Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout632 LittleMr. Joseph Little 126 West 10th Avenue Homestead, PA 15120 Re: 86 -145 -C Dear Mr. Little: A. Findings: r1S, * f STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 632 Date Decided: March 10, 1988 Date Mailed: March 16, 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, a Homestead Borough Councilperson, 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, in that you voted at the June, 1986 council meeting to transfer funds from the Borough General Fund to the Borough Community Development account to help repay monies that you received from a HUD grant that was subsequently disallowed by HUD. 1. You serve as an elected councilperson for Homestead Borough, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. a. You have served in this - position since 1972. 2. In 1976, Homestead Borough initiated a Grant Participation Program, the Home Loan Improvement Program, for the purpose of allocating property rehabilitation funds to eligible applicants. _ . Joseph Little P° ge 2 a. YinL tes of the Borough 'licate that a motion Yomestead Community Pr Program and permitting assist qualified homeo approved. Council meeting of I t ry 14, 1976 to adopt a resolution for t :_i4 _serva,tion Home 3mprovemen•, Loan the Borough to financaa.Iiy wners, was presented anc b. It was further decided at that meeting that a special public council meeting would be conducted on May 28 to finalize the loan program and to establish a date for distribution of program applications. c. It was further decided to advertise for the position of loan secretary for the program. d. Members present at this meeting were Hickey, Little, Washington, Sullivan, Braszo, Harvey, and Mayor Armstrong. Members absent: Koval and Aber. The resolution of council passed on May 14, 1976 provided in part that the borough allocated $150,000 for purposes of the homeowner Loan Fund and administration in its first year community development budget submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and that such was air roved by H.U.D. 7. Pursuant to this resolution, the borough manager was authorized to execute agreements with eligible homeowners to supplement home improvement loans secured through a lending source. 4. Minutes of the borough council reflect that on May 28, 1976, a special meeting of council was held to finalize the loan -ogram and establish a date for the distribution of pnplications. The motion was carried to accept the schedule of major implementation activities for the loan program- regular 1rans.` Members Present: Joseph, Hickey, Aber, Braszo, Harvey. . )sent: Koval, Sullivan, Little, Washington, and Mayor Armstrong. 5. Minutes of the borough council reflect that on August 13, 1975, on motion of Mr. Little, Better Community Services Incorporated was assigned the additional work of preparing and °ubmitting 3,123 loan program applications to H.U.D. on behalf of - . he Borough, at a cost not to exceed $3,300. a. At this meeting, Ivan Braszo was appointed to the Office of Borough Mayor. K: , ords of Homestead Borough reflect the following: Mr. Joseph Little Page 3 a. In July 1976, you submitted a homeowners application for a loan through the Homestead Home Improvement Loan Program. b. You requested a loan in the amount of $119.00 based upon your own bank loan of $851.00 for a total amount of $970.00. c. Borough Check No. 751 was issued through the Loan Program, on your behalf in the amount of $119.00. These funds were deposited in the Pittsburgh National Bank, Homestead Home Improvement Loan Program Escrow Account, along with your investment of $851.00. d. Pursuant to the financial assistance agreement between you and the borough, the financial assistance provided was a loan subject to repayment. (i) Both the homeowner and the municipality agree to comply with all HUD requirements. (ii) HUD regulations provided that the community development Program will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others; particularly those with whom they have family or business or other ties. e. The agreement between the borough and the county provides that no member, officer, or employee of the municipality, or its designees or agents, no member of "the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or 'responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct, or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for the work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under this agreement. f. While the funds allocated to the borough officials were disbursed as part of a "loan program," these funds were in fact a grant and therefore, repayment was not expected at the time of ap val.to the borough g. The individual loan account form for your project identifies the fund allocation as a grant. Joseph Little Pe rye 4 .. In June, 1983, an audit of the Borough of Homestead Community Ur'. elopment Block Grant ands was conducted by I lbe:.t Tomasi.c. Hr listed the following findings: a. Members of council applied for and received grants amounting to $6,159.00 under the program without HUD approval of a request for waiver. Ivan Braszo, Mayor (deceased) $2,756.00; David Aber, Councilman $3,284.00; Joseph Little, Councilman $119.00. b. Procurement of professional services was not LA accordance with HUD regulations (engineering fees $41,310.00 - Consultants $175,393). Final ditrall.owed cost - $18,115.00. c. Total disallowed cost $24,274.00. b. A September 11, 1984 letter to Borough Council Presi . :. George Buckner, from HUD notes the disallowed costs ailocat o the borough officials and requests information on the progiak:. a. The letter specifically seeks to determine if the program is a rehabilitation loan program, a grant program or a loan /grant program. - J. By letter dated November 26, 1984 to Mr. Buckner from HUD, it is noted that the borough response to the letter of September 11, 1984 indicates that the borough officials received rehabiiite.tim loans. a. The letter requests the outstanding balance c- each loan. 10. letter dated December 19, 1984 to John E. Pisano, 717D, from Louis Pastor, Borough Consultant, HUD was advisr'd that "the members of, council received grants." 11. A letter to John E. Pisano, Deputy Manager, HUD from Louis Pastor, Borough Consultant, identifies the allocation to the borough officials as a grant and further suggests that HJD should recover the funds directly from the officials. 12. By letter dated. January 1, 1985 to Mr. Buckner, HUD notified ',he borough that the $6,159 ' rehabilitation grants allocated to '.he Borough officials was an ineligible expenditure which must be 'e E'imbursed . a. This letter also notes that a borough response dated Mr. Joseph Little Page 5 November 24, 1984 also indicates that in addition to the above amounts, the officials also received loans. 13. By letter dated August 20, 1985 from HUD to Charles McCullough, Borough Solicitor, McCullough is informed that the officials in question were not eligible to participate in the program without a waiver. a. Retroactive b. The borough with HUD reg approval or waivers are not allowed. is responsible for assurance of compliance ulations. 14. By letter of September 18, 1985 from Mr. McCullough to Louis J. Pastor, consultant to the borough, Mr. McCullough confirms a meeting held on that date. a. A letter indicates that at this meeting Mr. Pastor informed those present that the borough was aware of the "HUD" problems as early as 1980. b. The Statute of Limitations would preclude any litigation as of this date. c. The three officials should be asked to make voluntary repayment of the amount of funds received. d. Mr. Pastor had contacted HUD and was informed that the borough must reimburse HUD for disallowed costs or the borough could suffer later. e. Mr. Pastor believed it best to satisfy HUD by expending an amount equal to the disallowed costs on a specific project to the benefit of the borough. f. Mr. Pastor did not discuss this option with the solicitor. 15. Minutes of the Borough Council meetings reflect the following regarding the disallowed costs: a. June 13, 1985, a motion was made and vote taken to reimburse HUD for the disallowed costs totaling $24,274.00. The motion was passed with the following vote: Yes - Little, M. Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Buckner; No - Esper, Kasiorek, O'Hare, Schultz (5 yes 4 no). (i) The vote was taken on the advice of Louis Pastor, Mr. Joseph Little Page 6 consultant tc initiate a prlgr am whs off_ involved work on catch basins wythin the borough. b. August 8, 1985, motion to s tisfy the HUD dis- llowod costs is rescinded due to an error re and ,ng .D racy.ay and the reimbursement to HUD. All members present voted in favor of the motion: Buckner, E :per, O'Her Pachuta, Purifoy, Schultz and Tittle. c. September 12, 1985 - a motion is passed to put 4 matter of the disallowed costs up for a public h€r ':i.ng, Those who voted in favor: Buckner, Pachuta, Purif w; Abstaining: Braszo, Little, Kasiorek, Esper, Schultz. d. October 28, 1985 (special to satisfy the HUD audit. tie vote: For the motion Little; Against - O'Hare, meeting) - a motion is ir.ade The motion is tablod on a - Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Schultz, Esper, Kasiob ek. e. November 6, 1985 - Motion to satisfy the HUD audit is passed on a roll call vote: In favor - Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little; Against - Esper, Kasiorek. f. June 19, 1986 (special meeting) motions were rde to allocate funds from the Community Development Program account to companies to perform work under the HUD approved program to satisfy the disallowed costs: (i) Motion to declare an emergency for the demolitions of property located at 132 E. 12th Avenue. In favor: I. Braszo, M. Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little. Against: Schultz. Abstain: Kasiorek. (ii) Motion to open bids for 3 catch basins. In favor: I. Braszo, M. Braszo,, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little. Against: Schultz, Kasiorek. tiii) Motion to open bids for demolition. In favor: I. Braszo, M. Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little. Against: Schultz, Kasiorek. (iv) Motion to accept and award the bid of $4,200.00 to Port Vue Plumbing. In tavo:: Braszo, M. ?'raszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Mr. Joseph Little Page 7 Little. Against: Kasiorek. Abstain: Schultz. (v) Motion to accept and award the bid of $11,432.00 to J. Karis. In favor: I. Braszo, M. Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little. Against: Kasiorek. Abstain: Schultz. (vi) Motion to accept the contract of Chernco Cleaning Company for $1,250.00. In favor: I. Braszo, M. Braszo, Pachuta, Purifoy, Little. Against: Kasiorek. Abstain: Schultz. (vii) Discussion: If money is not spent by June 30, 1986, Borough will have to return money to HUD. HUD has approved all the projects that have been paid out of the Homestead CD program 1986 account. 16. A borough check ledger, February 1986 entry indicates the issuance of check No. J 9146 in the amount of $24,274.00 transferred to the Borough of Homestead Community Development Program Account. 17. In July, 1985, Charles P. McCullough, Borough Solicitor, received a request from a member of council requesting his opinion on, 1. reimbursing HUD with monies from the general fund, 2. elected officials receiving ineligible grants, and 3. those same elected officials voting on the motion to reimburse HUD. The opinion dated August 27, 1985 noted the following points: a. 'Council did not reimburse HUD but rather expended an amount on borough projects equal to the disallowed costs. b. Benefiting the borough in this manner would satisfy any obligation to HUD. c. The HUD audit had identified the funds allocated to the three borough officials as ineligible. d. The fact that these officials received funds in contrast to federal regulations is a breach of the contract between HUD and the municipality. e. The appropriate remedy in such a situation is to return the amount of funds not properly used. Ar. Joseph l Page 8 f. HUD may waive conflict Lf interests and ha( is 1e borough o ficials obtain a waiver from HUD the funds would have been properly received. It wrs the borough's responsibility to obtain such a waiver. h. The State Ethics Act would not prohibit such a grant providEd that the public officials were not given special considerations. i. The borough was in clear violation of the applicable regulations. j. HUD advised the borough that it was responsible for reimbursement of disallowed costs. k. Council did not by its action of June 13, 1.985 ratify or approve the disallowed costs such that zecoulse could not be commenced against those who were responsible for the lack of compliance with regulations. i. The councilpersons had no personal interest in the vote to expend $24,274.00 on the manhole project rather 'flan reimburse HUD because it was the borough's responsibility to reimburse HUD for the disala.or 1 costs. As such these officials had no personal interest in the matter. m. Council made a prudent decision to allocate fui:dc to complete a borough project rather than just forward . funds to HUD and obtain nothing in return. 18. By letter dated December 9, 1985 from Mr. McCullough to councilperson Marcella Schultz, Mr. McCullough states that i -ems investigation and a hearing it was determined that there was no basis for commencement of litigation in this matter. a. He opined that there is a statute of limitation problem. b. The borough may purge itself of its disallowed costs by undertaking a project. It is not clear whether the costs to the borough couJ.d le imputed to the recipients of the funds or if they could c)aim negligence in the borough's action in giving them the funds contrary to federal regulations. Mr. Joseph Little Page 9 19. Henry Smith, a Community Development Consultant for the borough testified during a deposition relating to this matter - as follows: a. He was aware of the HUD conflict of interest provisions. b. These provisions prohibited a public official from being directly or indirectly interested in the grant programs. c. He made these provisions known at public meetings of council. d. This was done prior to the award of grants to Mr. Aber, Braszo and Little. e. The matter of their participation was referred to the solicitor for legal opinion. f. The solicitor, Mr. McLean issued an opinion indicating that they could participate in the program if they conformed to the regulations. The solicitor questioned HUD on the issue but received no response. g. h. Smith stated that Council voted to accept the legal opinion of McLean, and based their decision to go ahead with the grants and loans on the legal opinion and the non - response from HUD. 20. Charles McCullough, former borough solicitor, provided the following information in relation to this situation: a. He did not become aware of the situation with HUD until June, 1985. b. Louis Pastor, the business manager from 1980, and then consultant from 1982, never told anyone about the correspondence he had been having with HUD concerning the disallowed costs. c. The audit was never disseminated to council. Pastor was very secretive about everything. d. Pastor had misrepresented the issue of satisfying the costs with HUD by stating that if they did not vote for his program, the borough would have to pay back the disallowed costs in cash. L.itti ,.. 10 e. He colild understand how council members could ' misunderstpnd what money w s being used to satisfy th . disallowed costs because the reference became known e. "HUD" money. f. Anytime the source of the funds was que$tioIJd,,t was referred to as "HUD" money. g. The borough does not keep separate accounts within the general fund, all the revenues are lumped together. h. The $24,274.00 was spent on sewer and water projects with the exception of the sanding of the monument in the park. The money was taken from the sewer ar.d water revenues, which was the borough's largest source of income. The money would have been spent on these kinds of projects, regardless of the HUD reimbursement. i. He did not consult the Ethics Commission because he thought then and still believes that he understands the law concerning direct and indirect gain. He felt that there was no gain to the officials which resulted from their official status. That the vote on the borough project was strictly a matter of getting the borough out of the problem with HUD, and not designed to relieve Little and Braszo of any liability. both Little and Braszo stated that they would repay the monies if someone could show they did something wrong, by abstaining they would have shown their culpability. j• 1. Council voted on the express recommendation of th1/4 . borough consultant. m. As homeowners, they would have been entities to the grant funds if a waiver had been submitted, which through no fault of their own was not done. n. At no point did HUD hold any of the three individuals personally responsible for the monies that they had been allocated, rather the borough was held accountable for failure to properly administer the proc're.m. o. The vote was necessary to make sure that HUD did not cut off any future spending for which the borough might he eligible. Mr. Joseph Little Page 11 21. Mr. Lynn Daniels, a representative from HUD who was involved in the meetings with Pastor, McCullough, and various council members, stated the following: a. He met with McCullough and Little to discuss the proposed program submitted by the borough to satisfy the disallowed costs. b. He assumed that Pastor had general or direct direction from council. c. He may have said that the three borough officials were not responsible for the costs. That is because they (HUD) look to the corporate entity of the borough for failure to properly administer the program. He finds it difficult to see that the individuals felt that they had no responsibility, they should have requested waivers. d. It is HUD's contention that the municipality owes, not the individual. e. During the period of time 1977 -1979, waivers were almost consistently not granted, they were not interested in the bad public opinion. They almost certainly would not have granted three elected officials from the same borough, waivers. 22. John Johnson, representative from HUD advised that there is an important distinction between a grant and a loan. a. Grant Funds are not required to be repaid. b. than funds must be repaid. 23. You never repaid any of the funds received under the grant program. 24. You stated the following regarding this situation: a. You had no problem in repaying the $119.00 if someone told you to do so. b. You do not recall Henry, Smith ever stating that there were problems with you and Aber and Braszo, as elected officials, participating in the Block Grant Program. You believed that Smith had a good hold on running the program. .1r. Joseph Attie Page 12 c. You stated that „ we; . not . 1 - 4.de ay'are of point L 3 in Exhibit "A" o. - inancial Assistance Agreemen�. for HUD prescribed requirements until after you were participating in the program, and that there should be a waiver that was never obtained. (Dealing with the conflict of interest of public officials). d. You stated that HUD never requested that you repay the money, or indicated that you should not have been allowed to participate in the program. e. You voted to satisfy the disallowed costs because the Borough benefited from the program, and in order to get on with borough business, it was necessary to get HUD off the Council's back. f. You borrowed the difference in the total cost (7 your loan from the credit union, at the mill where you worked ($851.00). g. The solicitor at the time that the loan was ap;roved advised you that it was appropriate for you to participate therein. h. You believed, at the time, that your participrtio -1 in the program was appropriate. Discussion: As councilperson for Homestead Borough, you are =i "public official" as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. C.a P.S. 402; 51 Pa. Code Section 1.1; Rider, Order No. 490-R. As uch, your conduct is subject to the provisions of the Eta '1ic5 Act. Sectidh 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) basically provides that a public official may not use his public office or confidential information to obtain financial rain other than compensation as himself or member of his immediate family. V1Underolai law for_ Mr. Joseph Little Page 13 provision, this Commission has determined that the use of office by a public official to obtain a gain or benefit for himself or a member of his immediate family which is not provided for in law constitutes a "financial gain other than compensation provided for by law." These determinations have been appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania which has affirmed the Orders of the Commission. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Co w. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983). See also Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, Pa. Conunw. 536 (1987). Thus, under this provision a ublic . 531 may not use his public position to secure any financial gain a for himself or a member of his immediate family unless it is provided for by law. Domalakes, Opinion 85 -010. In the instant situation, you received a grant of $119.00 resulting from the adoption by borough council of the resolution in May of 1976 for Homestead Preservation Home Improvement Program. Since HUD has certain requirements to insure that public officials do not use their position to obtain a gain or benefit for themselves at the expense of other individuals, it would have been necessary for the members of council who were interested in applying for and receiving these grants to request a waiver from HUD. Such a request for a waiver from HUD was not sought; nevertheless, you participated in this program and received the above stated grant. Parenthetically, the funds received were grant but not loan monies. Thus, the funds in question were acknowledged to be grant monies by Borough Consultant, Louis Pastor. Likewise borough that the funds received by councilmemberstwherefied the ineligible expenditures, indicated that those funds were grants rather than loan monies. (Finding 12). Robert Tomasic specifically found tha�the ngrantsureceived bydit, Ivan Braszo, David Aber, and Joseph Little under the program were obtained without the required HUD waiver. Specifically, it was determined by Mr. Tomasic that you received $119.00 of funds under this grant program. HUD wrote to the borough solicitor by letter' of August 20, 1985 specifically advising that you and the other two participants were not eligible to participate in the program without the required waiver which could not be retroactively approved. Further, the solicitor wrote to borough consultant Pastor on September 18, 1985 confirming a meeting wherein inter alia Mr. Pastor advised that the three officials in question should be asked to make voluntary repayment of the funds and secondly that the borough expend an amount of money, equal to the disallowed costs, on specific projects for the benefit of the borough so as to satisfy HUD. Thereafter, in a June 13, 1985 Borough meeting, you voted in favor of a motion which would reimburse HUD from borough funds. After the foregoing motion was rescinded, a September 12, 1985 motion was passed which would put the matter of disallowed costs up for a public hearing on which Page 14 you abstained. On October 28, 1985, you .otec: in . favor o motion which would satisfy the HUD audit. Althor gL. - � . �he October 21, 1985 motion was tabled, it was passed on November 6, 198S wherein you voted in favor of said motion. 'n th_' epfcial meeting of June 19, 1986, you voted in favor of mctlonr to allocate funds for the purpose of performini work under HLD approved programs so as to satisfy the disallowed cost. Following the foregoing actions, the borough records r�..`i -ac �- that a check in the amount of $24,274.00 was transferred in fu.r. ierance of the foregoing action. In July of 1985, a me - fiber of r^ouncil requested advice from the solicitor as to the propriety of reimbursing HUD with monies from the general fund as well as the propriety of the receipt of ineligible grants and your voting on the motion to reimburse HUD. The solicitor war: cf 'e opinion, in his response, that the expenditures on borough oroiects was not an expenditure of funds to reimburse HUD, that mi^h action would, in any event, satisfy the obligation to HUD, ' ' ^.at the receipt of the ineligible grants was a breach of the contract between HUD and the borough, that the appropriate remedy viuld be to return the funds that were not properly used., that the borough was in violation of HUD regulations but it did not -ratify or approve the disallowed costs against those individuals who were out of compliance with regulations and that the councilmembers voting did not have a personal interest in the expenditure on the theory that it was the borough's responsibility to reimburse HUD. It is also noted that cor:;munity development consultant, Henry Smith, in public meetings prior to the award of grants, made known the provision that borough officials could not be either directly or indirectly interested in grant programs. Although the initial action of applying for or participating in this program occurred prior to the inception of the Ethics -Act, there is a use of office through your various voting in 1985 and 1986, the net result of which was to apply general expenditures to satisfy this HUD requirement thereby alleviating the necessity of you personally reimbursing HUD foi the grant that you received for which you were ineligible. Thus, you used your public office through voting to have the borough satisfy your own personal obligation as to your ineligible giant which you should have repaid to HUD. This Commission has held that use of public office which results in personal financial gain to a public official transgresses Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. See Huff, Opinion No. 84 -015. See also Domalakes, supra. Therefore, you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in th?t you are a public official who used your public office throug'i voting to obtain financial gain which was the reimbursement of the ineligible grant to you from general borough expenditures Which was not compensation provided for by law. Mr. Joseph Little Page 15 The State Ethics Act provides as follows: Section 9. Penalties. (a) Any person who violates the provisions of Section 3(a) and 3(b) is guilty of a felony and shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or be both fined and imprisoned. 65 P.S. Section 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. Section 409(c). In addition to the above, the State Ethics Act provides that the Commission may forward the results of an investigation to the appropriate prosecuting authority unless the alleged offender removes himself from the conflict of interest by divesting himself of any financial gain received in violation of the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. Section 407 9 iii State Ethics Commission, supra; the Commission may order v. restitution of financial gains received in violation of the law. The foregoing principle was recently reaffirmed by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, supra. In the cited case, the Court held inter alia that a township supervisor violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when he received a salary for the position of secretary/ereasurer which had not been set by the auditors. The Court, in affirming the Order of the Ethics Commission which required a restitution of the financial gain, noted on page 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." Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has also upheld the right to institute a collection suit for the recovery of restitution ordered by this Commission. See Commonwealth of Penns lvania and Union Townshi v. James Fee, Pa. Commw. December 1, 1987 at 1932 C.D. 1987. (1987) filed on - ix. Joseph Li :tle l'e ge 16 ..n this case:, the total pa ylents whici b re.T(,ifred °y ycu totals $13.9.00. Said sum must be returned to the ovrrnmental body from which it was received, the Boroug'i o.: Homestead. You are accordingly directed within 30 days from 'he date of tiis order to forward a check to the State Ethics Commission payable to the order of Homestead Borough in the amount of $119.00. Failure to comply will result in the referral of t.is :matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority for :eview and' appropriate action. Conclusion and Order: 1. As an elected borough councilmember in Homestead Borough, you are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you vocee in favor of expending borough funds to satisfy a ri,JD r ..ire � ►art regarding ineligible grant received by you. You Ere hereby directed, within 30 days from the date of this '_rder to forward a check to the State Ethics Commission payable to the order of Homestead Borough in the amount of $119.00. 4. Failure to forward the aforementioned check within the 30 day . _.me period will result in the referral of this matter . L.- the •pprooriate law enforcement authority for review and appropriate action. Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). .Towever, this Order is final and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) unless . 'Tou file documentation with the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. Fee 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Mr. Joseph Little Page 17 Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, G. Sieber Pancoast Chairman