HomeMy WebLinkAbout633 SrongMr. Samuel H. Strong
Box 95
Irvona, PA 16656
Re: 85 -124 -C
Dear Mr. Strong:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 633
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 Borough Council member of Irvona, Pennsylvania,
violated Section 3(a) of the State 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 other than compensation
provided by law and Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act which involves a public
official or public employee contracting with their governmental body by having
the Borough pay bills to P & S Trucking, a firm in which you are an owner.
A. Findings:
1. You served on the Irvona Borough Council from 1982 to 1985.
a. You resigned in late 1985 before your last term expired.
2. You are 50 %'owner of a company known as P & S Land Development, which was
started in approximately 1977.
a. Your partner and nephew is Jeff Parks, also an Irvona Borough Council
person.
b. In 1984, P & S Land Development entered into the trucking business
under the name P & S Trucking. .
Mr. Samuel H. "tro :71
Pare 2
c. P & S Land Development was started with tho in;entin o' ttua11y
stripping the land icr coal.
d. During the first year and a half of the trucking business, yet,
employed a driver by the name of Theodore Gallagher. After that
time, Jeff Parks worked as a driver.
3 . loll are employed full -time as a Guidance Counselor in the Glendale School
District. You also have a tax business which you run out of your home.
a. You worked summers for seven years for a company known as Glendale
Year Around, which is a land development company. Your position
there was as a project manager.
4. in January, 1984, you and Jeff Parks were appointed to the Borough Street
, :onmittee. Chairman John Patterson was automatically a member of all
committees.
a. You stated that each committee had the authority to do wha was
necessary in their area of responsibility.
�. Mi Ntes of the borough council meeting provide, in part, as fo l l rws during
1954 concerning the roads:
March 5 - Denny O'Shell requested a road be opened to his property.
May 7 - The Street Canmi ttee discussed opening the street to the
Denny 0 ° Shell property, trees to be cut, survey tb be made.
Committee to talk with Cambria Mills Coal Company about using their
equipment to grade the area.
June 4 - Street Committee discussed opening of the street to
O'She] l's property, trees to be cut, dig ditch and grade. Discussed
repairs to the alley in back of the borough building, grade and
place 2 RC.
b.
c.
July 2 - Street Committee discussed using a spreader box on street to
Wagner's and at McMillans and the alleys. Parks to check on the
roller. Strong to get a price on spreader box.
e. August 6 - Moshannon Paving quoted a price of $350 /day for a spreader
box, should do all necessary work in one day.
Mr. Samuel H. Strong
Page 3
f. October 1 - Motion is made by William Peterson to have a spreader box
to place 2 RC on Wagner Road, alley and road to O'Shell's at a cost
of $350. The motion was tabled.
g. November 5 - The motion is made by William Collins, if the Street
Committee felt there is time to work on the streets to start. Motion
is seconded and carried. Present: Patterson, Strong, McCusker and
Collins.
6. In August 1984, P & S Trucking began hauling SS 2 RC material from
Moshannon Paving to the Borough of Irvona, for the Borough, to stockpile in
preparation of road work.
7. Records of the borough provide as follows regarding invoices from P & S
Trucki ng.
a. P & S Trucking invoice dated September 10, 1984 to Irvona Borough for
hauling SS 2 RC stone on 5 days; 22.5 hours at $30 per hour. Total:
$675.
b. P & S Trucking invoice dated October 1, 1984..for hauling 2 RC
sandstone on 5 days; 22 hours at $30 per hour. Total: $660.
c. P & S Land Development invoice dated November 5, 1984 for hauling 2
RC sandstone on 2 days; 12 hours at $30 per hour. Total : $360.
8 . Records of Irvona Borough indicate the following regarding payments from
the borough to your company:
a. Irvona .Borough, Street fund check No. 439 dated September 10, 1984 in
the amount of $675 payable to P & S Trucking.
b. Irvona Borough, Street Fund check No. 432 dated October 1, 1984 in
the amount of $660 payable to P & S Trucking.
c. Irvona Borough Street fund check No. 436 dated November 5, 1984 in
the amount of $360 payable to P & S Land Development.
9. You stated that the day John Patterson called Moshannon Paving and got an
estimate for the amount of material that the borough would need for the road
improvements, he also stated that you and Parks might as well start
hauling.
N!; Samuel H. Strom?
a. There was no discussion or vote documents " in the minutes of '"c
borough council meetings that involved the hiring of P & S `t rtcki.: 3 '
to haul material for the borough.
b. There was no bid advertised to haul material for the borough.
0. You stated that Chairman Patterson advised you that you and Park, were
allowed to make up to $1,000 each, as stated in the borough code. You . Loot
Pattet °sun's word for this since he had the most experience on counci; .
a. You stated that the funds received from the borough, ($1,675)
included charges for hauling from a company in Tyrone (W� mars) .
This was not documented, although Secretary Betty Wfliams stated
that she did not recall the borough doing any business with Warners.
,,.
'au stated that the borough was not charged for some of the hours
that material was hauled from Moshannon Paving. If a truck way -ping
back empty, and coming from that direction, a load_would be pick,.a up
and the borough would not be charged.
You stated that even though you did not think that P & S f rucks m
would be involved in hauling as much as they did for the borough, you
knew it would cost well over $500.
d. You stated that you were not made aware of the restricted activities
of the State Ethics Act until well after the hauling was f i ni s;.ed .
0 . You stated that you did not think about advertising for a bid since
there was a $2,500 minimum on contracts that were required to be
advertised.
11. You stated that P & S Trucking did the hauling for the borough wit. gocJ
-ntentions, believing that you could do it for less cost to the borough.
a. The operating costs P & S Trucking were approximately 20% to fuel and
the driver was paid 25% of the gross. b. You estimated that you
personally made between $300 and $400 after taxes and expenses from
the hauling for the borough. Parks would have made approximately the
same amount.
12. After the hauling was finished, and questions were raised about P & S
Trucki m,. having done the work, you stated that you talked with the solicitor
who advised that you send a letter to the Ethics Commission explaining the
details coy �cerning the business done for the Borough by P & S Trucking. Zou,
Mr. Samuel H. Strong
Page 5
Parks and Patterson wrote a letter to the State Ethics Commission. You stated
that you put a lot of faith in Patterson, and felt that he was doing all that
could be done.
13. A review of borough records for the years 1982 through 1987 indicate that
no Statements of Financial Interests were on file for you.
14. In regard to the filing of your Statement of Financial Interests which is
not on file at the Borough office:
a. You stated that you did file, and remember filing a Statement which
listed the $1,675 as earnings made from the borough.
b. You stated that you did file when you ran for office, and that you
filed again when you first took office at the request of Secretary
Betty Williams.
c. You stated that the solicitor sent you a form to fill out in 1986
after you left office.
d. You stated that the solicitor sent you a form to fill out in 1986
after you left office.
e. You remembered that a group of people had access to all the records
of the borough when the borough was going through so much turmoil.
You were alluding to the fact that some records may have been
misplaced or taken.
f. You were given forms to complete at the time of your interview and
requested to file them with the borough and a copy to the Ethics
Commission within three weeks.
15. On November 30, 1987 the State Ethics Commission received Statements of
Financial Interests from you as follows:
Date For Year
November 23, 1987 1985
November 23, 1987 1984
November 23, 1987 1983
November. 23, 1987 1982
'muel H. Strop. ,
Pe7 -
B. Discussion: As a counci lnn {nber for Irvona Bcrougi., you ere t "-public
. f i c L 1 " as that term is defined in the Ethics Act. See Patterson, No. 04;
._5 P.S, §402; 51 Pa. Code §2.1. As such, your conduct is subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to
you.
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(a) No public official or public employee si.:ll use his
p°iblic office or any confidential information rece'ved
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 rot i.:e hi
public office or confidential information to obtain a financial gain other
t'.'n- compensation as provided for by law for himself or a busirfss with -,,rich
he is associated. Under this provision, this Commission has determined - ',;hat
`,.he use of office by a public official to obtain a gain or benefit for himself
or a business with which he is associated which is not provided for in law
'°unstitutes a "financial gain other than compensation provided for by ?ay."
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. Commw. 529 (1983). See also Yocabet v.
S'ate Ethics Commission, Pa. Commw. , 531 A.2d 536 11987). Thus, under
ti.is provision, a public official may not use his public position to secure
any financial gain for himself or a business with which he is associated
!finless it is provided for by law. Domalakes, 85 -010.
In addition to the foregoing, the State Ethics Act provides as follows:
Section 3. Restricted activities.
(c) No public official or public employee or a member of
his immediate family or any business in which the person
or a member of the person's immediate family is a
director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5%
of the equity at fair market value of the business shall
enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with a
governmental body unless the contract has been awarded
through an open and public process, including prior public
In relation to the above provision of law, this Commission has generally
determined that this provision is a procedure to be used when a
public
official or employee contracts with his own governmental body in excess of
$500• Bre n, 80 -014; Lynch, 79 -047.
This procedure, the open and public process, must be used in all
situations where a public official is otherwise appropriately contracting with
his own governmental body in excess of $500. This open and public process
would require:
(1) prior public notice of the employment or contracting possibility;
(2) sufficient time for a reasonable and prudent competitor /applicant to
be able to prepare and present an application or proposal;
(3) public disclosure of all applications or proposals considered and;
must
Mr. Samuel H. Strong
Page 7
notice and subsequent public disc
considered and contracts awarded.
violation of this subsection shal
of competent jurisdiction if the
90 days of making of the contract
losure of all proposals
Any contract made in
1 be voidable by a court
suit is commenced within
. 65 P.S. 403(c).
(4) public disclosure of the contract awarded and offered and accepted.
See, Cantor, 82 -004.
Thus, in the event that contracting would be allowed, the above process
be employed.
In the instant matter, you were both a member of borough council, a
member of the borough street committee and also a co- partner in the trucking
business known•as P & S Trucking.
"Business with which he is associated" is defined under the Ethics Act as
follows: ' ,
Section 2, Definitions.
"Business
which the
family is
of stock.
with which he is associated." Any business in
person or a member of the person's immediate
a director, officer, owner, employee or holder
65 P.S. §402.
it;r. Samuel H. StrL
P;ge 8
Thus, P & S Trucking was a business with which you were associated as
that term is defined under the Ethics Act. The facts in this case establish
that n & S Trucking did contracting work for the borough by hauling scndstone
and stone on several occasions. P & S Trucking suLmitted invoices or this
work dated September 10, 1984 and October 1, 1984 for which the borough issued
checks No. 439 in the amount of $675 and check No. 432 in the amount of $660
to P & S Trucking.
Although this Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence to
establish a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act because the evidenr
and, in particular, the minutes do not reflect any use chi your part of public
office in awarding the contract to P & S Trucking, a violation of Sr 3(c)
of the Ethics Act did occur because P & S Trucking, the business with which
you were associated, was awarded a contract in excess of $500 with your
governmental body and none of the four conditions outlined above were followed
in the award of that contract: there was no public notice, no Vane rr
opportunity for a competitor to present an application, no ,'ublic disclosure
of the applications and no subsequent disclosure after the , ontract was
awarded. Since the above criteria were not satisfied in th, award of this
contract which was in excess of $500 to your business, this was a violation of
Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act.
Lastly, it is noted that on November 23, 1987, you filed Statements of
Finanical Interests with this Commission for the years you served on the
Irvona Borough Council, 1982 through 1985. However, Section 4(a) of the
rthics Act provides in part:
"Any other public employee shall file a statement of
:I nanci al interests with the governing authority of the
political subdivision by which he is employed no later
than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and
of the year after he leaves such a position." 65 P.S.
§404,(a) .
Under the above quoted provision of law, it is also necessary for you tc
file a Statement of Financial Interests for the year after you left your
position which would be for the year 1986.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1, t s a council memher of Irvona Borough•Council , you are a public official
subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act.
Mr. Samuel H. Strong
Page 9
2. There is insufficient evidence to establish that you violated Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act regarding the award of a contract to P & S Trucking, a
business with which you were associated.
3. You violated Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act when a business with which you
were associated, P & S Trucking, entered into a contract with your
governmental body which was in excess of $500 and which was not awarded
through an open and public process.
4. You are hereby directed within 30 days of the date of this Order to file a
Statement of Financial Interests with the Ethics Commission for the year after
you left your public position which would be 1986.
5. This matter will be referred to the appropriate 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). However, this Order is final
and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined
as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies
reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code
2.38. During this 15 -day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he
waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is
guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned
for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e).
By the Commission,
G. Sieber Pancoast
Cho i rma n