issued prepard by Mr. Costello. 12. In an opinion dated September 13, 1985, the solicitor for the Canon - McMillan School District wrote an opnion letter to Dr. Donald W. Strang, District Superintendent, regarding the instant situation. a. The Solicitor analyzed the matter under the public school code as well as the State Ethics Act. b. The Solicitor concluded that there had been no violation of either law in that you had no knowledge at the time of your vote that you would be employed by the architect and you disclosed your association to the board and the district solicitor. c. This opinion was issued after you had transacted business with the school district architect. 13. You advised as follows: a. The school board solicitor affirmed your association with Celento on the project. b. Your firm employed an indiviudal who was an environmental engineer. c. Your firm was retained by Celento to evaluate the present condition of the existing sewage plant. d. You advised the other school board members of your involvement in the project. e. Both you and Celento lost money on the project. f. You could not understand why Celento did not approach the school board for an increase in payment. g. You could not recall receiving any other payments from Mr. Celento in the amount of $2,500. h. Your firm did two other jobs for Celento & Associates. i. These jobs were not related to the sewage facility but involved surveys on the First Street School and the school district administration building. j. Richard A. Kasmer, an associate in your firm performed this work. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 6 14. All of the work that DELI Corporation performed for Celento & Associates involved school dstrict projects. B. Discussion: As a Sch:;ol Director in the Canon - McMillan you are clearly a "public official" as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. Accordingly, your conduct must conform to the requirement of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein apply 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, you are not only an elected member of the Board of the Canon - McMillan School District, but are also President and Director for DECI Corporation, an engineering and consulting firm. On May 18, 1981 you and all other board members voted in favor of a motion to engage an architect to correct the sewage system at the Cecil Junior High School. Subsequently, on September 21, 1981, the board unanimously voted to advertise the architectural proposal for bids. Celento & Associates received the contract for the study on the sewage treatment facility. Thereafter Celento & Associates retained your firm DECI Corporation as the engineering /design firm for the Cecil Junior High School project. Although Celento & Associates was paid $2,668.20 by the school district, your firm was paid $3,465.60 by Celento. Subsequently, your firm billed Celento for an additional $3,522.00 which amount was never paid. Mr. Celento states that his firm lost money on the project but, did not request additional funds from the district because he did not want to bring your fees into the discussion. You state that your firm, DECI, also lost money on the project. You state that you asked the solicitor to give you his opinion as to the propriety of the transaction after the project was completed. The solicitor found no violation. In deciding whether there is a 3(a) violation of the Ethics Act, this Commission must be guided by its opinion in Sowers, 80 -050. There, this Commission opined that a public official /employee must refrain from participation in projects or proposals of a developer when the project or proposal is subject to the public employee's /official's review when either of two situations occur: (1) the official seeks or can legitimately anticipate performing services for the developer, or (2) the official has obtained work from the developer and subsequently is asked to vote on matters relating to the developer which arose after the official obtained the work or services from the developer. Mr. Donald R. Teyssier Page 7 In the instant situation, this Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act since your firm, DECI, was retained as a consultant after you had voted in favor of awarding the contract to Celento & Associates. Thus, this case does not fall within either of the two prohibitions as set forth in Sowers, supra. Furthermore, the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Earnest, 265. In that case, a township supervisor voted on matters relative to the development of a mall when he was simultaneously in the employ of a sub - contractor of the developer of the mall. There is nothing in the record to show that there was any prior agreement or understanding between you in your capacity as board director and president of DECI and Celento & Associates, whereby you would vote for the award of the contract if you would be retained as a consultant. We, thus, find that there is insufficient information to find a violation of the State Ethics Act. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. You as a School Director in the Canon- McMilan School District are a "public offical" under the Ethics Act and are subject to the provisions set forth therein. 2. There was insufficient information to warrant a finding that there was a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by your voting to award a contract for the study of a sewage treatment plant. Our files in this case wilT remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15 -day period, no 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, se 4 04,;rwostuat- G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman