HomeMy WebLinkAbout614-R SummersMr. 2avid Summers
9C5 Park Avenue (Lynwood)
Belle Vernon, PA 15012
Re: 86- 120 -r;
Dear Mr. Summers:
Zirek
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
3C8 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 614 -R
Date Decided: June 10, 1988
-'ate Mailed: June 24, 1988
The Ethics Commission has reviewed the allegation(s) that you have
violated the Ethics Act, Act 1978 -170. On February 18, 1988, a hearing on the
matter was conducted 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:
Z. Allegation: That you, a Washington Township Supervisor - Roadmaster,
violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee or
public official's use of office or confidential information gained through
that office to obtain financial gain by receiving prescription drugs, health
insurance and a life insurance policy at the township's expense.
A. Findings:
1. You have served as a Washington Township Supervisor for at least the past
twenty years and, as such, you are subject to the provisions of the State
Ethics Act.
2. You have also served as township roadmaster.
a. Your compensation as roadmaster was set by the township auditors.
b. You report to work every morning, review the work with the employees,
visit main jobs, report of the progress in the various jobs on that
day and plan for the following day.
3. Records of the Washington Township Auditors disclosed the following
regarding compensation set for township supervisors:
Mr. David Summers
Page 2
a. January 4, 1979: David Summers, Roadmaster, $300 /month, plus (10)
road inspections. In the event of layoff from
construction, Summers will nullify the $300 /month
and work at a $5.00 hourly rate, for (8) hours a
day.
b. January 7, 1980:
Supervisors---- -$5.30 per hour while acting in the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made to
the Secretary.
Ruad :_aster - $350.00 Per Month.
Superintendent -- $300.00 Per Month.
of Police
'ec /Treas. Compensation to be 4% on all monie :, paid by him.
c. a nua ry 5, 1981:
Supervisors $5.80 per hour while acting in the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made to
the Secretary.
Roadmaster
Superintendent -- $300.00 Per Month.
of Police
Sec /Treas.
d. January 4, 1982:
Supervi sors
No insurance benefits set by the auditors.
$350.00 per month plus road inspections as code
permits.
Compensation to be 4% on all expenditures paid by
him.
$6.30 per hour while- acting in the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made
the Secretary.
Roadmaster $370.00 Per month plus road inspections as code
permits.
Mr. David Surn rs
Page 3
Superintendent -- $350.00 Per Month.
of Police
Sec /Treas. Compensation to be 4% on all (Ypenditures.
e. January 3, 1983:
Supervisors $6.30 per hour while acting in the capacity of 3
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted befor3 payment is made to
the Secretary.
Roadmaster $375.00 Per month plus road inspections as code
permi ts.
�Raperintendent -- $350.00 Per Month.
of Police
Sec/Treas. - -6 - -- Compensation to be 4% on all expenditures- -paid
him.
• January 2, 1984:
pervi sons
Rnad aster.
Superintendent -- $335.00 per month.
of Police
:,ec /Tres. Compensation to be 4% on all expenditures p.=id by
him.
g. January 8, 1985:
$6.30 per hour while acting in the capacit;, "n a
Supervisor and a written explanation of wos'
performed to be submitted before payment i Ir. le 7 1:o
the Secretary.
;500.00 per month plus road inspections as
permi ts.
Supervisors $7070 per hour while acting in the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made to
she Secretary.
kcadmastesr $500.00 per month plus road inspections as code
permits.
P. . Daui J Su:.;ners
N:e 4
Superintendent -- $335.00 per month,.
or Roads
!sac /Treas. Compensation to ',e 4% on all expenditures paid by
him.
h. _?:.nary 7, 1986:
Supervi sors $7.00 per hour while acting tn the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made to
the Secretary.
Roads ster $500.00 per month plus road inspections a.: code
permits.
S i "i ntendent -- $335.00 per month
✓.� - ads
SF /Treas. Compensation to be 4% on all ex. - :nditures- -paid by
him.
i. January 6, 1987:
'Supervisors $7.00 per hour while acting in the capacity of a
Supervisor and a written explanation of work
performed to be submitted before payment is made to
the Secretary.
oAmaster $500.00 per month plus road inspections as code
permits.
Superintendent -- $335.00 per month.
of Roads
Sec /Treas. Compensation to be $14,750.00 annually.
Sec /Treas. Bond is $125,000.00 and the Assistant Treasurers
bond is $12,000.00.
4. Supervisor Ernest Reppert, who also serves township
tecretary /treasurer, advised that each year a letter was prepared by the
supervisors with compensation requests and sent to the auditors. The auditors
would sign the letter indicating their approval and return the letter to the
supervi sors.
Mr. David Suiwnrs
Page 5
Reppert btat!:1 that i surarice coverage was never part of these
1 et;t s approved by the auditor.
b, Your compensation as roadmasrcer ryas included in these letters.
o.. You participated in the preparation of this letter.
Recorc;s of the Provident Indemnity Life Insurance disclosed the follcwvir.;
:—larding payments made on your behalf by the township for life insurar._,_
'5,000), basic medical and major medical benefits, prescription plat: acid
accidental dealth and dismemberment ($6,000).
a. Yc a were insured from October, 1976 through September, 1982; under
Group Plan Number EG- 0592 - 0272 -1. Your spouse was ilso included in
t ii s coverage. Your insured number was ',0006,
b. 1976: $ 229.05
1977: $ 970.52 (3 months) October to December
d. 1978: $ 986.18
e. 1979: $ 991.92
f. 1980: $1,543.82
g. 1961: $1.602.72
h. 198L: $1,950.12 (9 months) January to September
1 . 1976 to 1982 Total - $8,274.33
6. R .)t :ords of the Columbia Life Insurance Company disclosed the following
information regarding payments made on your behalf by the township for various
forms of insurance coverage:
a. You are insured by the following policy number and coverage;..
AKME0931 (Paid prescription plus dental)
AKSM4629 (Medical coverage)
IKSM4629 (Plan F. life insurance only}
b,
The effective date of these coverages was listed as March 25, 1982,,
Coverage included your spouse and dependents.
Mr. David Lun;..iers
C
c. pr4_mium Payments were made as foll•ms:
Year
1982
1983
1984
19E5
1986
1987
T o
May)
rol i cy Number
AKME093I AKSM4629
$ 652.54 $ 286.16
$2,090.05 $ 53.30
$ 318.61 $ 636.01 •
$ 354.96 $1,182.78
$ 354.96 $1,324.80
$ 147.90 $ 552.00
Lt SM4629
$ 108.85
$1,410.75
$ 186.80
$ 231.30
$ 276.00
$ 115.00
Total
e. June 14, 1984 - Revised Certificate of Insurance.
Total
$ 1,047.55
$ 3,554.10
$ 1,141.22
$ 1,769.04
$ 1,955.76
$ 814.90
$10,282.57
d. ClaiLs were paid for you and your family from 1982 to 1984 totalling
$586.93. These payments were mainly for prescription.
Columbia Life insurance records also disclosed the following:
a. August 14, 1982 - Print -out listing employee, dependents co‘mrage
costs:
Summers, Spouse B Plan, Health - $662.6
Prescription $142.20, Dental $576.34, ! •; fe
$129.60.
Total annual premium $2,809,20.
b. September 7, 1982 - Memo to Agent Warren Arleth from Rosemary Huber,
Group Department advising to have you complete
form 1060a for increase in medical coverages.
c. March 26, 1984 - Memo from David Leich, Life Department Manager,
to Warren Arleth advising to have you complete
PG -5 application. (for up grade of life
insurance).
d. June 8, 1984 - Columbia Invoice reflecting balance due of
$323.80 to upgrade coverages fr you to policy
number LKSM4629. (life insurance)
David Summers
:vge .
g.
July 25, 1984
Leti :er from David Leich to . Reppert,
Tc',nship Secretary /Treasurer advi 11g t; ,t
',1'4,03 was needed for your P.C.S. prescription
pE emiums. As soon as that amount was ra=.eived
~oars would be sent to you to submit Faso
Au t 3, 1984 - Memo from JoAnn Lindner, Group Department t
Washington County Re: David Summers, AKME:e 1
enclosing revised certificate and noting tila'.
P.C.S. paid prescription had been added bat' tr
his policy. Enclosed were P.C.S. Drug Cla
Forms for you to complete.
W111iaTa J. O'Keefe, Special Investigator for the State Ethics Commission,
•" -s 7j11ows:
a. That ':e interviewed Ernest Reppert who said that to his knowledge,
the auditors had not approved insurance for supervisors.
b. Mr. Winn was also interviewed who stated that since he ,'ecei ved
.surance as an auditor, he took it for granted that auditors had
approved the insurance.
c, In your interview, you stated that to your knowledge, the auditors
.�d ro; approved the insurance.
9. Selma S. Russell, Auditor, provided the following testimony:
s.. In January, 1986, she began as an auditor to do the 1985 books.
b. When Ernest Reppert told her that she had insurance, she asked if it
was legal and he (Reppert) said yes.
c. SLe called the State Ethics Commission and was advised that neither
auditors nor supervisors could get insurance benefits.
J. Th t trhen she received prior rulings from the State Ethics Commission
on insurance benefits, she gave a copy of those rulings to her fellow
au'l tor, Robert L. Campbell.
e. I;n a public meeting, when someone questioned benefits for the
auditors, she stated that she replied that benefits for both auditor:,
and supervisors were not legal.
f. That Mr. Campbell wanted to set up a meeting with the supervisors
regarding benefits but the supervisors did not get back to him.
..I D-..yrdei Summers
3
g. As auditor, she acted upon and approved the comp,tnsati on for th::
supervisors in 1.986 and 1987 as well as approving the books.
h. he stated that she did not approve insurance benefit
i F,r the 1986 year, she didn't even raise th -, :11a tter of insurance
benefits because it was in the hands of the State Ethics Commission
j. =pie did not file any exceptions in the auditors report that insurance
was improper.
10, R . aert L. Campbell, Auditor, gave the following testimony:
That he was appointed an auditor in 1986.
b. although he wanted to be an auditor for the insurance, he did not use
_he coverage because he found it was illegal.
c-. That he took no action to allow or disallow insurance for the
supervisors because it was in the hands of the State Ethics
Commi ssion.
d. He tried to set up a meeting with the superviscrs as to the legality
of insurance but they decided not to meet with him.
e.. ;larch of 1986, he took the State Ethics Commission prior ru i ngs
,.� insurance to your house, gave and discussed the documents wi `h
you.
A.; to the letter from the supervisors regarding compensation, there
was no mention of insurance benefits.
y. There were no exceptions by the new auditors the first time they did
the books because they did not know about insurance benefits.
h. That there was no written objection or exception and no approvals or
denials by the auditors in the 1986 and 1987 auditors' report.
i. he did not approve health care benefits for the supervisors.
11. You, r.. vid Summers, Supervisor and Roadrraster, provided the
f.HHlowing:
a. The following information was provided to a State Ethics Commission
i nvestigator:
(1) You have served as a township supervisor for (25) years.
Mr. David Summer
Page -)
(2) You also seive ac township roadmaster and receive a monthly salary.
You are on call 24 hours a day, but you nave never worked full -time
hours, such as (35) or (40) hours each week. Neither of the other
supervisors fill out a time sheet to reflect hours or days worked.
(7) Your duties generally entail ping to the township building in the
morning and advising the road crew of the days activities,
Supervisor Winn also help out. You and Winn come back and check
later in the day. You come in when its snowing on an as needed
basis.
('; The supervisors have had insurance coverages with Provident Indemnity
Insurance and later with Columbia Insurance Company. You have been a
memislr of either plan since at least 1979.
(5) You curren.ly receive life insurance and interim insurance for
hospitalization that is not paid by Medicare. Prior to reachirg age
65, you had full hospitalization.
(6) To the best of your knowledge, the auditors have never approved the
insurance for supervisors but they never disapproved it either until
the present.
b, The fo ' ;owing testimony was given by you at the hearing:
(1) That you were a roadmaster for 25 years and received the
insurance.
(2) That the auditors got insurance and they did not question the
coverr4ge as to the supervisors.
(3) There was no mention of insurance but you believe that the
auditors would have approved it if they were asked to.
(4) Many township roadmasters receive these benefits.
(5) You admit that you know payments were made for insurance on your
behalf.
(6) You stated that you did not ask the auditors for approval but
approved the payment yourself as supervisor.
(7) In terms of restitution, you stated that you only receive
social security of $575 per month plus a pension of $475 per
month but your home is paid for.
David Summer
Vincent G. Winn, Supervisor and Road ` 'uper: ntendent, p uvi ded the
of1')w;ng.
(a, The following information was provided to a State : thi cs
Commission investigator.
He served as a township auditor for over twenty years.
;,
He was elected supervisor in 1986 and subsequently resigned as
(auditor. He also is the appointed road superintendent.
(3) The auditors did not know it was their job to approve or disapprove
insurance coverage for the supervisors.
(4) While serving as auditor he was permitted to participate in the
prescription and life insurance plans. After burg elected
supervisor he was able to obtain the hospitalizatio: coverage.
(5) He and you get the road crews goi
check -up on them during the day.
with the crews when snow plowing
have enough men for the trucks.
ng in the rrirni ng and periodically
You have, on occasSiooc, gone out
needs to bps done, but they usually
The following testimony was given by Mr. Winn:
(1) That he received insurance both as auditor and Supervisor
and didn't question it when he was in either position.
(2, The auditors never questioned insurance coverage.
(3) When he was an auditor, he approved what the ''apervi sons
requested and did think health care had to be approved.
(4) He did not respond to the auditors because he didn't have
to.
(5) He stated that he did not tell the auditors they were
entitled but merely that the auditors got coverage in the
past.
13. Ernest Reppert, Supervisor and Secretary, provided the following:
(a) The following information was provided to a State Ethics Commission
i rvestigator:
(1) Hn has had the insurance since taking office in 1984.
Mr. David Summers
Page 1.1
(2) In past years, all ci= the auditors, the schoo7 crossing guard
and part -time custocian, received life and prescription
insurance. The auditors had to know the supervisors wei P
getting the insurance. The auditors never did anything
previous years.
(3) When the auditors questioned the insurance in early 1986, 'le
contacted the solicitor who advised to continue the practice
as is, and that the whole issue is still up in the air.
(4) He even put Robert Campbell on as an auditor so that Campbell
could receive the coverage. Campbell was ill and had no
1 rsurance.
15) Y xu and Winn serve as roadmaster and road superintendent.
These are 24 hour on call positions.
(6) His position is full -time. He is on call 24 hours a day and
that he works 50 hours a week.
b) The following testimony was given Mr. Reppert:
(1) T`e auditors did not question insurance coverage and they, the
ruditors, had the benefits.
(2) He did not receive written notice that the coverge was
improper.
(3) y'rior to 1988, he never submitted insurance coverage for
auditor approval.
(4) He did not meet with the auditors because he felt they were
nitpicking and besides, the books were closed.
i4. William Trenk, former Auditor, gave the following testimony.
a. He served as auditor between 1962 and 1973 and from 1975 through
1979.
b. He was aware of insurance coverage for auditors and supervisors but
was not aware that auditor approval was needed.
c. The supervisors told him that they were entitled to i nsuraace
)enefits.
d. He did not authorize insurance payments.
Mr. D ?vid Su;lame s
Page '?
15. Mr,. John Kasuda, a former auditor in Washington Township for thl period
between 1979 and 1984, was interviewed by State Ethics Commission Investigator
William J. O'Keefe in the presence of Attorney Joseph Rygiel, counsel for tie
respondents. Mr. Kasuda stated: that he imagined that the supervisors were
getting insurance benefits; that when he was an auditor, he got prescription
insurance and lastly that he did not recall ever being asked to approve the
insurance for supervisors but he would have given such approval if he were
asked by the supervisors for it.
15. Solicitor Joseph Rygiel, is of the view that once the auditors appr ^ve
Vie salaries for the supervisors, the supervisors became employees and could
be afforded the insurance coverage equal to all other employees in the
township as well as for the auditors.
17. House Bill No. 1577 of the 1987 Session was passed by the General
Asp `mbly of the Commonwealth of .Pennsylvania and signed into law by the
Go'ernor on March 10, 1988. The foregoing Act provides, in part, amnesty to
non- employee supervisors who received various township paid pension plans or
group life, health, hospitalization, medical service and accident insurance
plans, as well as to employee supervisors who received such pension benefits
without auditor approval, but the amnesty covers the period only betweec;
Jaruary 1, 1959 and March 31, 1985.
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official es that
', Ym is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §402; Sowers, 80 -0K, As
,uch, you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions
'herein are applicable to you.
Generally, the State Ethics Act provides as follows:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(a) No public official or public employee shall use his
public office or any confidential information received
through his holding public office to obtain financial gain
other than compensation provided by law for himself, a
member of his immediate family, or a business with which
he s associated. 65 P.S. 403(a).
Within the above provision of law, this Commission has previously
determined that a township supervisor may not receive at the township's
expense, health, hospitalization, medical and life insurance benefits when
such supervisor acts only in the capacity of a supervisor. Krane, 84 -001;
Cowie, 84 -010. Additionally, even if such a supervisor is employed by the
cownship as a superintendent, secretary /treasurer, roadmaster or laborer in
accordance with the Second Class Township Code, such benefits are considered
compensation and must, therefore, be fixed as such by the township board of
auditors. See Synoski v. Hazle Township, 93 Pa. Comm. 168, 500 A.2d 1282,
Mr. David Summers
P„ge 1'
(19); In re: Appeal of tf f:uditcrs Repi,r t: o^ ',uncy Creek Th—mnshik., Pa.
Commw. Ct. , 520 A.2d 12A , 1987) Hunt, No., 348 -R, The forepoing
drirc:iple was recently reaffirmed by Pennsyl »»ania Commonwealth Court. is
Yuc %bet v. State Ethics Commission, Pa. Commw. , A.2d (1987`:
filed at 834 C.D. 1986 on September 18, 1987. In the cited case, the Court
h' id inter alia that a township supervisor violated Section 3(a) of the Ethic:~
At ^' en ha received a salary for the position of secretary /treasurer which
Lad lot teen set by the auditors. The Court, in affirming the Order 'f tf,e
Eth , ..s Commission, which required a restitution of the financial gair, aotfd on
age 5 of its Opinion:
Section 7 of the Ethics Act instructs the Commission
to investigate situations where there is a reasonable
belief that financial conflict may exist, and if conflict
is found, to require the offender to remove himself from
the conflict without gain.
Any 'ienefits received other than as provided for above, would constiti:i,e
:'inancial gain obtained in violation of the State Ethics Act. See,
- C'±tcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. 529, 466 A.2d 28',
7. S3': Conrad v. Exeter Township, 27 D & C 3d 253, (1983). These principles
, t 7.-.w are now well settled and constitute the law under which this situation
must reviewed. See In Re: Report of Audit of South Union Township, 47 P ?.
Comm, :., 407 A.2d 906, (1979).
n the instant situation, while you were an appointed secretary / treasurer
:nd, therefore, eligible to receive the in question benefits, there would have
c 1e the requisite approval by the township board of auditors for this to by
, -,Lasidered part of your authorized compensation. See McCutcheon v. Stag
thics Commission, supra.
The facts in this case establish that the auditors did not give the
required approval. The testimony of Auditors Selma Russell, Robert L.
Campbell and former Auditor William Trenk establish that there was no auditor
approval for these benefits. This is also corroborated by the statement of
John Kasuda. Not only do the facts establish that the auditors never approved
insurance coverage for supervisors, they also indicate that you had knowledge
both of this Commission's decisions on insurance coverage which you ignored.
Lastly, you and the other supervisors failed to attend a meeting called by tac,:
auditors regarding health insurance coverage.
You raise the legal issue that if the auditors did not make an exception
i their audit or if they did not disapprove the insurance benefit, then they
:u -t be considered as having approved the benefits. The foregoing argument
! been addressed and rejected by the courts. See Hendricks v.
East Rockhill Township, 1 D & C 3rd 763 (1977):
Mr-. David Su..:iv rs
?age .4
The [ fac:r, that the auditors never affirmatively
bjected to the purpose of the pension plan is not
tantamount to the affirmative action of the auditors in
fixing the compensation for the supervisors and
roadmasters additionally to the compensation already fixed
at $5 and later $6 per hour. Therefore, we can onij
c °include that the supervisors exceeded their authori':y 1.f
:::opting and purchasing a pension and annuity plan for
Heir own benefit as additional compensation for their
'rvices as either supervisors or as
s pervi sor- roadmasters. See Commonwealth v. Hanzlick,
aupra. Id. at. 771, 771.
Similarly, Commonwealth Court in McCutcheon, supra specifically noted
tat h:: auditors must take affirmative action in order for working
7 to receive such benefits:
The undoubted power of the supervisors under Section 702
tk. enter into insurance contracts for the township
" Insuring its employees ... or any clas3 or classes
`;.2reof," is not sufficient to legitimatize supervisors'
acions in purchasing these policies for- themselves. in
he absence of affirmative action by the township auditors
under Section 515. Id. at 538.
Since b:,th the testimony of the three auditors and supervisors in this
c:se reflect that there was no affirmative approval of insurance benefits by
t e auditors for the supervisors, the requisite "affi r :.;alive action" was
'iac<ing and hence, you, as a supervitor were not entitled to the, : benefits.
'ditionally, you argue that the Pennsylvania Insurance Code expressly
"U',:huilzes coverage for elected officials as a class for whom health care
insurance may be provided. This precise argument was made and rejectrd by the
tour' in Exeter Townshia, supra.
Further, it has been settled by the courts that insurance benefits are a
form of compensation. See Edinger v. Upper Makefield Township, 25 D & C 3rd
512 (1983).
Finally, a specific statutory exclusion of health care premiums under the
IRC has no relevance in determining whether such benefits are financial gain
under the Ethics Act. Further, Commonwealth Court has determined in
McCutcheon, supra that such benefits are compensation.
It also should be noted that even if these benefits had been received in
good faith, such would not be controlling. Good faith receipt of suc;i
benefits, even when based upon a solicitor's advice, will not alleviate the
ir. D ;kvi d
15
necessity of a publ all - lei reimbursing his governmental body for the
;aipt of a + inancial gain for wh he was not entitled. See Alle hen
- oufity ■v. C:rier., 179 Pa. 639, 36 A. 353, (1397); McCutcheon v. State Ethic
' ,mdission, supra; Kestler Appeal 66 Pa. Commw. 1, 444 A.2d 761, (1982). As
result, this Commission believes that you must reimburse the - township for
t %is financial gain.
The State Ethics Act provides as follows:
ction 9. Penalties.
(a) Any person who violates the provisions of Section 0(a)
end
E:b1 is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more
than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five rears,
or be both fined and imprisoned. 65 P.S. 409(a).
(c) Any person who obtains financial gain from violating
any provision of this act, in addition to any other
penalty provided by law, shall pay into the State
Treasury a sum of money equal to three times the
financial gain resulting from such violation. 65 P.S.
409(c).
In addition to the above, the State Ethics Act provides that the
Commission may forward the results of any investigation to the appropria':e
prosecuting authority unless the alleged offender removes himself from the
conflict of interest by divesting himself of any financial gain receive , in
violation of the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. §407 9(iii). See also McCutcheon
v. Stat, Eth :s Commission, supra, the Commission may order restitution of
financial gains received in violation of the law.
The last matter which must be addressed by this Commission concerns House
Bill 1577 of 1987 which was signed into law on March 30, 1988 as At 1.7.
1938.
Although Section C of Act 41 addresses the questions of amnesty
i lsuran�.e benefits that were received by non - employee supervi sors and here
does not address the question of insurnce benefits that were received y
employee supervisors who did not get auditor approval, it is noted that
Section 2 of the Act provides for a blanket amnesty to "elected officials,
except township supervisors who are provided for in Section 515, [Section C]
and appointed township officials who are not employees of the township."
Since working employee supervisors are elected officials and since this
catego, 3 of supervisors was not provided for in Section 515, Section 2 is then
applicable which provides:
j'Ip Da- id d Si .2 i s
Je °.6
Any such insurance coverage contract entt eoc: into by
township between January 1, 1969, and March 31, 1 ?86, thu ":
includes or provides coverage for elected officials,
ex °ept A s provided in section 515, or appointed townsh
of who are not employes of the township, sham not
void or unlawful solely because such inclusion of such
os als was subsequently found to be without l ^W u
:thorny, No penalty, assessment, surcharge, for: eiture
disciplinary action of any kind nay occur as a ' esult
of pai':icipation by such officials."
`ftrefors, under the above provision of law, the i ns ur Ince benefit:;
between Ja nau ry 1, 1959 and March 31, 1985 would not violate
. 3; ) of the Ethics Act but the receipt of said insurance befits
fter 1ar•rh :,1, 1985 would transgress Section 3(a‘. In this case, you
eceivir a f .`nancial gain of $4,097.44 for the period of April 1, 19V
forwa r The foregoing amount must be returned to your governmental body,
Wa :hi ngtnn Township.
C. CInclusion a. Order:
1. As a Township Supervisor in Washington Township, you are a "public
fficial" and, as such, are subject to the provisions of t6,e Ethics
+ct
". You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you received
various insurance benefits for the period up to March 31, 1985 since
House Bill 1577 of 1988, which was signed into law on March 10, 1988,
provides amnesty as to the receipt of those benefits.
3 . 'lot.: violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you received a J a i n
through public office consisting of prescription drugs, health
insurance and a life insurance policy at the township's expense,
which gain is not compensation provided for by law in that such
benefits had not been fixed and approved by the township auditors as
part of your lawful and authorized compensation for the period April
1, 1985 forward.
4. The financial gain which you received and which was not part of the
compensation provided for by law amounts to $4,097.44.
5. You are hereby ordered to remit to the State Ethics Commission,
within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the amount of
$4,097.44, made payable to Washington Township as restitution for the
financial gain that you received.
6. Failure to comply with the provisions of this order will result in a
referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority
for further civil or criminal proceedings.
Mr. David `;:ammev..;
P• ge 11
Our i r s in this case will rerr i n coLf idential in accord. nce wit;
>ecr.ion 8(a) of the E , ics i.ct, 65 f .S. 408(a). However, this Order final
a c' ail' be made available '.s a public document 5 bu si 1,ess da "s 3 iter service
( fin 1 a:; mailing).
illy person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission p; ;r;eedi n
is .uilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 nr
i!anr-i sole i for rot more than one year or both, see 65 P.S 409(e). (h�.
,. onf identia:'ty provision does not restrict respondents consultation with
ega1 c■'Jnera
By the Commission,
Joseph W. Marshall, I1I
Chai