Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout655 WoodringMr; William Woodring RD #1 Benezette, PA 15821 Re: 86 -083 -C Dear Mr. Woodring: A. Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 655 Date Decided: June 10, 1988 Date Mailed: June 24, 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 Benezette Township Supervisor, 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 authorized payment from township funds for medical insurance /life insurance plans in which you participated. 1. You have served as a Benezette Township Supervisor, for approximately the past nine years. a. You also currently serve as township roadmaster. 2. Records of Benezette Township and the Columbia Insurance Company disclose that the Benezette Township Supervisors received health insurance coverage through Columbia. a. An application and adoption agreement was executed on April 8, 1975 and signed by Frank Gigliotti, agent for Columbia and Jean Tuttle, Benezette Township Secretary - Treasurer. 3. Columbia Insurance Company records confirm that you were insured as follows: a. Policy No.: AKSM -3643 Effective date: January 2, 1980 Coverage: Disability income benefits, employee OPH Plan - E C ; 11iam We _.r b. Pclicy No Effective Coverage: c. Policy No Effective • Coverage: Policy No Effective Coverage: :00 /week, accident and sick plus c' . co Yerage, AOR. . : AKME -0535 date: December 15, 1980 Major Medical - Hospitalization . : K1tC -3643 date: January 2 1980 Cancer . : LKSM -3643 date: January 2, 1980 Life Plan F $10,000.00 plus accidental Beat:., awl dismemberment. e. Columbia representatives informed that AKME covera7 included basic major medical coverage, the AKSM included outpatient medical coverage, weekly disablity benefits and a supplemental accident disability 4. Columbia Insurance Company records disclosed the following _'9anges to township coverage: a. 12- '2 -80: Memo to Rosemary from Franck Gigliotti noting addition to coverage: Raymond Laughlin, cancer coverage family, $35.40. Robin Roberts, family Plan B, $138.84 Robert Larkin, cancer, $4.14. William Woodring, cancer, $30.73. New business turn -in form 7A identifying upgrade in policies. Undated, handwritten policy change sheet noting change in hospitalization coverage type from KSM to KME: Raymond Laughlin - December 15, 1980 - . $1,616.39. Robert Larkin - December 15, 1980 - $552.69. William Woodring - December 15, 1980 - $1,207.89. Mr. William Woodring Page 3 c. January 20, 1981 - Transfer hospitalization form KSM to KME (upgrade). Premium costs: Laughlin $1,616.39. Larkin $522.69. Woodring $1,207.89. Additional upgrade - Raymond Laughlin A/H 83.40 KSM -3019 Credit $16.68 Total: $66.72 d. December 7, 1982 - Memo from Frank Gigliotti to Rosemary Huber upgrading benefits effective November 15, 1982. Add $50.00 /weekly benefit, $9,000 life insurance and a death and disability benefit. New Business Turn -in form 7A, upgrade costs: $50.00 weekly disability. Laughlin $58.32. Woodring $33.04. Life Insurance: Laughlin: $24.95. Woodring: $24.95. 5. Records of the Columbia Insurance Company disclose that premium payments were made on your behalf by Benezette Township as follows: a. 1980: Policy No. KSM 3643 - $381.84 - accident 10.56 - life $394.40 KMC 3643 - $32.40 Cancer b. January 8, 1980: New business turn -in form 7A identifying you as replacing Gordon Whitcomb. Premium notice Policy No.: KSM 3643 - hr. William rryc thing Page 4 1982: December 20, 1980: $72.82 - 21/2 months. For ' _y agent Frank Giglotti. Upgrade cancer coverac*e /or femi.' y, premium $30.73. a. January 20, 1981: Invoice for transfer of hospii:alization from KSM to KME (increased benefits) $1,207.89. Invoice dated 1/19/82, Policy No. AKME 0535 AKSM 3643 LKSM 3643 Invoice 6/8/82, due 8/15/82. Policy No. KMC 3643 - $58.00 f. 12 -7 -82: Memo noting upgrading of benefits, effective 11- 15 -82, adding $50.00 to weekly disability, $9,000 to life insurance, and adding a death and disability benefit. New business turn -in form 7A for $9,000 insurance and death benefit - $33.04, addix $50.00 weekly disability $24.95. g. 1983: Invoice 1/19/83, Policy No. AKME AKSM LKSM due to 3/15/82. - $1,398.60 - Accident - - 230.20 - Health - 10.56 - Life $1,639.36 due 3/15/83 0535 - $1,317.84 3643 - 193.61 3743 - 112.80 $1,624.25 Premium notice, noting error to Policy No. AKSM 3643 - increase to $266.81 Total premium to $1,697.45. Invoice 6/20/83, due 8/15/83: Policy No. AKMC 3643 - $66.70. h. 1984: Invoice 1/6/84, due 3/15/84: AKME 0535 - $1,515.52 AKSM 3643 - 306.83 $1,822.35 Noted on invoice was handwritten note from Robin Mr. William Woodring Page 5 Roberts, township secretary /treasurer that life insurance coverage were dropped. i. 1985: Invoice 3/1/85, due date 3/15/85 (second notice). Policy No. AKME 0535 - $1,515.52 AKSM 3643 - 306.83 $1,822.35 Paid 4/1/85, check no. 2619. j:` 1986: Invoice 2/28/86, due date 3/15/86. Handwritten on this invoice was, the auditors for Benezette Township did not approve hospitalization. Therefore, this policy will not be renewed. Note signed by Janice Wilson, township secretary. 6. Columbia records confirm that no refunds were made regarding your coverage. Your policies lapsed and were not renewed by the township. 7. Minutes of the Benezette Township Supervisors disclosed the following in regards to questions raised about the supervisors receipt of insurance benefits: a. March 5, 1984, Page 124: Citizens present to discuss insurance for supervisors. Major concerns e�cpressed at costs of $6,767.47, which is more than half real estate taxes. Letter from Solicitor Richard Masson read stating that nothing illegal in current coverage. Auditors stated PSATS, Marion Nailor, was contacted, who stated insurance is not illegal but may be unethical. Auditor Chairperson Pauline Pansi asked why the supervisors did not present policies when asked to do so. Following decision reached by the supervisors, all benefits carried for the secretary /treasurer will be dropped (volunteered by the secretary /treasurer) amounting to $1,249.35. Supervisors also will drop coverage for supervisors' life insurance ($381.12) and cancer insurance ($207.). Total decrease of $1,737.47. Super isors ',tate ° will not drop any of • L. accident covere7e. b. April 2, 1984, Page 127: Old Business. Citizens present to ask what decisions were made concerning supervisors' benefits. Supervisors report that as read in the minutes coverage in the amount of $1,737.47 were dropped. No further reductions will be made at this time. PSATS newsletter of March 5, 1984, which discusses State Ethics Commission rulings was read. c. August 6, 1984, Page 134: Reported that the cancer policy from Columbia Insurance due, policy to expire August 15, 3984. Supervisors to consider paying for policy. Letter from PSATS read regarding Senate Bill 138 insurance and benefits for supervisors. Secretar to notify Representative William Wachob giving the township's support. March 4, 1985, Page 142: Reported that Solicitor Richard Masson has all the information from the State Ethics Commission concerning the supervisors' insurance Masson requested a copy of the township auditors' Lec_er the supervisors. e. May 6, 1985, Page 145: Resident James McCluskey quP;tion -i what insurance policies renewed for 1985. Informat3on that hospitalization and accident policies for superr-!soxs were renewed, life insurance was discontinued. Resident James Wonderly states Supervisor William loodri :i has coverage at place of employment. Woodring responds •.`hu..t he is covered only after working a certain number of hours, township insurance covers supervisors on or off the job. f. July 1, 1985, Page 150: Supervisors report that they F-e looking in to the legalities of supervisors hospitalization. August 8, 1985, Page 153: PSATS letter to Auditor Hazel Campbell and Campbell reply read. Resident Kim Roberts questions how the township supervisors could approve payment of the 1985 hospitalization without auditor approval as was stated in the PSATS setter. Mr. William Woodring Page 7 Supervisors state that the vote of the auditors on this subject was (1) auditor in favor, (1) auditor opposed. Discussion followed. h. September 3, 1985, Page 154: Supervisor Raymond Laughlin stated that Auditor William Hoak did not approve or disapprove the hospitalization, Hoak was not present at the meeting. _ Questions raised concerning Supervisors' decision to write to PSATS regarding insurance. Supervisors stated no letter was written, a telephone call was made. i. February 3, 1986, Page 165: Robert Larkin resigns as township supervisor. 8. Minutes of the supervisors' meetings also disclosed that premium payments to Columbia were approved as follows: a. February 1, 1979, page 34 - $ 375.42 b. April 5, 1979, page 37 - $1,068.72 c. June 7, 1979, page 39 - $ 42.00 d. July 5, 1979, page 41 - $ 200.00 e. August 2, 1979, page 43 - $ 158.00 f. November 30, 1980, page 48 - $ 366.84 g. March 6, 1980, page 55 - $1,170.39 h. April 3, 1980, page 56 - $ 392.40 i. June 5, 1980, page 60 - $ 42.00 j. July 3, 1980, page 64 - $ 86.98 k. August 7, 1980, page 67 - $ 32.04 1. February 5, 1981, page 78 - $4,317.89 m. June 8, 1981, page 85 - $ 72.54 n. July 2, 1981, page 88 - $ 140.00 o. February 4, 1982, page 96 - $5,601.49 71:a343z Wage 8 p. July 1, 19Y!, page 112 12 - February 7, 1983, :.;age 110 - July 11, 1983, page 116 - s. April 1, 1985, page 144.- $ 207.04. $5,425.28 $ 238.0!' $5,175.62 (i) $1,822.35 of this amount was for your iiisui 'c M coverage (see 5 i) 9. -A11 of the above listed payments were approved from the toi•rshi general fund with the exception of the $200 payment approved olt Jig: y 5, 1979. That payment was approved for payment from Revenue 4 .ccount. 10. Auditor minutes disclosed the following regarding the benefi Lnd compensation approved for township supervisors: a. January 8, 1974 - The board of supervisors shall z - so be authorized to purchase reasonable insurance. The prem:..LL shall be paid by the general fund. Note: No motion made but this item follows seting wages for supervisors. L. January 7, 1975 - Wages for supervisors set by the auditors. There was no mention of benefits. c. January 7, 1976 d. January 4, 1977 were not set. e. January , 1978 supervisors. A benefits set. - No wages or benefits approved. - Wages for supervisors approved. Bene_t.s - Discussion regarding pay increase for $.50 per hour increase approve , no f. January 4, 1979 - Discussion regarding pay increase for supervisors. A $.75 per hour increase approved, no benefits set. g. January 3, 1980 - Supervisors requested pay increase. A $.25 per hour increase approved, no benefits set. 1 -. January 25, 1980 - Auditors commence audit. Supervisors present to object to the raise. Supervisors asking for the same amount as those in other townships. Auditors decide the salary remains as previously set. Mr. William Woodring Page 9 i. January 5, 1981 - Township Secretary Robin Roberts asks for $.75 /hour increase for supervisors. Motion approved, no benefits set. k. January 4, 1983 - Township Secretary Roberts presents supervisors pay raise request in an amount of $.50 /hour making the rate $5.50 /hour. Voted unanimously that it was not feasible to increase the hourly rate. 1. January 4, 1984 - Supervisors request $.75 /hour raise to $5.75 /hour. Auditors Pansi and Campbell vote "no," Auditor Hoak votes "yes" but for lower rate. Request denied. m. February 1, 1984 - Auditors meet, much discussion about the excessive personal insurance on the supervisors paid for by the township unknowingly. n. February 8, 1984 - Additional discussion about the excessive fringe benefits supervisors have voted for themselves. o. February 8, 1984 - Unanimously approved to send a letter to each supervisor requesting them to present their Columbia Insurance policies to the auditors for examination on February 22, 1984. An oral request was previously refused as being "none of the auditors business." P• q. January 5, 1982 - Motion carried that wages for supervisors remain the same as 1981. No benefits approved. It was noted that premiums for 1983 totalled $6,179.00 and 1984 are $6,767.00. Reported that a call was placed to Marian Nailer, PSATS, who disclosed that supervisors' action may be unethical in voting themselves benefits, but not illegal. Copy of February 13, 1984 letter - Letter requests review of policies to supervisors. February 20, 1984 - Meeting held with Supervisors Laughlin, Woodring, Larkin and Columbia Insurance Agent Frank Gigliotti. Policies reviewed, Auditor Pansi questions extravagance of having so much coverage at the township's expense. January 8, 1985 - Supervisors present to request $1.00 /hour raise to $6.00 /hour. Auditors approve $.75 /hour increase. No benefits discussed. Woodrin. :.'age 10 r. January 7, 1986 - Hourly rate for supervisors actin7 cq roadmaster and laborer set at $6.00 /hour. Additio,al compensation in the form of health benefits was not approved and that such coverage be discontinued. 11. Benezette Township payroll records confirm the following salaries paid to township supervisors: a 1980: William Woodring $1,393.38 Thomas Vanvoorhis $ 43.25 _ Raymond Laughlin $2,015.42 Robert Larkin $1,570.88 b. 1981: c. 1982: d. 1983: e. 1984: Raymond Laughlin William Woodring Robert Larkin Raymond Laughlin William Woodring Robert Larkin Raymond Laughlin William Woodring Robert Larkin Raymond Laughlin Robert Larkin William Woodring f. Raymond Laughlin Robert Larkin William Woodring $2,511.50 $1,356.13 $1,301.75 $2,488.75 $1,212.50 $1,000.75 $2,082.75 $2,050.00 $ 380.00 $ 397.50 $2,984.50 $1,862.50 $3,989.96 $3,105.69 $2,487.50 12. Hazel Campbell., Benezette Township Auditor since January, 1982 provided the following information. a. Since she began serving as auditor, the supervisors hz.ve never requested that benefits, particularly Mr. William Woodring Page 11 hospitalization, be approved. Benefits have never been approved. b. In early 1984, while auditing 1983 accounts, the auditors became concerned over the amount of money expended on hospitalization. Annual premiums for the supervisors was nearly $7,000 while total tax revenues were only $10,000. The auditors were concerned because the supervisors worked an average of less than (20) hours each month. c. A request was made of the supervisors in January or February to review the policies, the supervisors refused stating it was none of the auditors' business. d. A meeting was held with the auditors and supervisors and Frank Gigliotti. Gigliotti said the plans were legal. Eventually, the supervisors agreed to drop cancer and life insurance coverage as well as hospitalization insurance for the township secretary /treasurer. e. The auditors did not join in this decision or approve the benefits. Advice was received from the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors to withhold making a decision due to pending court action. f. In 1985, no action was taken to either approve or disapprove the plans and it was decided to let the matter be handled by the State Ethics Commission. The auditors never authorized all of the changes made to the policies which included life insurance, disability, family and cancer coverage. g. 13. William Hoak, Benezette Township Auditor in 1985 and a former supervisor advised as follows: a. The insurance for township supervisors became an issue in 1984 during the audit when the auditors learned of the high premium costs. At that time no decision was made to either approve or disapprove. b. A meeting was held, sometime in 1984, with the supervisors, auditors and insurance agent Frank Gigliotti in attendance. The insurance plans were discussed and eventually some of the coverage were deleted. c. In 1985 the insurance was again questioned due to the high costs. The auditors never made a decision to approve or disapprove. ). . °. WiI l? i iii fit._ 3d rii. age 12 d. The supervisors never made a request to haw ",:he insurance cov -rage approved. If asked, he would have voted tc approve the insurance. e. The insurance was initially approved in 1974 by the auditors. It was his impression that the auditors we.:n nct: required to approve the insurance every year. Tc the :xcst of his knowledge, the insurance was never voted (--1ai e 1974. f. It is his opinion that if the supervisors were aware t t they were not permitted to have the insurance, they t have cancelled the plan. The supervisors believed the .ere entitled to the coverage and that anrYual auditor approval was not necessary. 14. Robin Roberts, current Benezette Township Secretary who l.1 o served from 1977 through 1985 advised as follows: a. Each year she would meet with the auditors to discuss compensation for the supervisors. Her requests never included approval for hospitalization medical insurance. b. The supervisors had coverage when she was app)inted secretary in 1977. The plans were upgraded in 1980 car 1981. c. The supervisors had various meetings wit insurance agent Frank Gigliotti regarding the insurance. These were private meetings. d. The auditors questioned the insurance in 1984 d'ie to the high premium costs. The supervisors became angry and refused to discuss the insurance and stated it ears none of auditor's business. e. Later in 1984 her entire insurance coverage and same policies for the supervisors were cancelled by the supervisors. f. The supervisors continued the hospitalization in 1985. A premium of $5,175.62 for Supervisors Larkin, Laughlin and Woodring was approved for payment at the April 1, 1985 . supervisor's meeting. This would have -been for coverage for March 1, 1985 through March 1, 1986. g. The insurances were not renewed in 1986 because of the auditor's refusal to approve. Mr. William Woodring Page 13 h. In 1985 the supervisors were provided with information regarding Ethics Commission decisions by the auditors. 15. Robert Larkin provided the following information to a State Ethics Commission investigator: a. In 1980 he was appointed to fill the unexpired term of a supervisor who has resigned. He was then elected to serve a full term in 1981. b. He resigned in January, 1986 due to problems with insurance, working too many hours for the township without compensation and his health problems. c. The township secretary had him added to the township hospitalization insurance plans. He was told by the other supervisors, the township secretary and the insurance agent that the policy was legal. d. The auditors questioned the insurance in 1984 because they wanted on the plan but were refused by the supervisors. e. He did not know that the insurance required auditor approval, but the supervisors checked the records and found that the auditor approved the insurance in January, 1974. f. The matter of auditor approval was never fully explained. Insurance agent Gigliotti said the plan was legal and cited other municipalities where insurance was provided. The township solicitor said it was permissible to keep the plan until a ruling was received from the state. h. Once the auditors ruled that payments would not be approved in 1986, the plan was terminated. g. .►.+ 16. Raymond Laughlin, former Benezette Township Supervisor, advised as follows: a. The hospitalization was in effect when he took office. He was given an insurance card by their Secretary /Treasurer, Jean Tuttle, who said he was covered. b. The plan was updated and coverage added by the supervisors but he was told this was legal by the insurance agent, Frank Gigliotti. 1c .oririn s c . The supery i_so: s nee4e0 adequate coverage when we :. -ing because they received very low salaries. d. In 19 &4 atter the auditors questioned the insurance, the riders and covey •e for the secretary /treasure: wart eliminated. e. In 1985 the auditor.. never voted to approve or disapprove the insurance. There were only two (2) auditors at the.: time, Auditor Pauline Pansi died and Auditor William Honk would have voted to approve. f. After the auditors questioned the insurance, the supervisors had meetings with Frank Gigliotti whQ s ?id t ?.e plan was legal and that the supervisors were doing ...hin. wrong. The supervisors felt powerless to do nyth i.g because they thought Gigliotti was correct. 17. Correspondence from Benezette Township Solicitor Richard I fisso"_., to the supervisors regarding insurance /compensation disclos? as follows: a. February 13, 1984: The letter quoted the Second Class Township Cod(, Section 65515 pertaining to compensation for supervisors and also noted: While the Ad:itors determine the amount of compensation, they must consider the compensation paid for similar work or about the Township. Thus, for road work, the rt. ure of compensation could or should be measured agai,,st that of the employees of PennDot. This would necessarily include insurance benefits. That letter also noted: Finally, Section 702, Clause 13, of the Second Class Township Code, :,3 P3. C.S.A. Sect. 35713, permits the expenditure of funds to secure hospitalization insurance for employees, including workmen's compensation insurance, fire insurance for township property, liability insurance for ,.rrors and omissions, and group insurance covering life health, hospitalization, medical service or accident insurance. b. March 16, 1984: This was a letter advising of a review of court case Conrad vs. Township of Exeter, 27 D &C 3d 253 a Berks County case. Mr. William Woodring Page 15 The letter analyzed the court's ruling and noted: In substance that only employed township supervisors may receive insurance benefits as part of the supervisors compensation. He also noted that auditing the records each year without surcharge does not satisfy the requirement. (Township of Ross vs. McDonald, 60 Pa. Cmwlth. 306, 431 A. 2d 385, 1981.) He concluded that the Benezette Township Auditors should specifically provide that the insurance premiums paid out of township funds are in fact compensation for the supervisors when acting as employees. 18. You provided the following information to a State Ethics • Commission investigator: a. You have served as a township supervisor for the past eight (8) or nine (9) years and also serve as roadmaster. b. Insurance coverage for supervisors was in effect when you took office. You were added to the plan once you took office, but were not certain if you signed an enrollment form or were added to the plan by the township secretary. c. The insurance was not an issue until 1984 when the auditors questioned the costs. At a subsequent meeting some coverage was deleted, but hospitalization and disability were continued. d. Coverage was continued mainly because the PA State Association of Township Supervisors and the township solicitor both provided information that the insurance was legal. e. Coverage was maintained through 1985 but was eliminated in 1986 once the auditors stated that they would nor approve any additional payments. f. Coverage was only maintained in 1984 and 1985 because the auditors did not formally disapprove the payments. Once the auditors formally disapproved the payments, the supervisors decided it wasn't worth the hassle to try and continue the coverage. B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. S402; Sowers, Opinion 80 -050. As such, you are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. rii Li7,n Tic - zc: ing rage Ge:ierally, the State Ethics Act p'- ivides fps follow;: 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). Within the above provision of law, this Commission has previously determined that a township supervisor may not receive at the township's expense, health, hospitalization, medical and life insurance benefits when such supervisor acts only in the capacity of a supervisor. Krane, Opinion 84 -001; Cowie, Opinion 84 -010. Additionally, even if such a supervisor is employed by the township as a superintendent, secretary /treasurer, roadmaster or laborer in accordance with the Second Class Township Code, such benefits are considered compensation and must, therefore, be fixed as such by the township board of auditors. See Sy v. Hazle Township, 93 Pa. Commw. 168 500 A.2d 1282, (1985); In re: Appeal of the Auditors Report of Muncy Creek Township, Pa. Commw. Ct. , 520 A.2d 1241, (1987); Hunt, Order 348 -R. The foregoing principle was recently reaffirmed by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, Pa. Commw. , A.2d (1987) . filed at 834 C.D. 1986 on September 18, 1987. In the cited case, the Court held inter alia that a township supervisor violated Section 3(a) o:.`_ the Ethics Act when he received a salary for the position secretary /treasurer 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. (Emphasis supplied.) Any benefits received other than as provided for above, would constitute a financial gain obtained in violation of the State Ethics Act. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Cmwlth. 529 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Conrad v. Exeter Township, 27 D & C 3d 253, (1983). These principles of law are now well settled and constitute the law under which this situation must be reviewed. lee In re: _Report of Audit of South Union Township, 47 Pa. Commw. 1, 407 A.2ci 906, (1979) . Mr. William Woodring Page 17 In the instant matter, you have been the township supervisor and roadmaster. The record reflects that you have received township paid insurance benefits since 1980. It is clear from the above analysis that a employee supervisor may only receive these paid township insurance benefits only if the requisite auditor approval was given. No such approval was given in this case as can be verified from the auditor's minutes. It is noted that your receipt of these benefits was questioned by various citizens and auditors. Further, your township solicitor specifically noted in a March 16, 1984 letter that the auditors would have to approve these benefits. Under these circumstances, you received insurance benefits without the requisite auditor approval and hence you received a financial gain which is not part of your authorized compensation. See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, supra. It should also be noted that even if these benefits had been received in good faith, such would not be controlling. Good faith receipt of such benefits, even when based upon a solicitor's advice, will not alleviate the necessity of a public official reimbursing his governmental body for the receipt of a financial gain for which he was not entitled. See Allegheny County v. Grier, 179 Pa. 639, 36 A. 353, (1987); McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, supra; Kestler Appeal, 66 Pa. Commw. 1, 444 A.2d 761, (1982). As a result, you must reimburse the township for this financial gain. 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 any 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. §407 9(iii). See also McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission,supra, the Commission may order restitution of financial gains received in violation of the law. The last m'l ter which must be addressed by this Cor- a ssioy concerns Housc ',ill 157: of 1987 which was signed into la oii i.:.r:' 30, 3.988 as Acs: 41 of 1980. Although Section C of Act 41 addresses the question: of amyl . - 'y as to insurance benefits that were received by non - employee supervisors and hence does not address the question of insurani.. benefits that were received by employee supervisors who did not g t auditor approval, it is noted that Section 2 of the Act provide; . blanket amnesty to "elected officials, except township supervise who axe- provided for in Section 525, [Section C] and appointe township officials who are not employees of the township." S working employee supervisors are elected officials and since °'s category of supervisors was not provided for in Section 535, i. is then applicable and provides: "Any such insurance coverage contract en:e.ed into by a township between January 1, 1959, and March 31, 1985, that includes or provides covF.Lag( for elected officials, except as provided in section 515, or appointed township officials ` ?:o are not employes of the township, shall not be void or unlawful solely because such inclusion of such officials was subsequently found to be without lawful authority. No penalty, assess ant, surcharge, forfeiture or disciplinary action of any kind may occur as a result of participatipn by such officials." Therefore, under the above provision of law, any insurance benefit that you received between January 1, 1959 and March 31, 1985 would not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act but the receipt of said insurance benefits after March 31, 1985 would transgress Section 3(a). In this case, you received a financial gain of $1,742.47 for the period of April 1, 1985 forward. The foregoing amount ;must be returned to your governmental body, Benezette Township. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a township supervisor in Benezette Township, you are c "public official" and, as such, are subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act." 2. You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you received various insurance benefits for the period up to March 31, 1985 since House Bill 1577 of 1988, Act 41, 1988, which was signed into law or March 10, 1988, provides amnesty as to the receipt of those benefits. Mr. William Wocdring Page 19 3. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you received a gain through public office consisting of medical insurance /life insurance which gain is not compensation provided for by law in that such benefits had not been fixed and approved by the township auditors as part of your lawful and authorized compensation for the period April 1, 1985 forward. 4. The financial gain which you received and which was not part of the compensation provided by law amounts to $1,742.47. 5. You are hereby ordered to remit to the State Ethics Commission, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the amount of $1,742.47, made payable to Benezette Township as restitution for the financial gain that you received. 6. Failure to comply with the provisions of this order will result in a referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority for further civil or criminal proceedings. 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, Joseph W. Marshall, III Chairman Mr. William H. Woodring R.D. #1 Benezette, PA 15821 Dear Mr. Woodring: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 1 71 08 -1 470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 August 4, 1988 Re: Order No. 655, File No. 86 -083 -C On July 21, 1988, the State Ethics Commission approved your requested payment method for reimbursing Benezette Township as required by Order No. 655. We have forwarded your check No. 1847 dated July 27, 1988, in the amount of $145.21 to Benezette Township. We will expect checks in the amount of $145.21 on the 30th of each month for a total of 12 months. Your next payment will be expected on August 30, 1988. such. JJC /na This letter will be part of the Order and a public record as cc: Public Binder Sinc n J. C. 'no xecuti - Director