Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout659 BartleMr. Paul Baker Bartle c/o D. Donald Jamieson Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson Attorneys At Law The Fidelity Building Philadelphia, PA 19109 Re: 85 -132 -C Dear Mr. Bartle: .�., —, � rte?` - �� ,�, STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 659 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, Montgomery County Commission member and Chairman, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain or 3(b) which prohibits a public employee, public official or candidate from offering, soliciting or accepting anything of value based on the understanding that the vote, official action or judgement of the public official, public employee or candidate will be influenced because: you did not publicly reveal that the law firm in which you are a salaried member regularly serves the Philadelphia Electric Company as legal Counsel; you consistently act in compliance with the wishes of the nuclear utility owners; you sent an emissary to tell the Delaware River Basin Commission that the County Commissioners wanted nothing to stand in the way of the reactor's completion and operation; and, you participate in and influence decisions involving Montgomery County's search for trash disposal facilities, giving support to Montgomery Solid Waste Associates, a company promoted by your friends and associates, some of whom contributed to your campaign. Mr. Paul. Baker Bartle Page 2 A. Findings: 1. You serve as a member of the Board of County Commissioners in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. a. You have served in this position since 1980. 2. You are privately employed as an attorney. a . You are a partner in the firm of High, Swartz, Roberts and Seidel. 3. The law firm of High, Swartz, Rober and Seidel has represented Philadelphia Electric Company for approximately 50 years. a. Originally, Victor J. Roberts and Gilbert High, Sr. were responsible for matters involving this client. b. For the past 10 years this work involved defense and collection situations. c. Fees are derived on a billing per case basis with no retainer. d. Gilbert P. High, Jr. and Barry Pritchard are now responsible for this client. e. In 1986 fees from this client were approximately 10% of the firms gross billings. f. You have worked primarily in the area of estates, trTests and wills. g On September 18, 1985 you entered inLu a segregation of fees agreement with the partners of the law firm. (i) Pursuant to this agreement all fees and net profits received by the firm from Philadelphia Electric Company shall bc placed in a se fund and you were not to participate in the distribution thereof. (1i) This agreement was retroactive to January 1, 1985. 4. The Philadelphia Electric Company was involved in the operation of the Limerick Nuclear Power facility in Montgomery County Pennsylvania. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 3 5. On May 7, 1985 at a public hearing before the Delaware River Basin Commission, Mr. Arthur F. Loeben, Director of the Montgomery County Planning Commission, made a statement on behalf of the Montgomery County Commissioners. a. This statement recommended use of Schuylkill River water for the Limerick power plant. b. The statement indicates the County's opposition to a delay in the opening and operation of the plant. c. Mr. Loeben indicated that this statement was presented at the request of the county majority commissioners Mr. Myers and Mr. Bartle. d. Loeben indicated that no vote of the Commissioners was required in this matter. He often made such appearances at your request. 6. During 1984 the county was exploring the possibility of constructing a trash to steam facility. 7. Records from the Montgomery County Department of Public Works indicates that the following proposals were submitted by interested companies: a. Dravo Corporation, this was a company selected by the committee. b. The Crouse Group. This company was one of the final three under consideration. c. American Ref -Fuel Corporation. This company was also among the final three under consideration for the project. d. International Energy Corporation. e. Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. This proposal indicates that it was submitted in association with Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. 8. Gerald J. Hoff, Jr. Director of the Department of Public Works provided the following information regarding this situation: a. He was a member of the selection committee. Mr. Paul Baker B4rtie Page 4 b. The committee was formed in 1984 and a request for proposals was published in May 1985. c. Open meetings were held. d. The plant proposed by Montgomery Solid Waste Associates was not big enough and was easily eliminated. e. The three final applicants were interviewed and only Commissioner Banning attended these interviews. 9. Minutes of a special Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority (M.C.I.D.A.) meeting of December 26, 1984 provided as follows: a. The application of Montgomery Solid Waste: Associates for aid regarding the financing of an energy conversion project was conditionally approved pendipg submission to and approval of a bona fide commitment, description and identification of final ownership of application and financial of applicant and all guarantors, A motion to table was overruled. b. A "second application of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates for aid regarding the financing of an energy conversion project was conditionally approved as noted above. A motion to table was overruled. c. The above decisions were evidenced by official resolutions of the authority executed by Douglas Hickey executive director of the authority. d. The aforementioned resolutions identify Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA as having issued a commitment dated December 4, 1984 to loan funds in relation to this project. 10. Records of the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority contain approval and no bribery certificates for the above transactions. a. These certificates approve tax exempt issues in amounts of $107 million and $57 million. b. These certificates contaia a declaration that the above allocations were not made in consideration of any Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 5 c. Both certificates are signed by you as Chairman of the Board of Montgomery County Commissioners and are dated December 26, 1984. 11. Records of Montgomery County contained the following information regarding the trash to steam project: a. A letter dated September 4, 1984, from Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc., to the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority which sets forth proposed financing for the above project. The proposed financing for the project would consist of the issuance of bonds in an aggregate principal amount up to $107 million by the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority. The proceeds of the bonds would be utilized to finance construction of the facility. The letter sets forth an agreement wherein Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc., would act as an investment banker to purchase these bonds from the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority in connection with this project. The agreement was accepted by the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority in December 26, 1984. b. bribe, gift, gratuity or direct or indirect contribution to any political party or campaign. A questionnaire dated December 4, 1984. In this questionnaire, the applicant was indicated as Montgomery Solid Waste Associates, C/O Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc., Two North Shore Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15212. The seller involved in the transaction was indicated as Montgomery County, Courthouse, Norristown, PA 19404. Legal counsel was indicated as David Franklin of the law firm of Pepper, Hamilton and Scheetz, 177 F Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C., 20006. Applicants internal contact was indicated as Mr. Donald E. Rea, Russell, Rea and Zappala, Inc., Two North Shore Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15212. The bond counsel was indicated as Mr. Remo J. Butera, of the law firm of Cohen and Shappiro, Twelve South Twelfth Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Mr. Rea executed this questionnaire as President of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. c. A project detail statement prepared by Montgomery Solid Waste Associates, 1251 Conshohocken Road, Plymouth Township, Montgomery County, PA, reflected Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 6 that a construction site of a 120 acres would be used for a solid waste resource recovery and electric generating facility. The applicant was described as a Pennsylvania limited partnership, to be formed in December of 1984, the activity of which shall be the ownership of a solid waste resource recovery and electric generating facility. This statement contained a resolution approved by the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority on December 26, 1984, with the resolution number being listed as 84C- 6592 -W. A motion was made by Mr. D. Weinstein and seconded by Mr. Pressman, Records indicated that the approval was by a unanimous vote of the five members present. d. On December 26, 1984, the application of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates was forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, with a request for revenue bonds not to exceed $107 million. This was approved by the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority. e. A letter dated March 25, 1985, from Bear, Sterns and Company, 55 Water Street, New York, NY, 10041, which notified the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority that this company was prepared to act as the investment banker for the contemplated $107 million issue of bonds for the trash -to -steam project. The bonds were expected to be structured with a combination of serial and term maturities and sinking fund redemptions ranging from 5 to 30 years. The conditions under which Bear, Sterns would underwrite the bonds were set forth in this letter. The letter was signed by a Mr. Ace H. Dace, Vice - President. f. A letter dated March 26, 1985, from Attorney Robert 1. Tuteur of the law firm of Cohen, Shappiro, Polisher. Shiekman and Cohen, Twelve South Twelfth Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, which advises that this law firm serves as counsel to Montgomery County in connection with a contemplated trash -to -steam project. The letter forwarded information in support of a request by the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority for participation in the trash - to-steam project. g. A letter from Shirley J. Dunaway, Administrator, Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, dated May 22, 1985, to former executive director Michael Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 7 Giangiordano, Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority, which requests additional information for clarification of the application presented by Montgomery County to the Department of Commerce. Dunaway advised that governmental bodies are not eligible occupants, therefore, further information is needed to determine that an eligible financially responsible occupant has been obtained. A signed certification by the occupant must also be forwarded. Ms. Dunaway also requested a status report of a project previously approved by the Department of Commerce on February 21, 1985, which appeared to be a duplicate of the reference project. 12. Joseph Johnson, Dwight Dundore and Ira Pressman, members of the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority provided information as follows: a. They could not recall any telephone conversation with you during the December 26, 1984 meeting. b. You have never attempted to influence their decisions, c. Their approval of the trash -to -steam project was a result of their belief that such would be in the best interest of the county. 13. Alan Weinstein, a member of the Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority provided the following information: a. He has served as a member of the authority from 1969 to 1985. b. On December 26, 1984 the authority was considering an application of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates for financing regarding a trash -to -steam plant. c. A representative of the firm Cohen and Shappiro was present on behalf of the applicant but had no documents to back up the application, particularly regarding financial stability. d. During a break in the meeting he called you in the presence of Solicitor Fred Wentz. e. Ycu were informed that the firm had no financial verification. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 8 f. You advised hiuttLat you were aware of this company and you wanted the application approved before the end of the year. He advised the other members of the authority of your comments and the application was approved on the condition that back -up information would be provided. g. h. This was irregular and it was the first time a county commissioner had done this. i. He was not reappointed to the authority. 14. Frederic Wentz, County Solicitor and co- solicitor to the M.C.I.D.A. provided the following information relating to the meeting of the December 26, 1984. a. Montgomery Solid Waste Associates submitted an application at this meeting. b. He along with authority member Weinstein telephonically contacted you. c They discussed the above noted application with you especially the fact that no financial or background information had been submitted. d. You were interested in obtaining bids from any source and in this respect encouraged processing of the applications regarding the trash -to -steam plant. e. There was a year end deadline on these projects. f. You were not favoring Montgomery Solid Waste Associates and there was no undue pressure placed by you on any person regarding this situation. 15. Dougies L. Hickey, Jr., Executive Director of M.C.I.D.A. provided the following information in relation to this situation. a. He has served iii this position from 1970 to the present. b. The county commissioners appoint the authority members. c. On December 26, 1984, cl :A-se of the meeting authority member Weinstei: .. ivised cf the conversation with. you Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 9 d. The Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation, the consultant to the M.C.I.D.A. had recommended tabling this application because no financial information had been included with the application. e. The call between Mr. Weinstein and you was not appropriate. 16. A note to the M.C.I.D.A. file of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates from Douglas Hickey dated December 25, 1984 provided as follows: Immediately following the adjournment of the special authority meeting at 11:45 A. M. this date, M.C.I.D.A. Secretary /Treasurer Alan A. Weinstein informed me that while the application was being debated during the Authority meeting, he and M.C.I.D.A. Co- Solicitor Fred Wentz discussed this application via telephone with Commissioner Paul Bartle including their report that the Montgomery County Industrial Development Corporation had recommended that the Authority table this application pending resolution of a possible legal impediment to eligibility. Weinstein stated that Commissioner Bartle informed him and Wentz that Bartle definitely wanted this application approved today regardless of the M.C.I.D. Corporation's recommendations. 17. A review of campaign expense reports for citizens for Paul Bartle, 40 East Airy Street, Norristown, PA, 19404, for the period January 16th, 1983 throuvh June 8, 1987 disclosed in part the following entries. a. March 14, 1983, Sylvan M. Cohen, Esquire, 1820 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103, $250.00 contribution. b. March 14, 1983, Cohen, Shappiro, Polisher Shiekman and Cohen Law Firm, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, $1,000.00 contribution. c. February 1, 1985, Professor Steven Bruce Cohen, 1820 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103, $250.00 contribution Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 10 d. February 1, 1985, Marc Allan Cohen, 1820 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103, $250.00 contribution. February 5, Pittsburgh, f. February 5, Pittsburgh, g. h. February 5, 1985, Marvin L. Lieber, 1260 Beachwood Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA,15206, $100.00 contribution. i. February 5, 1985, Edward K. Strauss, 3822 Burnaby Drive, Pittsburgh, 15235, $100.00 contribution. February 20, 1985, Ronald W. Frank, Esquire, 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA, 15219, $ 275,00 contribution. ;1inth Decade Fund, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis - Conran Law Firm, Packard Building, Philadelphia, PA 15102, $2,500.00 contribution. 1, February 5, Pittsburgh, 1985, Julian Ruslander, 5000 5th Avenue, PA, 15232, $100.00 contribution. 1985, Bela A. Karlowitz, 1441 Pueblo Drive, PA, $100.00 contribution. 1985, Allan A. Garfinkle, 111 Weir Drive, PA, 15215, $100.00 contribution. 1. February 1, 1985, Cohen Shappiro, Polishes.-, Shiekman and Cohen Law Firm, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, $1,000.00 contribution. m. February 1, 1985, Sylvan M. Cohen, Attorney, Cohen. Shappiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, $500.00 contribution. n. February 1, 1985, Elma 0. Cohen, 1820 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, $500.00 contribution. Walter L. Bent, 1400 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15283, Bent and Associates, 1400 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15283, Bent and Associates, 825 Old Thorn Run Road, Corapolis, PA, 15108, $500.00 contribution. p. February 5, 1985, John F. Cambest, Attorney, 612 Grant Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, $1,000.00 corLtril*ltion . q. February 5, I985, Sam S. Zachara.i,s , Two North Shore Center, Pitt burgk, PA 15212, Insurance and Pension Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 11 Consulting, Three Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, $1,000.00 contribution. r. February 5, 1985, Libby Tallean, 1205 Charlemagne Circle, Pittsburgh, PA 15283, $500.00 contribution. s. September 11, 1986, Walter L. Bent, 1400 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15283, refund of contribution of $500.00. t. September 11, 1986, John F. Cambest, Attorney, 612 Grant Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, refund of $1,000.00 contribution. u. September 11, 1986, Sam S. Zacharais, 15 -E Three Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, refund of $1,000.00 contribution. v. September 11, 1986, Libby Tallean, 1205 Charlemagne Circle, Pittsburgh, PA 15283, refund of $500.00 contribution. w. March 4, 1986, Sylvan M. Cohen, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, Attorney, Cohen, Shappiro, et. al. PSFS Building, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107, $1,000.00 contribution. x. October 10, 1986, Sylvan M. Cohen, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, Attczney, Cohen, Shappiro, et. al. PSFS Building, 12 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, $1,000.00 contribution. 18. Refunds of contributions were made as noted in r -v above. 19. Sylvan Cohen, a partner in the law firm of Cohen, Shappiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, provided the following information: a. He has supported Mr. b. He had made campaign his wife and sons. Bartle from the early 1980's. contributions to Mr.Bartle as has c. It is not unusual for fund raisers to contact him for financial support. • d. In 1984 Russell, Rea and Zappala affiliated with another company in a joint venture regarding the trash - to -steam project. Montgomery Solid Waste Associates Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 12 filed an application with the state for an allocation to issue industrial revenue bonds in order to build the trash -to -steam plant and identified an attorney in his firm as bond counsel. e. He would only be counsel if the matter proceeded to an offering. f. His firm received no fees in relation to this matter. g. During the early months of 1985 a telephone conversation between representatives of the law firm and Russell, Rea and Zappala and it was agreed that the firm would no longer be listed or acting as bond counsel. h. The firm thereafter acted as legal adviser to the committee that was formed to select a company to build the trash -to -steam plant. i The seven member committee reduced the number of applications to five (5), one (1) of which was Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. Upon final review this application was eliminated. 1. An attorney from the Cohen firm participated in the committee's activities. k. The firm subsequently resigned as counsel to the committee. ,C. Wr it <3. Bent provided the following informE.tion in relation 13 this s ;uE : a. He contributed to your campaign fund when he believed that you were going to run for a state wide office. b. He supports candidates who are pro - business. c. He was associated through business with Andrew Russell, of Russell, Rea and Zappala. d. He made the contribution at the request of Russell. He may have received a refund of his cunt:= ibution but could find no evidence of such. 21. Mr. R ,, -atald W. Frank, provided the following information in relation to this situation: Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 13 a. His contribution had no relation to the trash -to -steam project. b. He met you in New York. c. Someone from Russell, Rea and Zappala recommended you to him. d. He does not believe that he ever received a refund of his contribution. e. His contribution was made as an individual. 22. Charles Zappala provided the following information in relation to this situation: a. Russell, Rea, and Zappala is a statewide company doing business with most municipalities in the Commonwealth. b He was impressed with western part of the state and e asyou were dconsidering in the running for state wide office. c His firm did not work with you on the Montgomery Waste system proposal. d. The contribution was not made with the intent that it would influence your actions as a county commissioner 23. Julian Ruslander a member of the Law firm of Berkman, Ruslander, Pohl, Lieber and Engle provided the following information regarding this situation: a. This law firm is involved in bond work throughout the state. b. This firm had no connection to Montgomery Solid Waste Associates and was not involved in any bond work in the county. c. No refunds were received. d. The following individuals from the firm contributed to your campaign: Julian Ruslander Bela Karlowitz Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 14 Alan Garfinkel Marvin Lieber Edward Strenss 24. Andrew Russell provided the following information in relation to this situation: a. His firm Russell, Rea and Zappala was involved in some bond work in the county. b. He became familiar with Mr. Bartle while working on a waste plant. c. They contributed to Mr. Bartle because they were interested in good government. d. He called several people and recommended Bartle to them. 25. Rita Banning, a county commissioner, provided thc following information relating to this situation: a. She had no knowledge of any wrongful activities on your part. b. You have never taken any action agai:ist the interests of the Philadelphia Electric Company. c. You have always been indirectly supportive of that entity. d. In May 1985 Arthur Loeben, director of the '".ontgomery Planning Commission, made a statement on behalf of the zounty commissioners; yet she had never been consulted. e. Delaware River Basin Commission had been asked to re- evaluate the present situation of all water uses for the purpose of loaning river water to P.E. f. This was a request favorable to P.E. g. During 1985 she told you not to accept campaign contributions from persons associated with Russell, Rea and Zappala; the law firm of Cohen and•Shappiro or Bear Sterns Company because of their relationship with lontgomery Solid Waste Associates. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 15 h. You assisted Russell, Rea and Zappala in processing Montgomery County Industrial Development Authority applications to Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. 26. On September 5, 1985 county commissioner Rita Banning issued a written statement criticizing your receipt of contributions from persons associated with Montgomery Solid Waste Associates, Russell, Rea and Zappala, The Cohen law firm and Bear Sterns investment banker. a. The statement calls for a disqualification of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates and the creation of an independent citizens panel to review the proposals and make a recommendation to the county commissioners. 27. On September 6, 1985 you issued a Press Release responding to the foregoing statement. The press release noted that: a. You were directing your campaign treasurer to return all contributions received from Pittsburgh sources. b. There was no connection between the contributions and the vendor. c. You were doing this so that the citizens could have total faith and confidence in the process. 28. By letter dated August 7, 1986 your attorney advises as follows: a. You became associated with the firm of High, Swartz, Roberts and Seidel in 1977. b. The firm had represented Philadelphia Electric (PE) since the early 1930's and such had been evidenced publicly in numerous county records. c. The county commissioners have only been required to vote on two PE related issues since the time you became a commissioner in 1980. (i) an easement question (ii) the issue of the ballot question regarding whether PE should continue to operate Limerick 1 (October 1985). Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 16 d. Because of potential appearance questions you entered into an agreement with your firm whereby you would receive no fees from the representation of PE, e. You have consistently been op?osed to getting the county involved in an area of regulatior that is in the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commicl on. (i) You believed that a binding < existed and took priority. f. In the Spring of 1984 you appointed a selection committee to make recommendations on the trash -to- energy project. Pursuant to your "open door" policy you met with any prospective vendor who requested a meeting. h. You met with a number of vendors prior to the publication of final specifications after which you refused to meet with prospective vendors. g . 1. In November of 1984 you considered running for Lieutenant Governor. You received $50,000 in contributions to this end, $3,000 of which was received from members or acquaintances of Russell, Rea and Zappala. k. You did not know of their association with Montgomery County Solid Waste Associates at that time. 1. You had expressly informed your campaign committee not to accept contributions from any firm under consideration. m. You returned the contributions received from Russell, Rea and Zappala, after you learned of their association with Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. n. The firm of Cohen and Shappiro was merely attorney of record. The firm was dismissed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. o. Dravo Corporation was selected to build the trash-to- steam plant. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 17 29. You provided the following information in relation to this situation: a. Your firm did work for Philadelphia Electric (PE) Company as far back as 1930. b. Other area firms also did work for this company. c. You basically were involved in trusts and estates. d. Your firm's representation of PE was common knowledge. e. Your vote as county commissioner was never influenced by your firms association with PE. f. Your position in relation to the Limerick 1 facility has been consistent. You believe that the county has no jurisdiction over this matter and that such is the exclusive domain of the Public Utility Commission. You agree with the statement made by Mr. Arthur F. Loeben, director of the County Planning Commission. Mr. Loeben drafted this statement, showed it to the commissioners and you along with M. Myers agreed that it should be presented to the Delaware River Basin Commission. You could not support a delay in the opening of the plant. g. h. You agree that you received a telephone call on December 26, 1984 from Fred Wentz to discuss the trash - to -steam applications. i. You did not recall talking to Mr. Weinstein. The M.C.I.D.C. recommended tabling the applications of Montgomery Solid Waste Associates. j. k. You did tell Mr. Wentz that you wanted the applications approved at that time regardless of the M.C.I.D.C. recommendation. You were of the opinion that as many applications as possible should be approved in order to obtain funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce. 1. You saw no impropriety with your involvement in that matter. m. You did not give sole support to Montgomery Solid Waste but rather supported all applicants equally. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 18 n. During December 1984, you were considering running for Lieutenant Governor. You held fund raising events to this end. o. Contributions were received from individuals associated with Russell, Rea and Zappala which was indirectly connected to M.S.W.A. You did not personally know these individuals and ordered your campaign chairman to return the contributions. P• In August 1985 you become aware that Political Contributions from Cohen and Shappiro and Bear Sterns could present a conflict of interest because of their involvement with M.S.W.A. To avoid any question of impropriety you discharged the law firm and the investment company. B. Discussion: As chairman of the Montgomery County Commission, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics Act. See Huff, Opinion 84 -015; 65 P.S. 5402; 51 Pa. Code §1.1. As such, your conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. q• You were not aware that certain contributions to Pittsburgh area residents were not returned. Section 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(b) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act provides: (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 19 associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). Specifically, the Ethics Act provides that no public official may use his public office or confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain for himself or a business with which he is associated and no public official may receive anything of value on the understanding that his official conduct will be influenced thereby. See Section 3(a) and (b) of the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. S403(a) and (b). In the instant matter, it is necessary to scrutinize your conduct under the two sections quoted above to determine whether your actions relative to the four counts in the allegation have implicated either or both of these sections. The first aspect of the allegation raises a question concerning your alledged failure to publicly reveal that your law firm, in which you are a compensated member, represents Philadelphia Electric Company (PEC) as legal counsel. It is noted factually that your firm has represented PEC for approximately fifty years; that you have been associated with the firm since 1977 and that you have been a county commissioner since 1980. However, it was not until September, 1985, that you entered into an agreement with the firm retroactive to the beginning of that year that the firm income received from PEC would be segregated so that you would not receive any of that income. Although the evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of either Section 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act as to this particular count, this Commission must express its concern regarding your inaction as to disclosing your association and as to your failure to segregate for the first five years of your public service. Turning to the two matters as to whether you act in compliance with the wishes of the nuclear utility owner and as to whether you sent an emissary to the Delaware River Basin Commission that the county commissioners did not want anything to impede the reactors completion and operation, the evidence elicited does not establish that you were doing anything other than taking a position on the issues in these matters as county Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 20 commissioner and hence no violation of 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act occurred. As to the fourth count of the allegation concerning whether you supported the Montgomery Solid Waste Associates, hereinafter MSWA, that was promoted by friends and associates, some of whom contributed to your campaign, a detailed review of the record is necessary. This particular matter concerns a county proposal for a facility that would process trash so as to generate steam energy. It is noted that MSWA was one of five corporate entities who submitted proposals for this project. Although MSWA ultimately was not awarded the contract in this case, the evidence does reflect extensive efforts by various parties who had a financial interest in the matter to advance the proposal of MSWA. The minutes of the Montgomery County Industrial. Development Authority, hereinafter, MCIDA, of December 26, 1984 reflect an application by MSWA for financing for an energy conversion project which was approved by resolution wherein Russell, Rea and Zapala Inc. of Pittsburgh were named as the recipient of a commitment to loan funds relative to the project. Additionally, the records of Montgomery County reflect that bond counsel in this situation was Cohen and Shappiro. However, by separate letter of March 26, 1985, it is revealed that the same law firm is counsel to Montgomery County in connection with the energy conversion project. As to the December 26, 1984 approval b MCIDA, it appears that you became involved with this applicP.tion when that application could not be processed in light of the lack of backup documents for the application regarding financial stability. Although Messrs. Johnson, Dundore and Pressmen, who were members of MCIDA stated tha'c you did not attempt to influence them regarding this application, another member, Allen Weinstein, stated that during a break in the meeting, he called you in the presence of Solicitor Wentz regarding the lack of financial verification and that you responded that you were aware of the company and that you wanted approval of the application within the five days remaining of the 1984 year. Although the application was initially approved pending the receipt the backup information, Mr. Weinstein stated that your involvement was irregular and that it was the first time a county commissioner had done this. Subsequently, Mr. Weinstein was not reappointed to the MCIDA. Solicitor Fred Wentz corroborated that there was a telephonic communication although he indicates that you were not trying to favor MSWA but were merely attempting to obtain as many bids as possible by the year end deadline. MCIDA Executive Director Douglas Hickey confirms that Mr. Weinstein advised him of this conversation that Mr. Weinstein had with you; Mr. Hickey also expressed his view of Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 21 the impropriety of the call. Additionally, Mr. Hickey wrote a memo to the file concerning this matter which not only reflects Mr. Weinstein's conversation with you but your statement that you wanted the MSWA application approved on that date regardless of the recommendation of MCIDA. Additionally, a serious concern must be raised regarding the extensive contributions made by various individuals and firms, to your campaign fund when they were involved with MSWA. Thus, a situation appears to exist where you were promoting a particular proposal of MSWA when various individuals and entities who were involved with MSWA were contributing to your re- election campaign. Since the statements of Mr. Weinstein are only partially supported by Solicitor Wentz (as well as being contradictory in some respects) and since other members of the MCIDA have stated that the::e was no attempt to influence their decision, the evidence is not sufficient to establish a connection between your involvement with the MSWA project and the contributions to your re- election by these various parties who were involved in some fashion with MSWA. Although this Commission finds that the evidence elicited does not establish a violation of either 3(a) or 3(b) as to this count in the allegation, this Commission after reviewing this matter must remind you that public office is a public trust and that public officials should act in a fashion so as to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people in their government; your actions have certainly been insensitive, in this regard. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a county commissioner of Montgomery County you are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. The evidence elicited does not establish that you violated either sections 3(a) or 3(b) of the Ethics Act regarding your initial failure to reveal that your law firm was representing PEC, that you acted in compliance with the nuclear utility owners or regarding the county commissioner's statement as to the Delaware River Basin Commission concerning the reactors completion and lastly regarding your participation in the matter concerning MSWA when various individuals and entities who were involved with that association contributed to your re- election campaign. 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. Mr. Paul Baker Bartle Page 22 !ee 51 Pa. Code §2.38. :wring this 15 -day period, no one, including the respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violates 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, IIT Chairman