HomeMy WebLinkAbout637 FaddisMr. Henry C. Faddis
R.D. #1
Rices Landing, PA 15357
Re: 85 -159 -C
Dear Mr. Faddis:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 637
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:
1. Allegation: That you, a member of the Southwestern Water
Authority, 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 influenced the removal of a
Southwestern Water Authority member because he voted to end the
bonuses that were annually awarded to the employees of the
authority which included your son.
A. Findings:
1. You' were appointed by the Jefferson Township Super visors to
the Southwestern Water Authority Board in 1984 to a five -year
term, which you are serving at this time.
2. The Southwestern Water Authority is comprised of seven
members. Four appointments are made by the Jefferson Township
Supervisors and three appointments are made by the Jefferson
Borough Council.
3. You have a son, Timothy C. Faddis, who is currently working
for the authority as a laborer.
a. Timothy Faddis applied for a job with the authority on
February Q8, 1984.
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 2
b. 'imothy Faddis' date of birth is August 16, He
was 18 years old at the date of his application to the
authority.
c. As a laborer, Timothy Faddis' rate of pay is
established by the union contract and is not affected
by management bonuses or raises.
4. The Southwestern Water Authority Board meeting minutes
reflect the fallowing in rev rd to the hiring of your son and
setting of salaries:
a. April 10, 1984 - motion made for recommendation of the
following men to be hired for the summer provic'ed they
present proof of matriculation or attendance at a
college or university: Bates, B1ock,.Broadwater, Eric
Cottle, Elliott, Tim Faddis, William Faddis, Haney
Mosier, Rumancik, Sahady, Scott Tekavec, Virgin,
Yoders; at a rate of $3.50 /hour.
he motion was unanimously adopted with the following
members present: Parker, Tekavec, Cottle, Barno,
Harvey, Palone.
b. March 7, 1985 - a motion to approve the rebruary 7,
1985 minutes with an amendment in regard to the
identification of persons approved to take physical
examinations with such motion to hereafter read as
follows:
Upon motion duly made, seconded and unanimously
adopted, it was resolved that Messrs. Filby,
Barno, and Faddis were approved to take physical
examinations for employment by the Authority as
temporary employees for the standard probationary
period.
Upon ;otion duly made, seconded and unanimously
adopted, it was resolved that Tim Faddis be employed as
a temporary employee at a salary of $7.00 per hour
effective March 11, 1985.
Members present: Parker, e!kevec, Cottle, Barno,
Harvey, Falone and Faddis.
c. June 6, 1985 - motion to approve the May 2, 1985
i:iinutes with a correction, upon motion duly made,
seconded and ur ,L::mously ,Jor:'.:ed, approved subject to
the following:
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 3
Upon motion duly made, seconded and adopted by
the note of Ben Parker, Joseph Tekavec, Forest '
Cottle, Albert Harvey and Arthur Palone, it was
resolved that Gary Filbey, Tim Faddis and Charles
Jay Barno be made permanent employees of the
authority with their salary set at the regular
rate, effective May 1, 1985. Charles Barno and
Clay Faddis abstained from such vote.
Again you stated that you did not vote for your son.
After receipt from the manager of suggested increases
in administrative and secretarial salaries, the
chairman referred such report for review by a
committee composed of Albert Harvey and Joseph Tekavec.
5. Payroll records of Timothy C. Faddis reflect that he was paid
the following:
1985 - $23,975,93.
1986 - $28,880.45.
6. As a result of'Chairman Parker's appointment at the June 6,
1985 meeting of a committee to review administrative salaries,
(refer to finding 5(a)) a committee meeting was scheduled before
the next authority meeting of July 10, 1985.
7. Interviews with authority members Tekavec, Harvey and Parker
and Authority manager Simatic confirmed the following regarding
the committee and meetings:
a. When committees are formed, usually only the chairman
and the committee members attend and participate in the
discussions.
b. The meeting occurred sometime in June, 1985. In
attendance were you, board members Cottle, Tekavec,
Harvey and Joseph Simatic. No minutes of that meeting
were kept.
c. Chairman Parker did not attend this meeting.
d. Tekavec, Harvey and Simatic agreed that you and Faddis
participated in the discussions regarding the salaries
of all non - union personnel. This was considered
unusual.
e. The salary discussions would not have effected any
increases for your son.
9. Minutes of the Southwestern Water Authority Board meetings
also disclosed the following:
Mr. i -enry C. Faddis
PF.ge 4
a. May 6, 1(;32 - discus to eliminate overtime at the
plant.
h. November 3, 1983 - upon the managers recommendation, a
motion was made and unanimously adopted, for management
personnel to be paid a one month bonus for overtime
worked.
c. November 1, 1984 - a motion was made to pay a month's
salary for overtime to Bartoletti, Belan, Buskirk,
Holupka, Coneybeer, Gacek and Simatic.
d. November 7, 1985 - Chairman informed John Hannigan that
Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal Authority Act of
1945 P.L. 382, amended by Act No. 7, 1978, Mr. Hannigan
was not able to be seated as a member of the board
until after the Jefferson Township organizational
meeting to be held in January of 1986. It is noted
that the term of Joseph Tekavec extends to December 31,
1985.
9. Jose 01 Tekavec was appointed to the Southwestern 'later
Authority by the Jefferson Township Supervisors. H' served three
five year terms. He was not reappointed to Au;hor i ty by the
Jefferson Township Supervisors when his term expired at thF end
of December, 1985.
10. Minutes of the Jefferson Township Supervisors disclose the
following regarding Tekavec's replacement.
a. July 25, 1985 - White made a motion to appoint Join
Hannigan to Water Board in October when Mr. Tekavec's
term expires. Bane seconded, Mitchell disagreed at
this time.
b.
October 10, 1985 - White made a motion t:) reaffirm the
appointment of John Hannigan to water board. Bane
seconded the motion, Mitchell disagreed. By unanimous
decision, Hannigan was appointed to the water board.
(1) White stated that he had heard from former
Supervisor Dick Faddis, that Tekavec had called
nim about a year ago, and told him that if they
could find someone else for his position, it would
be alright with him.
(2) White stated that when Tekavec came to the July
mecting to request a re- appointment, he was
already committed to Hannigan
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 5
(3) White stated that the July vote to appoint
Hannigan was a mistake.
11. Joseph Tekavec advised as follows:
a. He was appointed to the Southwestern Water Authority by
the Jefferson Township Supervisors.
b. He served on the board for approximately (15) years.
c. In June, 1985, he was appointed to serve on a committee
to adjust the wages of authority employees. Also
appointed was Albert Harvey.
d. Standard practice of the authority was that only
appointed committee members attend and participate in
committee meetings.
e. A committee meeting was scheduled for mid -June, 1985.
You and Cottle attended and attempted to dominate the
meeting and encourage large salary increases.
f. At the next regular meeting of the authority, the
salary increments were defeated.
Another committee meeting was scheduled for July 24,
1985. Salaries again were discussed, but increments as
advocated by you and Cottle were defeated.
g.
h. On July 25, 1985 he met with Township Supervisor,
Charles Mitchell and authority member Art Palone who
i n formed that you and Cottle went to the township shed
to complain to the supervisor about his (Tekavec's)
vote to eliminate bonuses.
i. Township Supervisor, Bill White, previously stated that
he did not like what Tekavec did regarding the vote to
eliminate bonuses.
j. He believes he was removed because of this to eliminate
bonuses which affected the sons of Cottle and Faddis.
12. Ben Parker, Southwestern Water Authority Chairman for
approximately ten years, advised as follows:
a. He has served on the authority since 1953 and has been
appointed by Jefferson Borough Council.
Mr., Henry C, Faddis
Page 6
h. Prior to June, 1985, managem personnel were paid
bonuses for overtime h `!!rs. F -11 bor Ltses were the same
except the manager who received more.
c. '1h'= overtime policy was done away with several years
ago :'.fter salaries increased.
d. In 1985, committee was appointed to work out a wage
recommendation. The committee was comprised of Harvey
and Tekavec. The meeting was held when he was out of
town. When he returned, he learned that Cottle and
Faddis had attended the committee meeting. As long as
he can remember, only the board chairman and the
committee members could contribute. Cottle and Faddis
took over the meeting because they wanted to give
outlandish raises.
At the second committee meeting, they set the
secretarial and management wage increases, which
included Tim Cottle's salary. The plan was for Cottle
and Coneybeer to be at the same salary; the two foremen
the same; the chief bookkeeper at another salary; and
the manager at the highest salary. Cottle's increase
brought him closer to Coneybeers. --
f. Cottle wasn't just after getting his son a raise, what
;i wanted was to give everybody a big raise t !;a1ance
the salaries. Mr. Parker opined that the benefit to
Cottle's son was an indirect consequence.
At the second meeting tha; he attended, Faddis declared
to the board that he wanted to know when his son was
going to be hired on the Authority. He was th only
one who ever asked to have his son hired.
13. Jefferson Township Supervisor, William White, provided the
following information:
a. He has served as a township supervisor for
approximately sixteen years.
Appointments to the authority are made by appointing a
representative from the various precincts in the
township.
c. Regarding Tekavec's appointment, Tekavec called D'ck
Faddis the year before (1984) and asked if he could get
someone else for his position of the water authority
board. They started checking into getting someone
else. Tekavec was replaced by Hannigan. Just before
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 7
g•
the July meeting, Tekavec expressed his desire to
remain on the Board.
d. The July 25, 1985 Supervisors' meeting was a mistake.
He thought they could re appoint or remove someone from
the board three months before the end of the term. He
doesn't recall Cottle and Faddis coming down to the
township building and talking about the pay raises at
the authority.
e. John Hannigan asked to be put on the board. He told
Palone and Tekavec that Hannigan and someone else had
asked to be considered for a position on the board.
Tekavec never asked to retain his position until that
night at the supervisors' meeting. At that point, he
had already told Hannigan that he would vote for him.
f. When asked why he•did not consider Tekavec when he
asked to remain on the Authority Board, he stated that
he was already obligated to Hannigan. He stated that
he and Clay Faddis already decided that Palone would be
replaced, and who would replace him. Palone's term was
up at the end of 1987. They had already talked with
someone and told him that his name would be brought up
and promised that person the job.
He never told any of the board members how to vote,
that he never suggested to Tekavec how to vote. Alot
of people came to him to try to get their sons jobs on
the authority.
h. He stated that Cottle did bring the minutes to the
Supervisors. He wrote them down and then brought them
to the supervisors. White stated that he never asked
for them, he doesn't care how they run the authority as
long as they follow the rules and regulations.
i. He never sees Cottle, except at the school where he is
employed, and he is the township auditor.
14. Carl Bane, Jeffer-son Township Supervisor from 1974 through
1983, advised as follows:
a. He thought Hannigan would be a good man to serve on the
authority. He did not know Tekavec, he never attended
any of the authority meetings.
b. Neither Cottle nor Faddis ever talked to him about
removing Tekavec from the authority or how Tekavec was
voting.
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 8
15. Charles Mitchell, a Jefferson Township Supervisor, ..`rom 1982
through 1987, advised as follows:
In regard to the removal of water authority board
member Joseph Tekavec, he supported Tekavec until the
final vote. As far as he was concerned the note taken
in July of 1985 to remove Tekavec was just to show
Tekavec that he was not going to be reappointed. The
reason that the supervisors wanted to remove Tekavec
from the water authority board was to get a "yes" man
off the authority.
b. The point with Cottle and Faddis was not to give
raises, but to give bonuses. He knows for a fact that
one employee had 700 -800 hours of overtime, but they do
not get paid for over -time. He looked at it as over-
time; not that Cottle and Faddis were trying to
influence the Board. He changed his mind about Tekavec
because he could no longer talk to him. He first voted
two times to retain Tekavec, and the third time changed
his vote.
c. At one time he talked to Tekavec and asked him if he
would change his vote, and Tekavec told him that it was
not etched in stone.
d. Faddis comes around the township building
occasionally, Cottle almost never. At one time the
supervisors were getting the minutes of the authority
meetings, and they knew what was going on
e. His main reason for changing his vote for Tekavec, was
because Parker was playing dictator, and he felt that
the authority should operate as a unit, without having
one man control. He said there was no discussion at
tin meetings about Parker or Tekavec.
f. Faddis came down and told the supervisors about the
lopsided vote. Mitchell felt that even if they didn't
get a raise they should get a bonus.
16. According to board member Palone, you had made statements to
the affect that you were going to clean out the board.
a. You attempted to sway Tekavec and Palone to your way of
thinking, knowing that Cottle was on your side already.
b. You attempted to get a four to three majority on the
board to upset the Chairman, Ben Parker,
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 9
17. You provided the following information to a State Ethics
Commission investigator;
a .
You denied voting for your son's hiring at the March 7,
1985 meeting, even though the minutes reflect it was a
unanimous vote. You did talk to Chairman Parker about
his hiring your son.
b. Your reason for attending the Committee meeting and
voting in favor of the above recommendations was that
you were aware of the discrepancies in the salary's of
the secretaries.
c. In regard to the wage committee, you knew of the
discrepancy in the salary's of the secretaries before
the committee was formed. You asked Simatic to call
you when the committee was going to meet. You never
attended a committee meeting before, so it was not
unusual to you for Parker not to be there. You did not
know that Cottle was going to attend. You thought that
Cottle asked to be informed of the meeting date the
same as you had.
d. You stated you voted against the salary adjustments at
the August 1, 1985 authority meeting because you did
not feel that Simatic's raise was right.
e. In regard to the July supervisors' meeting, you never
heard anything about Tekavec being voted out.
f. Your son was not affected by the bonus or the salary
increase recommendations. Your son does not get over
time.
9 You thought that the supervisors were getting copies of
the board minutes.
h. You did apply for a job with the authority, but were
turned down. You took the physical with Dr. Ring who
said nothing was wrong except that you were slightly
overweight. Someone informed Dr. Ring that you had a
heart attack in March, 1 and then the Doctor said
he couldn't give you a release to work until your
doctor released you. You told him that there was no
problem with your doctor. Parker then told the board
at a meeting that you couldn't pass the physical. You
told Parker afterward that he did not appreciate Parker
lying to the board.
Mr. Henry C. Farldis
Page 10
8. Discussion: As a member of the Southwestern Water Authority,
you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics
Act. 65 P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1; Dodaro, Order No. 590-R.
As such, your conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics
Act.
Section 3(p) 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 'utlir of icial mGy
not use his public office or confidential informatics;
financial gain other than compensation as provided for by law for
himself or a member of his immediate family. Under this
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. Commw. 529 466 A.2d 283 (1983). See also Yocabet v. State
Ethics Commission, Pa. Commw. ___, 531 A.2d 536 (1987).
Thus, under this provision, a public official may not use his
public posi -t^ion to secure any financial gain for himself or a
member of his immediate family unless it is provided for by law.
_- a).akes Opinion, 85 -010; Huff Opinion, 94 -015.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Immediate family." A spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent
children. 65 P.S. 402.
Since immediate family is defined to only include a spouse a
minor dependent child, the provision of Section 3'a) would not
include a son who has reached majority. Therefore, under Section
3(a) of the Ethics Act and the definition of "immediate family,"
there is no prohibition upon ypur voting or participating
regarding your adult son.
Mr. Henry C. Faddis
Page 11
In the instant matter, your actions regarding the
termination or removal of an authority member can not be related
to the discontinuance of bonuses to your adult son since your
son, as a laborer, receives compensation pursuant to the terms of
a union contract but does not receive bonuses which are awarded
solely to management, (Finding 3(a)). Further, since your son is
of majority and hence, not included within the Ethics Act
definition of "immediate family," the provisions of Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act are not implicated. As to the termination or
non - renewal of Mr. Tekavec, there is conflicting and
contradictory statements as to the motivation and the reasons for
the removal of Mr. Tekavec and his replacement by Mr. Hannigan.
In any event, there is no evidence under these facts and
circumstances to establish that you used your public office to
exert influence so as to obtain a gain for yourself and for your
adult son under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a member of the Southwestern Water Authority, you are a
public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
2. There is no evidence to establish that you violated Section
3(a) of the Ethics Act regarding the removal of another member of
that authority.
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.
2 5 j4 "- CPRe
G. Sieber Pancoast
Chairman