HomeMy WebLinkAbout608-R WidmerMr. Joseph H. Widmer
c/o Joseph Friedman, Esquire
Springer, Bush & Perry
Two Gateway Center
15th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Re: 86 -188 -C
Dear Mr. Widmer:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
daiiBar lilebeatik ObN
ORDER NO. 608 -R
DATE DECIDED: September 28, 1988
DATE MAILED: October 13, 1988
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, Beaver County Commissioner, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or
public official's use of office or confidential information gained
through that office to obtain financial gain and Section 3(b) of the
Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee, public official or
candidate from offering, soliciting or accepting anything of value
based on an understanding that the vote, official action or judgment
of the public official, public employee or candidate will be
influenced, in that you voted to award consulting engineering
contracts to Mazza Engineering Associates, Incorporated, while at the
same time your firm, Widmer Engineering, had an on -going business
relationship with Mazza, resulting from a sub - contract with Mazza.
A. Findings:
1. You were for the years 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 an elected
member of the Beaver County Board of Commissioners and, as such, you
are subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act.
2. You were elected to the office of County Commissioner and took
office officially on January 2, 1984.
3. Widmer and Associates was formed in 1974.
a. In 1979, this business was formally incorporated as Widmer
Engineering Incorporated.
c
b. You are preb!_derit of this entity.
c. This entity is a:.i engineering and surveying
d. Your son David is vice- president of this fir'1:1>
e. Col:noration documents indicate that you and your wife are
100% owners by the entireties of this erti,y.
Mazza Engineering Associates, Inc., Monaca, Pennsylvania h- been
arded various contracts by the Beaver County Board of
: <_. ac loners .
a. This firm is owned by Eugene Mazza.
Both you an.a Mr. Mazza were previously employed 1 . t; chael
Baker, Jr., Inc. an engineering firm.
Mr. Mazza was formerly a vice - president for ar - '-kIc r
engineering firm, Frank Moolin Associates.
Eugene Mazza serves as President of Mazza Tngineering.
5. Widmer Engineering, Inc. was involved with Frank Moolin and
Associates, Incorporated, on the 40th Street Bridge project.
Beaver County Commissioners were bound to follow the procedure
-scribed in resolution No. 100181 -15 in the selection and approv.a_. of
p; - :ties performing architectural, engineering and land surveying
pr-Aessional uervices for the County. Resolution No. 100181 -15 isas
enacted by the Beaver County Commissioners on October 1, 1991. The
resolution was adopted becaube the County Commissioners deemed it to
be in the best interest of the County to procure architectural,
engineering and land surveying professional services through an open
and publi- process. The resolution provided, in part, as follows:
a. SECTION TWO: REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PERFOR_MANPE
DATA
The staff engineer of the County Planning Commission,
or in his /her absence the Executive Director of the Beaver
County Planning Commission, shall annually solicit, by
appropriate public notice, statements of qualifications and
performance data from persons and firms engaged in the
lawful practice of architecture, engineering and land
surveying professional services.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 3
The staff engineer shall evaluate current statements of
qualifications and performance data on file, together with
those that may be submitted by other persons or firms
regarding the proposed contract, and shall select therefrom,
in order of preference, based upon criteria established
and /or published by him, no less than three of the persons
or firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform
the services required.
b. SECTION THREE: NEGOTIATION OF CONTRACTS
The staff engineer shall negotiate a contract with the
highest qualified person or firm to provide the required
professional services at a compensation which the staff
engineer shall determine to be fair and reasonable to the
County.
The staff engineer shall submit his recommendations in
writing to the Board of Commissioners together with this
draft of the contract, specifying the compensation therein
to be paid, for such professional services.
c. SECTION FOUR: AWARD OF CONTRACTS
All contracts for such professional services shall be
awarded by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
adopted at a meeting thereof duly convened pursuant to
public notice. The recommendations of the staff engineer,
and those recommendations made by the staff engineer with
the concurrence of the County Fiscal Affairs Administrator,
shall be received by the Board of Commissioners as advisory
recommendations to be accorded the greatest weight. The
Board of Commissioners, however, shall not be bound by such
recommendations. Should the Board of Commissioners
determine that the person or firm proposed to provide
required professional services is not the highest qualified
and /or the compensation proposed to be paid is not fair and
reasonable to the County, the Board of Commissioners shall
reject the recommendation and refer the matter back to the
staff engineer for reevaluation and recommendation. In no
case shall the Board of Commissioners award a contract for
registered architectural, engineering and land surveying
professional services, or incidental services that members
of those professions and those in their employ may logically
or justifiably perform, except upon the recommendation of
the staff engineer.
d. In each case in which Beaver County approved a contract for
Mazza Engineering Associates, Incorporated, Frank Moolin and
Mr. Jos f?pL7.
€+.ge 4
Associates, Incorporated, or Michael Baker, Jr.,
Incorporated, the procedure prescribed by such Resolution
was followed Ind the initial recommendation of the staff WF.Ei
accepted.
7. The approval of engineering contracts involving the expenditure of
Community Development Block Grant funds in addition to the procedure
described in Resolution No. 100181 -15, also required that the
engineering firm be . selectedby the._ Beaver: County. Community
Development Agency and such Agency make a recommendation to the Bocrd
of County Commissioners.
P. Resolution No. 030482 -3 was enacted by the Beaver County
Commissioners on March 4, 1982 as means of adopting procedures to
govern the selection of consulting engineers and general
administration of engineering contracts for all projects to be
reimbursed, in whole or part, by PennDot. The resolution provided in
part, as follows:
a. Requests for Oualifications and Performance Data
The staff engineer shall initially determine the need,
any, and the character and quality of consulting engiLLeecs
required to be engaged for the PennDot Project. The k f
engineer's determination shall be documented in the p_ ct
file.
b. Qualification Committee
A qualification committee consisting of the staff engineers
and the Executive Director of the Department shall rev's:.
and evaluate current statements of qualifications and
performance data on file in the office of the staff
engineer, together with those that may be submitted by
consulting engineers responding to the aforementioned public
solicitation, and shall select therefrom, in order of
preference, not more than three persons or firms deeme_,
be the most highly qualified to perform the services
required for said project.
c. Selection Committee
A selection committee consisting of the staff engineer and
the Board of Commissioners shall review the recommendations
of the qualification committee and shall select from am�:.g
such recommendations a qualified person or firm to serve as
consulting engineer for said project. The recommendatio: of
the selection committee, - ogether with the documentation
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 5
supporting its selection, shall be forwarded to PennDot for
approval.
d. Fee Negotiation
PennDot will conduct the pre -award evaluation and negotiate
the fee for requested consulting engineering services.
PennDot shall prepare the contract for required consulting
engineering services and obtain its execution. No project
work shall be commenced by the consulting engineer until
separate authorization to proceed shall be given by PennDot.
9. Records of the Beaver County Board of Commissioners meetings
regarding contracts awarded to Frank Moolin & Associates, Inc., or
Mazza Engineering Associates, Inc., indicate as follows:
a. January 23, 1985 - Resolution No. 012385 -7, a resolution
approving an agreement between Beaver County and Frank
Moolin & Associates, Inc. to provide engineering services in
connection with the street and step improvements in
Aliquippa Borough in the amount of $24,197.00. (Unanimously
approved.)
b. July 23, 1985 - Resolution No. 072385 -5, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Mazza Engineering
Associates Inc., to provide for professional engineering
services relating to Beaver Falls Parklet Project. Motion
by Commissioner LaValle,.second by Commissioner. Widmer.
(Motion carried.)
c. July 30, 1985 - Resolution No. 073085 -5, approving the
transfer of the Aliquippa Street Improvement engineering
contract adopted as Resolution No. 012385 -7 from Frank
Moolin and Associates, Inc. to Mazza Engineering Associates.
(Motion carried.)
d. October 15, 1985 - Resolution No. 101585 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Mazza Engineering
Associates to provide professional consulting services in
connection with the Rochester Central Business District
Traffic Engineering Study. (Motion carried).
e. December 3, 1985 - Resolution No. 120385 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Mazza Engineering
Associates to provide required engineering services on
various county owned bridges on a cost not to exceed
$130,108.00. (Motion carried).
Mz . enh L. . "_.diiinr
Page (
f. Jinuary 28, 1986 - 2tlso1ur..Y..on No. 012886 - .,, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and ,zza Engineering
Associates Inc., to provide fo-- professional engineering
services in connection with the City of Beaver Falls Pub ?.L;.
Infra Structure Improvement Project at, a cost $16
(Motion carried.)
J,_.nuary 28, 1986 - Resolution No. 012886 -3, ap' rovirr
agreement between Beaver County and Mazza Engi ;nerinq
Associates to provide for professional engineering ccr`ri .
in conjunction with Aliquippa Borough Public Infra Stn
Improvement Project at a cost of $23,500.00. (Notio:
carried.)
h. August 12, 1986 - Resolution No. 081286 -15, rpprovinc ar
agreement between Beaver County and Mazza Encineerdnc,
Associates Inc. to provide required engineering services o..
various county owned bridges at a cost not to exceed
$269,370.00. ( Motion - carried with Commissioner LaW11 .
voting no on this Resolution.)
10. Records of Widmer Engineering Inc., indicate the following
regarding billings to Frank Moolin & Associates Inc., or Mazza
Engineering Associates, Inc.
g.
Date Amount
05/31/85 $13,985.58
06/22/85 $ 1,123.15
08/31/85 $ 1,462.93
09/30/85 $ 7,2 ^0.01
10/28/85 $ 259.53
10/31/85 $ 1,880.83
10/31/85 $ 223.42
10/31/85 $ 1,548.40
02/28/86 $ 1,632.67
03/31/86 $ 847.57
04/30/86 $ 1,229.54
07/31/86 $ 225.68
02/02/87 $ 739.55
Total $32,438.86
11. Final payment to Widmer was made by Mazza on or about March 31,
1q87.
12. Payments were made directly by PennDot to Frank Moolin
.ssociates or Mazza Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 7
a. Moolin or Mazza thereafter paid Widmer Engineering from
their corporate accounts.
13. The project that your firm was involved in with Frank Moolin &
Associates, Incorporated and Mazza Engineering and Associates,
Incorporated regarding a bridge on 40th Street, Millvale, Allegheny
County.
a. This project was being initiated by the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation.
b. By letter dated August 24, 1984, David Widmer,
Vice - President of Widmer Engineering, Inc., submitted a
technical proposal to Frank Moolin & Associates,
Incorporated regarding this project.
c. This letter was addressed to Eugene A. Mazza,
Vice- President and you were noted to receive a copy as
President of Widmer Engineering.
d. By letter dated August. 28, 1984, Eugene Mazza forwarded a
technical proposal on behalf of Frank Moolin & Associates,
Inc., to PennDot.
e. Widmer Engineering was included as a participant in this
project.
f. Records regarding the project and obtained from Mazza
Engineering Associates, indicate that Eugene Mazza was to be
the Principal in Charge, and the Frank Moolin firm was to be
assisted by Widmer Engineering and Tri -State Design and
Development.
The proposals submitted by Widmer show that the Widmer fund
was to receive about $33,300.00 for their portion of the
job, while Tri -State would receive about $34,200.00. The
summary of costs submitted by Mazza for Frank Moolin
Associates show that the total Project was to take about one
year to accomplish and would cost about $200,538.
g.
14. In relation to the above project, on January 8, 1985, an
agreement was entered into between the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation and Frank Moolin & Associates, Incorporated regarding
the rehabilitation of the 40th Street Bridge, Millvale, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
a. Widmer Engineering Inc., was not a party to this contract.
*i. r° o Jr - .:Amer
Page b
a. .
of. Moolin's propose.l to 3'ennDot provides, in
pt.rt, "111 L onies received by the engineer for w: ^rk a:.d
furnished by a subcontractor shall be p ..d _t: full_
to that subcontractor within (7) days of payment to 'e
'ngineer by the Department . "
c .
!Wolin was also required to furnish the Depart met °: :h
evidence of payments to subcontractors.
3. R ,ords of Frank Moolin & Associates, Inc., Michael Buxer„ •
:r_d Mazza Engineering Associates, Inc., confirm that ?rior .o
1 _ i , the year you became a county commissioner, you had no busi .es
dealings with any of these firms.
On June 29, 1983, you requested the advice of the Et,ate Et'Acs
-, mmission regarding whether the Ethics Act would pace ety
: estrictions upon your simultaneous service as a county t.ow.4ssia e-c
and a privately employed engineer.
You were advised that the State Ethics Act would not
prohibit you from securing work from governmwntaI bodies
other than the county.
b. You were also advised that if your firm does bid can
contracts administered under the CDBG Program or if yc:i h d
reasonable belief that your firm would bid on such
contracts, you would be required to abstain frcl .
participating in such matters.
c. You were not advised of any further restrictions on your
onduct with regard to your participation as a Commissioner
..n matters relating to Beaver County engineering contracts
with firms with which Widmer Engineering had previously
contracted or reasonably expected in the future to contract.
n. On September 8, 1986, you, once again, requested the advice of
the State Ethics Commission regarding the following situations:
a. Your engineering firm may be asked to perform surveying
services by a local attorney. This attorney is also a
part -time employee of the District Attorney's Office in ':he
county. As a county commissioner, you serve on the county
salary board and are, in that capacity, called upon to vote
for salary increases for county employees, includint.
assistant district attorneys.
b. Your engineering firm may apply for a loan or moitg.ge
with a local financial institution. You Ldvise that this
financial institution may, at some time later, :rr'bmi.': a
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 9
proposal to the county seeking to handle one or more of the
county's financial accounts. Under normal circumstances,
the chief clerk recommends to the board of commissioners
which proposal to accept.
c. Your firm is asked by another firm to join them in
submitting a letter of interest to the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation to perform certain services.
At a later date, the lead firm may apply to the county,
wherein you serve as commissioner, to perform services for
that governmental body. You advise that the county would
follow the consultant selection procedure as outlined in
county resolutions. You questioned whether you may
participate in voting to award the contract to the firm
finally selected.
d. Your firm may be asked to perform services for an elected
office of the same county in which you serve as
commissioner. Such service is provided privately and is
unrelated to county government. An immediate family member
of the elected official is later recommended for
contractual, no -bid, work by a county department head.
e. Your firm may be asked to perform a service for another
engineering firm. This service is unrelated to any county
project. Sometime later, this firm is recommended by the
selection committee to be awarded a county contract.
f. Your firm purchases ad space in a local newspaper. At
sometime later, you are asked to approve the placement of a
county ad in the same newspaper. You question whether you
may vote for the placement of this county related ad in the
newspaper that you have utilized in your private capacity.
You have requested the advice of the State Ethics Commission
in relation to the above issues.
(1) The advice did not address questions c and e as such
were the subject of the instant investigation.
(2) You were advised to abstain from participating in
items a, b and d.
(3) You were advised that there were no restrictions
regarding f.
18. Minutes of the County Board of Commissioners meetings indicate as
follows:
July 30, 1985 - RESOLUTION NO. 073085 -12
Mr. •J isepr. 'T.
'gage 10
A R"Isolution of the Board of Commissioners of the
County of Beaver in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania authorizing and approving the
ubmission of a final statement of community
development objectives and projected use of fluids
in connection with the grant application in
compliance with all understandings and assurances
required therefore to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development for the funding of the
Eleventh Program Year of the Community
Development Block Grant Program for the County o"
Beaver pursuant to the Federal Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, authorizing and
directing James Palmer, Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Authority of Beaver County, to act
as the official representative of the County of
Beaver for said grant application and further
directing Director Palmer to provide any such
grant application as may be necessary and
required, authorizing the transfer of $42c,6u0.00
from reprogrammed funds of prior program years to
the Eleventh Program Year of the Community
Development Block Grant Program; authorizing the
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for and in
behalf of the County of Beaver, to execute six
luplicate counterparts of said grant application
Land directing the Chief Clerk to attest the due
execution thereof and to affix the seal of the
County of Beaver thereto, authorizing the proper
iiling of said statement.
Solicitor Young said he wanted to comment on
7 asolution No. 073085 -12 (Commissioner LaValle
arlier in the week had asked Mr. Young for an
Jpinion on whether or not Commissioner Widmer
would have a conflict of interest if voting for
this resolution). Mr. Young said he has reviewed
and discussed this issue with James Palmer,
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority,
and that he also reviewed the Ethics Code. He
caid it is the opinion of the Law Department that
':here is no problem with Commissioner Widmer
voting on this because his firm (Widmer
Engineering Inc.) will receive no work. One job
(Ramp "G" Bridge Project, Aliquippa) is a PeiinDOT
project for which Commissioner Widmer's firm was
involved with the design. Widmer Engineering wii.?.
be paid by PennDOT for this work, not out of
Community Development funds. However, Mr. Young
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 11
explained that this particular project has been
deleted from the program until the Department of
Housing and Urban Development can make a ruling to
add it back in.
Commissioner Lavalle said that he would like to
have a vote taken on Resolution Nos. 073085 -11 and
073085 -12, separately.
Motion Commissioner LaValle, second by
'Commissioner Javens to approve Resolution Nos.
073085 -1 through 073085 -10, as presented. Motion
carried.
19. By letter dated October 31, 1986, the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, applying a standard other than that in
the State Ethics Act, advised you that you voted as a county
commissioner to award contracts to Mazza Engineering Associates or
Frank Moolin & Associates utilizing Community Development Block Grant
funds appeared to constitute a conflict of interest in violation of
Federal regulations. Such letter requested further information from
Joseph Widmer to make a determination of a conflict of interest.
a. The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ultimately made no finding that an ethical
violation had occurred or that federal regulations were
violated which required a sanction of any sort.
20. Eugene Mazza, President of Mazza Engineering Associates
provided the following information in relation to the instant matter:
a. From 1965 through 1969, he worked for Baker Engineers with
you.
b. Mazza Engineering Associates was incorporated in 1982.
c. The 40th Street Bridge Project was instituted as a Frank
Moolin Project. During the project, Mazza was formed and
continued the Project.
d. Mr. Widmer never approached Mr. Mazza seeking more money in .
relation to this project.
e. The original payment to the Widener firm for this project was
approximately $33,000.00.
f. He never had any meetings or lunches with Mr. Widmer.
Mr. JL. h H. idm.>r
Page 1',
21. David Widmer, Vice- President of Widmer Engineering Inc.,
rovided the following information relating to the instant situation:
He is solely responsible for operating 'Widmer Engineering
during 1984 -1987.
Q. 100% of the firm's stock is owned by Joseph Widmc: ra.c1
Aloha Widmer.
c. Your wife was placed on the payrc.11 in 1984 as that f_?__..n's
bookkeeper.
d. You received no salary from the firm in 1985.
2-. You provided the following information relating to t1 inFtan+-
situation:
a. Ycur firm learned of the 40th Street Bridge Pro ect`through
an employee of the firm.
b. Widmer Engineering was called a sub - contractor for the 40{-h
Street Bridge Project, but you viewed it as a joint ,enture.
c. The project is awarded by PennDOT to the lowest bidder
based upon the submission of cost proposals.
d. You and your son David met with Mr. Mazza regarding the.
payment to your firm for work completed on this projec ,
e. Mazza owed Widmer payment for this project and this meeting
was held in order to insure that payment was tendered.
f. This meeting was held sometime in 1985 after Widmer had
completed its work.
g. You stated that you were not working for Mazza even though
the invoices from your firm were directed to Mazza
Engineering Associates.
h. Ycu did not work for Mazza Engineering Associates,
?rior to being elected as Commissioner, since Mazza was not
engaged at that time in engineering practice.
i. You could not recall if you performed work for Baker
Engineers prior to being elected.
j . `'ou turned operation of the firm over_ to your son, Davicl, in
1984, although you are still owner and President thereof.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 13
k. In 1984, you had a declining salary from Widmer Engineering.
In 1985, your salary was cut entirely.
1. You wife went on the Widmer Engineering payroll in
September, 1984. She went to work full -time for the firm
doing accounting, payroll and bill paying.
23. Statements of Financial Interests for 1985, (filed March 26,
1985) regarding your interests for 1984 and for 1986(filed April 17,
1986) for 1985 indicate that Widmer Engineering Inc., was a source of
income in excess of $500.
a. There is no listing in the category "office" or
"directorship" in any business.
b. Widmer Engineering is not indicated as a business in which
you have a financial interest.
24. Your Statement of Financial Interests for 1987 (filed February
13, 1987) regarding your interests for 1986 indicate Widmer
Engineering Inc., as a source of income in excess of $500.
a. You also list Widmer Engineering as a business in which you
have a financial interest and in which you are
Vice - President.
25. Michael Baker, Jr. Inc., is an engineering firm that has been
awarded various contracts by the Beaver County Board of
Commissioners.
a. You, at one time, were an employee of this company.
b. Your firm, Widmer Engineering, Inc., has served as a
compensated sub - contractor to Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
26. Records of the Beaver County Board of Commissioners meetings
regarding contracts awarded to Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. indicate as
follows.
a. April 17, 1984 - Resolution No. 041784 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,Inc.
to provide engineering services to the county regarding
street and storm drainage improvements in White Township.
(Unanimously approved.)
b. July 3, 1984 - Resolution No. 070384 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
to provide engineering services regarding street and
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer.
age 4
sidewalk improvements in IkA d?.an_d Borough. (Unanimously
approved.)
c December 11, 1984 - Resolu 121184-3, authorizing the-
county engineer to negotiate contracts with Michael Baker,
Jr., Inc., and Frank Mooli,n & Associates, Inc. regarding
bridge inspections, rehabilitation or replacement. (Motion
approved.)
d. January 23, 1985 - Resolution No 012385 -12, approving a-.
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr., ncc.
to provide engineering services in connection with Public
Infrastructure Improvements in Koppel Borough in the amour.
of $11,146.00. (Unanimously approved.)
e. February 26, 1985 - Resolution No. 022685 -2, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc
to provide required professional engineering services
:- egarding the Vance Way Retaining Wall Project in Industry
Borough at a cost of $6,600.00. (Unanimously approved.)
July 9, 1985 - Resolution No. 070985 -2, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc. to provide required engineering services in connection
with the Georgetown Lane Guardrail Project,in Van Port
Township. (Motion carried.)
g. July 23, 1985 - Resolution No. 072385 -7, approving an
amendment to the engineering agreement between Beaver
County and Michael Baker, Jr., 'Inc. regarding the Vance Way
Retaining Wall Project to address the emergency conditions
existing at the project site. Motion by Commissioner
LaValla to approve, second by Corrniissioner Widmer. '(Motion
carried.)
h. January 7, )986 Resolution No. 010786 -5, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Engineering Inc. to provide required engineering services on
various county owned bridges at a cost not to exceed
$158,420.66. (Motion carried.)
i. January 28, 1906 - Resolution No. 012886 -1, approving a:..
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
to provide for required professional engineering services in
connection with White Township and Beaver Falls 22nd Street
and 10th Avenue reconstruction project at a cost of
$10,900.00. (Motion carried.)
q.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 15
j
February 11, 1986 - Resolution No. 021186 -4, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
to provide required professional engineering services
regarding Midland Borough Public Infrastructure Improvement
Project at a cost of $34,950.00. (Motion carried.)
k. February 25, 1986 - Resolution No. 022586 -6, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Engineering Inc., to provide for required professional
engineering services regarding the Patterson Township -Ross
Hill Improvements Project at a cost of $8,475.00. (Motion
carried.)
1. March 25, 1986 - Resolution No. 032586 -3, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Engineering Inc., to provide professional engineering
services regarding the Hopewell Township Industrial Park.
Phase I Infrastructure Improvements Project at a cost of
$68,450.00. (Motion carried.)
m. May 13, 1986 - Resolution No. 051386 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc. to provide for engineering services on various county
owned bridges at a cost not to exceed $73,698.52. (Motion
carried.)
n. July 1, 1986 - Resolution No. 070186 -7, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Engineering Inc., providing for the furnishing of
enumerated engineering services in connection with the
preparation of the Airport Master Plan Update for future
improvements at the Beaver County Airport at a cost of
$50,000.00. (Motion carried.)
o. August 12, 1986- Resolution No. 081286 -16, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc. to provide for required engineering services on
various county owned bridges at a cost not to exceed
$75,679.55. (Motion carried.)
p. September 9, 1986 - Resolution No. 090986 -12, approving the
Supplemental Engineering Agreement No. 1 between Beaver
County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., in connection with the
Phase I Hopewell Industrial Park Project at a cost not to
exceed $27,324.88. (Motion carried.)
December 16, 1986 - Resolution No. 121686 -3, approving
certain amendments to engineering agreements between Beaver
County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. regarding the Airport
T . ...
} age "..
Master Plan Update and the Beaver County Airport
Improvements Project. Resolution makes additions to scope
of work and reducing tc al cost of project from $50,0)0.0f
to $49,500.00. (Motion carried.)
January 27, 1987- Resolution No. 012787 -1, approving an
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc. to provide for professional engineering services in
connection with the Koppel Borough Water Line Extension
Project at a cost of $5,850.00. (Motion carried..) You were
not present at this meeting.
L. February 10, 1987 - Resolution No. 021087 -5, approving the
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.,
Inc., regarding professional engineering services in Whit(.
Township, 22nd Avenue Reconstruction Project at a cost of
$7,500.00. Commissioner Widmer said that he woulc' abstain
from voting on this Resolution because Widmer "Engineering
will purchase photogrammetric services from Michael Baker,
Jr., if they are awarded certain projects. (Motion carzi , 4d.
Widme :: abstaining.)
t. March 24, 1987 - Resolution No. 032487 -6, approving
Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the contract between Beaver
County and Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. regarding Midland
?arklets and Sidewalk Designs. Increasing cost of c' -c
ay $1,475.00. (Motion carried).
Commissioner Widmer abstained from voting because he
indicated that Widmer Engineering may be purchasing
photogrammetric services from Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
u. April 21, 1987 - Resolution No. 042187 -1, approving s.r .
agreement between Beaver County and Michael Baker, Jr.
Inc., to provide professional engineering services
regarding Hopewell Township Industrial Park Subeivisior:..
easements and Right -of -Way Plan Project at a cost of
$7,980.00. (Motion carried).
27. Records of Baker Engineers indicate the following payments by
Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., to Widmer Engineering Inc., 903 Eighth
Avenue, Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania for services rendered:
Check No.
Date Amount
034978 10/28/85 $10,015.75
015557 10/28/86 $19,155.00
045997 12/01/86 $ 510.00
045191 12/08/86 $ 180.00
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 17
045591 11/17/86 $10,515.00
046695 12/23/86 $ 3,300.00
047185 01/12/87 $ 7,740.00
047762 01/29/87 $ 5,385.00
048597 02/26/87 $11,845.00
048958 03/09/87 $ 480.00
050006 04/09/87 S 1,080.00
Total $70,205.75
28. Records of Baker Engineers indicate that the following invoices
were received from Widmer Engineering Inc., for services rendered:
Invoice No.
Date Amount
508125 08/05/85 $10,015.75
609190 09/22/86 $21,075.00
608658 09/22/86 $20,325.00
6113339 12/03/86 $ 6,945.00
612364 12/31/86 $11,845.00
Total $70,205.75
29. Records of Baker Engineers indicate that the above payments were
made to Widmer Engineering, Inc., for services rendered as follows:
Client Proiect
N. Sewickley Twp. Authority Well Drilling
N. Sewickley Twp. Supervisors Freedom Park Avenue
Tasso Katsela Photo Mapping Surveys/
Southern Expressway
Patterson Township Sewer System Extension
AT &T Washington D.C. -
Parksburg
KKFS Inc. Delaware RT3 Corridor
Office of Surface Mining Casoni Acid Drainage
Pennzoil Industry Borough - Sub-
Division
AT &T Mt. Storm, West VA
Army Eng. District /Detroit (Not Specified)
::Ir. Josep' c':ar
age') 11
+ • Department of Labor & in'ustry, Office of Employment Security,
:')aarte.:rly Wage Reports (form UC -2A) for Widmer Engineering disclosed
`Zat in the first quarter of 1985 you pad $4,200.
a. Your wife, Aloha Widmer, was paid $3,000 in the first
uarter and $3,000 in the fourth quarter.
Quarterly Wage Reports (form UC -2A) for Widmer Engineering f :
End 1987 disclosed that your wife was paid as follows:
1986: 0 - 1st Quarter
$10,500.00 - 2nd Quarter
9,000.00 - 3rd Quarter
9,000.00 - 4th Quarter
$28,500.00 Total
1986
b. 1987: $9,000.00 - 1st Quarter
32. In 1986, Aloha Widmer was paid at a higher rate than any rtY :.
employee of Widmer Engineering during the second, third and four {:
quarters, although she received no salary during the first quarte:- of
1986.
B. Discussion: As a Beaver County Commissioner, you are a public'
official as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. x::02;
51 Pa. Code §1.1; Huff, Opinion 84 -015. Accordingly, your conduct
must conform to the requirements of the Ethics Act and the
.,strictions therein apply to you.
'ction 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).
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above specifically
provides, in part, that a public official may not use public office to
obtain a financial gain other than compensation provided for by law
for himself or a business with which he is associated.
It is further provided in Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act:
Section J. Restricted activities.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 19
(b) No person shall offer or give to a public
official or public employee or candidate for
public office or a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he is associated, and no
public official or public employee or candidate
for public office shall solicit or accept,
anything of value, including a gift, loan,
political contribution, reward, or promise-of
future employment based on any understanding that
the vote, official action, or judgment of the
public official or public employee or candidate
for public office would be influenced thereby. 65
P.S. §403(b).
Section 3(b) basically provides that no public official /employee
shall accept something of value based upon the understanding that his
vote or official action will be influenced thereby.
In reviewing this matter, this Commission must be guided by its
opinion in Sowers, Opinion 80 -050. There, this Commission opined that
a public official /employee must refrain from participation in projects
or proposals from private business interests when the project or
proposal is subject to the public employee's /official's review when
either of two situations occur.
1. The official /employee seeks or can legitimately anticipate
performing services for that business entity.
2. The official /employee has obtained work from that business
entity and subsequently is asked to vote on matters relating
to said entity which arose after the official /employee
obtained the work services from that entity.
In the instant situation, the records of the Beaver County Board
of Commissioners indicate that you voted on numerous occasions to
approve either the agreements between the county and Mazza Engineering
Associates or the transfer of an existing contract from Frank Moolin &
Associates to Mazza Engineering Associates. You and Mr. Mazza were
previously employed by Michael Baker, Jr., Inc., an engineering firm
which was also awarded extensive contracts from the county.
You, through your firm Widener Engineering Inc., received
subcontracting work from Mazza. Widmer Engineering, Inc., is a
business with which you are associated. ''Business with which he is
associated" is defined under the Ethics Act as follows.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Business with which he is associated." Any
business in which the person or a member of the
persons immediate family is a director, officer,
owner, employee or holder of stock. 65 P.S. §402.
! T Wi n .r
age /:;
Since you are president and owner o Widmei Engineering, Inc.,
you are associated with that firm as that term is defined in Section
3(, - ) of the Ethics Act. However, you are neither associated wath
F-:ank Moolin and Associates nor Mazza Engineering Associates as the
term "business with which he is associated" is defined under t
Ethics Act.
In this case, you voted to award contracts to Mazza while at the
same time you sought or anticipated performing services for him
through a subcontract regarding the 40th Street Bridge Project in
:Aillvale. You had no business dealings with Mazza prior to your
election in 1984. The subcontract work came about only after youi
election and your participation in awarding contracts to Mazza. It
should be noted, that while you assert that the PennDot Project wr;s a
joint venture, it appears that you were, in fact, a subcontractor
Mazza.
It is also noted that the Beaver County Commissioners, on Octob€.a
1, 1981, passed Resolution 100181 -15 which specifically provided
review procedure whereby the staff engineer would review and selct,
for recommendation purposes, firms which he deemed to be most
qualified. Although the Board of Commissioners was not bound by the
recommendation of the staff engineer, it is noted that this
recommendation was accepted as to the contracts for Mazza Engineering
:associates, Incorporated, as well as for Frank Moolin and Assocj,tcr
Incorporated and Michael Baker, Jr., Incorporated.
Furthermore, it is noted that the General Counsel of this
Commission issued an advice to you on July 28, 1983 wherein it was
indicated that you should not participate in matters involving t.1.
,pplicat.on of county funds including block grants in situations ..7:5er
you had e reasonable belief that your firm would be interested in ouc'.,
matters. You were clearly alerted as to the provisions of the State
Et' Act as early as 1983 and the prohibitions that would be pl& ec
upon you in situations similar to the instant matter. Neverthele,s,
s-on voted on matters involving the awarding of contracts to Mazza for
waich you were performing subcontracting work. It is also noted that
HUD advised you by letter of October 31, 1986 that you had a conflict
of interest in violation of federal regulations as to your voting as
cct'nty commissioner to award contracts to Mazza involving community
development block grant funds. HUD later made a finding that no
ethica'. violation occurred and no federal regulations were violated
which required sanctions.
Turning to your financial interests statements, you have been
inconsistent in listing your interest in Widmer Engineering Inc., in
that your Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years
1985 and 1986 do not indicate that you have a financial interest in
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 21
your firm while your Statement of Financial Interests, for the
calendar year 1986, reflects that you do have a financial interest-.
As to the matter of the salaries paid by Widmer Engineering, it
is noted that after you disassociated yourself as an employee of the
firm, your wife assumed a compensated position in your place. Your
wife, "a member of your immediate family" was an employee of that
entity and, thus, you continued to be associated with the business.
Immediately after you "terminated" your compensated status with the
company, your wife assumed a salaried position. In fact, records
reflect that she became the highest paid employee of the corporation
making more than your son, who allegedly was running the business.
Lastly, while such was not part of the original allegation in
this matter and while no conclusion in relation thereto is reached,
you consistently voted to award county contracts to Michael Baker,
Jr., Inc., while at the same time your company was receiving
subcontracting work from that company. You had no work with this
company prior to your election to office and the awarding of contracts
to that company.
This Commission, during the course of these proceedings, has
received conflicting evidence and statements. These conflicting
' tatements have created a number of questions which cannot be further
developed through the current proceedings. Thus, while this
Commission does not specifically determine that the Act has been
violated, this Commission believes that substantial questions have
been raised which should be further reviewed by an appropriate
authority in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, this
Commission believes that the matter should be referred to appropriate
law enforcement authorities for their review and disposition as they
deem appropriate.
Although no affirmative disposition of the above allegation was
able to be reached, this Commission must express serious concern about
your voting on the award of contracts to engineering firms which
thereafter supplied your firm with subcontract work, especially when
there was no prior history of contractual relations between your firm
and those engineering firms before you were elected. The fact that
the foregoing voting pattern to award contracts with the resultant
subcontract work to your firm coincided with the superficial
distancing of yourself from your company via the substitution of your
wife with the firms, leads this Commission to believe that your
actions violated the spirit of the Ethics Act, regardless of whether
your actions did or did not constitute a violation of Sections 3(a)
and 3(b).
II. Allegation: That you, a Commissioner in Beaver County, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public official's use
,ep ;
. - .fie ?
of office, or confidential information gained through that office to
reali ?e financial gain, other than compensation allowed by law for
himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he
is associated, when you acted to approve the use of county land and
financing for the construction of a Red Cross building, when your
pri engineering firm, Widmer Engineering Incorporated, was paid to
perform engineering work in connection with this project.
Findings of Fact as to Allegation II
A. Findings: 1 - 32 are incorporated herein by reference.
33. On July 29, 1983, representatives of the Beaver County C1apt'. n. ,
the ARC corresponded with the county commissioners and requested tat
the county convey certain real estate to ARC to house an ARC Chapter
and Blood Center.
34. On December 20, 1983, the Beaver County engineer transmitted tc6
ARC the final drawings of the property proposal to be transferred by
the county.
35. Minutes of the County Board of Commissioners meeting of January
1� 1984, indicate that the ARC land request was reviewed by the
wunty engineer who prepared a land description. The matter was
referred to the county solicitor for review and recommendation.
35. On or about January 13, 1984, the Michael Baker, Jr.,
Engineering firm was verbally contacted by Mr. Joseph Twombley,
Manager, Beaver County Branch, ARC, who requested that the Baker firm
g,_epare an engineering survey of the property the ARC was seeking
from the county. That survey was completed on or about March 21,
1984. Mr. Twombley told the Baker representative that the survey was
requested by the Beaver County Commissioners, of which you were one.
37. According to a letter, dated April 26, 1984, on that date, David
H. Widmer, your son, vice- president and general manager, Widmer
Engineering, Inc., wrote to Mike Siekkinen, c/o Turner Construction,
601 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, confirming a conversation
wherein it was agreed that Widmer Engineering Inc., would prepare a
topographic survey of the proposed site for the ARC building. It was
agreed that the fee for this service was to be $1,400.00.
38. According to a copy of a blueprint obtained from the Beaver
County Planning office, Widmer Engineering Inc., completed the
Topographic Survey for Turner Construction Co., on or about May 1y84,
utilizing the survey previously completed by the Michael. Baker, Jr,,
Engineering firm for the purpose of establishing the boundaries of the
topographic survey.
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 23
39. On June 29, 1984, a public hearing was held by the Beaver County
Industrial Development Authority regarding the issuance of an
Industrial Development note for use of ARC.
a. The project entailed construction of new headquarters and a
Blood Service Center.
b. The amount of the note was to be
$1,000,000.00.
c. You were advised of this hearing
1984, wherein it was recommended
commissioner approve the Project.
40. According to the records on file at the Beaver County Municipal
Building, Resolution Number 070383 -14, was unanimously approved by the
County Commissioner on July 3, 1984, to approve a loan in the amount
of $1,000,000.00 to ARC by the Beaver County Industrial Development
Authority. You were a county commissioner at the time and voted for
the approval of this resolution.
41. According to a letter, date of July 17, 1984, written by John T.
Radelet, Vice - President, IKM /SGE was desirous of retaining Widmer
Engineering as Site Consulting Engineer for the project and requested
a proposal from the Widmer firm.
42. In a letter, date of July 20, 1984, Mr. Vincent R. Borelli,
P.E., Widmer Engineering Inc., wrote to John Radelet, IKM /SGE,
informing that Widmer was interested in the project and would
undertake the project for a lump sum fee of $5,500.00.
43. On August 30, -1984, Mr. Borelli again wrote to Mr. Radelet
advising him that Widmer Engineering was revising their proposal
downward to a new figure of $5,175.00 for the project.
44. By letter dated August 24,198 John Grant staff engineer for
Beaver County advised Vincent Borelli of Widmer Engineering Inc., that
the firms storm water drainage design for the ARC project had been
approved.
by memo dated June 29,
that the county
a. A copy of this letter was mailed cc: J. Widmer, Chairman.
45. According to records on file with the Beaver County Clerk's
office, on October 16, 1984, Resolution Number 101684 -8, was
unanimously approved by the County Commissioner. The Resolution
provided.for the leasing of certain County -owned land for
construction of a building to be used as a chapter and blood center
building by the ARC. Said lease was to be for a term of 99 year and
was to cost the ARC $1.00 per year for the term of the lease. You
voted for the lease and were a signator thereon.
,ioseph n. V id'... w
Tege 24
46. On October 31, 1984, Witmer Engineering Inc.,
invoice no. 410197 regarding the ARC project.
a. The invoice indicated a prior payment of
balance of $2,825.00 for a total cost of
forwarded IKM /;GE
$2,350.00 all a
$5,175.30.
47. Invoice number 411202, date of November 14, 1984, was submitted
by Widmer Engineering, Inc., to Turner Construction Company, for sita
surveying to establish column lines and elevations at various poiZt'
The fee for this service was $200.00.
48. The records on file at the County Clerk's office, Beaver. County,
show that on December 4, 1984, you and Commissioner LaValle and
Javens, executed a memorandum of Lease which was signed by you and the
other commissioner for filing with the Recorder of Deeds.
49. On May 6, 1985, Widmer Engineering, Inc., submitted Invoice No.
51,5062, to Turner Construction, for parking lot construction stakeout
at the ARC site, the fee for which was $450.00.
5l. You stated that you were aware that the ARC project had been
under negotiation prior to your taking office.
B. Discussion: As previously noted, you are a public official
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act specifically provides that a
public official shall not use his public office or confidential
information to obtain a financial gain for himself or a.business w';.
which he is associated other than compensation provided for by law.
In the instant matter, the ARC requested the county to convey rea:Lty
for an ARC Center. Thereafter, ARC contacted the engineering firm o`
Michael Baker, Jr., for an engineering survey which was requested by
the commissioners including yourself. Your firm shortly thereafter
completed a topographic survey of the proposed site of the ARC
building which utilized the survey completed by the Michael Baker,
Jr., Engineering firm. Your business received a fee of $1,400.00 for
that work.
It is also noted that you, as county commissioner, approved a $1
million loan to ARC through the Beaver County Industrial Development
Authority. Approximately two weeks later, the vice - president of
IKM /SGE indicated a desire for retaining your firm as a site
consulting engineer. Your firm then responded that it would
undertake the project for a sum of $5,500.00 which was later revised
to $5,175.00. It is also noted, that the storm water drainage design
for the ARC project which was handled by your firm received county
Mr. Joseph H. Widmer
Page 25
approval. Lastly, it is noted that your firm submitted two invoices
in 1984 and 1985 to Turner Construction regarding the ARC project.
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act to
the above facts, you did use public office as a county commissioner to
approve the leasing of the county land to ARC and also the financing
for the construction of the ARC building. However, under the criteria
of Sowers, supra, the evidence does not establish that you could
anticipate or foresee that the foregoing action would result in
contracts being awarded to your firm, Widmer Engineering from Turner
Construction Company or from IKM /SGE. Therefore, the evidence does
not establish that you violated the Ethics Act as to this particular
allegation. _
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a Beaver County Commissioner, you are a public official
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. As to the first allegation, because of the substantial
questions and conflicting evidence that has been developed
in the instant matter, this Commission believes that this
situation should be further reviewed by appropriate law
enforcement authorities for appropriate disposition in
accordance with their discretion. While this Commission has
not made an affirmative disposition as to whether your
conduct violated the provisions of the State Ethics Act,
this Commission believes that the questions involved herein,
as established by the facts, warrant further review and
therefore, recommends a further investigation by the
appropriate law enforcement authority.
3. The evidence does not establish you violated Section 3(a) of
the Ethics Act when you voted to approve a lease of county
land and the financing for construction of a Red Cross
building when the business with which you are associated,
Widmer Engineering Incorporated, subsequently received
engineering work from other firms connected with the
project.
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
business days after service (defined as mailing).
- I. Jo: eph L. 7idmer
ge f;6
"ny person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission
2L2oceeding 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 P.S.
5409(e). The confidentiality provision does not restrict respondents
consultation with legal counsel.
By the Commission,
Joseph W. Marshall, III
Chairman