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