HomeMy WebLinkAbout662 SerovichMr. Joseph L. Serovich
240 East Columbia Avenue
Atlas, PA 17851
Re: 87 -068 -C
Dear Mr. Serovich:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE CG. MISSION
ORDER NO. 662
Date Decided: August 18, 1988
Date Mailed: September 13, 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 former Mt. Carmel Township Supervisor,
violated the following provision(s) of the State Ethics Act (Act 170
of 1978), when you received compensation not provided for by law in
the form of "administrative services pay" from the Township Summer
Food Program fund, landfill fund and HUD fund.
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. Code §403(a).
A. Findings:
1. You served as a Mt. Carmel Township Supervisor from 1962 until
you resigned on August 26, 1985.
a. You also served as Chairman and Vice - Chairman at various
times.
Mr. Josep'a L. ero'T. ".
Page 2
:.. Records of Mt. Carmel Township disclose that you received a
payment from the township landfill account. `
a. April 5, 1985 $1,000
Check No. 163
b. This check was signed by Supervisors Leonard Corona and
Ronald Startzel.
c. You endorsed and cashed this check on April 9, 1985.
d. Minutes of the April 16, 1985 supervisors' meeting
disclosed that under Treasurer's Report, a payment from the
Landfill Account in an amount of $1,000 to you for
administration costs was listed for approval. You made the
motion and subsequently voted to pay this bill.
3. Township records also disclose that in 1984 you received a
payment from the Township Sewer Fund.
a. Minutes of the December 26, 1984 supervisors' meeting
disclose under Treasurer's Report, Sewer Account
Disbursement, payment to you in an amount of $1,000 for
administrative cost. You seconded the motion and
subsequently voted to pay the bills.
b. Check No. 15 dated December 26, 198" drawn on the ?`t.
Carmel Township Sewer Account payable to you in an amount of
$1,000. Check signed by you and supervisor Leonard Corona.
c. You endorsed and cashed this check on December 28, 1984.
4. A review of township records disclosed that you did not submit
vouchers for the payments you received from the Landfill and Sewer
Accounts,
5. Minutes of the Mt. Carmel Township Board of Auditors
Reorganization Meetings for the years 1981 through 1987 disclosed
that the only compensation approved for the supervisors was the
salary for secretary- treasurer and hourly wages for a supervisor
acting as superintendent, roadmaster and for working on township
roads in any other capacity.
a. No wages or compensation was set for administrative duties
in regards to the Summer Food program, Sewer, Landfill, or
HUD program.
b. Auditors who served from 1981 through 1985 advise' :hat the
salaries set during that period were mainly applicable to
snow removal and road related duties. The salaries set were
Mr. Joseph L. Serovich
Page 3
not open -ended provisions to do any other township work.
There was never compensation set for services performed in
the Summer Food Program, Landfill, Sewer or HUD program.
They were never aware of a solicitor opinion which stated
such payments were legal.
6. Ronald Startzel, former Mt. Carmel Township Supervisor and Board
Chairman advised as follows:
a. The landfill began to operate sometime around October,
1984. His duties at the landfill included operating a
compactor, bookkeeping, billings and also handling problems
that the users of the landfill would run into. He worked
many Saturdays and many late in the day hours at the
landfill.
b. In April, 1985, he received a check from the township in the
amount of $1,000 for what he considered to be duties that he
performed at the landfill during 1984. A few months later,
he received a check from the township in the amount of
$1,300 for duties he performed at the township during the
period January, 1985 to May, 1985. The reason for the
closeness of the two payments he received from the landfill
fund was because prior to those payments, the landfill fund
was broke. Prior to 1985, the township had very little
money.
c. His duties concerning the sewer fund, required him to attend
meetings, to prepare reports concerning the sewage line, to
work with members of the Pennsylvania Department of
Community Services and an engineering firm, and to prepare
invoices for the project. This sewer line was to run from
the township to an industrial park. On December 26, 1984,
he received a check in the amount of $1,000 from the
township sewer fund. At this time, the sewage project was
completed and he then submitted an invoice requesting the
payment of $1,000. You and Corona also worked on the sewer
project and also submitted invoices for checks of $1,000.
d. You and Corona submitted requests for payment invoices
separately and Startzel never reviewed what work was done to
merit the $1,000 payment from the sewage fund. He could not
explain why he and the other two former supervisors each
received a like amount of $1,000 payment for services.
7. Leonard Corona, former Mt. Carmel Township Supervisor and
Secretary /Treasurer, provided the following:
Mr. Joseph L. Serovici
P ige 4
a. He received a check in April, 1985 for working at the
landfill. He started working during October, 1984, on
Saturdays, Sundays and weekly after his regular job was
completed. He forwarded a voucher to the township prior to
being paid. When calendar year 1985 came around the
landfill started to make money, and therefore, he and the
other supervisors believed it was their time to get paid.
He received an additional check for work at the landfill a
few months after the initial check.
b. He received a check from the Sewer fund in an amount of
$1,000 on December 26, 1984. Two local firms, Cardinal
Container and Universal Packaging, were having problems
disposing of waste, and thus, the township got involved. He
did all the administrative and financial work for the Sewer
fund, and he and the other supervisors acted as inspectors
for sewer lines that were being installed.
c. He was under the impression that yearly auditor approval for
supervisors' salaries covered any duties the supervisors
performed for the township.
8. While in the presence of your attorney, you provided the
following information to State Ethics Commission investigators:
a. You did not exactly know why you received a $1,000 check
from the sewer fund, but you recalled checking worke :s at a
construction site on a few occasions.. You received the
check from Supervisor Corona who - indicated that Startzel
said the payment was legal.
You did perform duties over a number of years at the
landfill and this was the reason you received a payment in
April, 1985 You did not know why you did not receive any
payments during previous years. You were never told
anything by Startzel or Supervisor Corona as to why the
payment was being made in 1985, the matter was never
discussed at any public meeting. Startzel told Corona tc
make out the checks in amounts of $1,000 for each
supervisor.
c. Both Startzel and Corona said the payments were legal and
indicated that a township solicitor had made a ruling.
B. Discussion: Township Supervisors in townships of the second
class are public officials as ;;ha;: t. rm is defined in the State
Ethics Act. 65 P > S . 5402. As sLch, their conduct must conform to the
requirements of t`e tat Ehicr Act. See, Sowers, 80 -050,
Szymanowski, Nc
Mr. Joseph L. Serovich
Page 5
The State Ethics Act provides as follows:
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. Code 5403(a).
Within the above provision of law, this Commission has already
determined that township supervisors may not approve or accept any
compensation for themselves that is not in accordance with the
compensation set forth in the Second Class Township Code. This
determination has been affirmed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
See McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. 529, 466 A.2d
283, (1982). Compensation awarded or received by a township
supervisor that is not in accordance with the provisions of law could
constitute a violation of the above cited Section of the State Ethics
Act.
The Second Class Township Code provides that township
supervisors shall receive the following compensation:
Compensation of Supervisors -- Supervisors
may receive from the general township fund, as
compensation, an amount fixed by ordinance not in
excess of the following:
Township Population
Not more than 4,999
5,000 to 9,999
10,000 to 14,999
15,000 to 24,000
25,000 to 34,000
Annual Maximum Compensation
Fifteen hundred dollars
Two thousand dollars
Twenty -six hundred dollars
Thirty -three hundred dollars
Thirty -five hundred dollars
Such salaries shall be payable monthly or quarterly for
the duties imposed by the provisions of this act. The
population shall be determined by the latest available
official census figures. The compensation of supervisors,
when acting as superintendents, roadmasters or laborers,
shall be fixed by the township auditors either per hour, per
day, per week, semi - monthly or monthly, which compensation
shall not exceed compensation paid in the locality for
similar services, and such other reasonable compensation for
Mr. Josep.1 L. Serovi 1 .
rage 6
the use of a passenger car, or a two axle four - wheeled motor
truck having a chassis weight of less than two thousand
pounds when required and actually used for the
transportation of road and grudge laborers and their hand
tools and for the distribution of cinders and patching
material from a stock pile, as the auditors shall determine
and approve; but no supervisor shall receive compensation
as a superintendent or roadmaster for any time he spends
attending a meeting of supervisors. 65 P.S. S65515, as
amended Act 68, 1985.
- (Prior to the above amendment, the above
provision provided for set fee of $25 per
meeting).
In reference to the meetings for which supervisors may receive
compensation, the code further provides as follows:
The township supervisors shall meet for the
transaction of business at least once each month,
at a time and place to be fixed by the board, but
they shall not be paid for more than sixteen
meetings in any one year, except in any township
where, on account of the exercise of governmental
functions other than those relating to roads, more
meetings are necessary, in which the supervisors
may be paid may be increased to any number, not
exceeding fifty meetings in any year which shall
include hearings by aggrieved parties under the
Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act and other
hearings by aggrieved parties hearings of a
judicial or quasi - judicial nature. Two members of
any board of supervisors consisting of three
members shall constitute a quorum and three
members shall constitute a quorum. Except as
otherwise provided in this act, an affirmative
vote of a majority of the entire board of any
supervisors shall be necessary in order to
transact any business. Necessary expenses
incurred in such meetings, including office rent,
stationery, light and fuel, shall be paid out of
the general township fund. 53 P.S. S65512.
The duties that a supervisor is responsible for performing are
also regulated by statute. As can be seen from the foregoing, the
compensation to be paid for a supervisor who is not otherwise employed
by the township is strictly regulated by the Second Class Township
Code. A supervisor may only receive compensation, as set forth above.,
for supervisor meetings regarding the transaction of township
Mr. Joseph L. Serovich
Page 7
business. The type of meeting for which a township supervisor may be
compensated must be one at which official township business is
transacted. Additionally, the township code provides for compensation
at the specific meetings outlined in §65512, above. The code does not
appear to permit the compensation of a township supervisor for
attending other types of meetings for performing the administrative
functions of his office. Any such other compensation must be earned
in and as part of the services performed while serving in one of the
statutory authorized positions. Thus, if the township supervisors
were to award to themselves compensation for attendance at meetings
that are not official township meetings of the board of supervisors,
or for performing duties not authorized by law, such would violate the
provisions of the State Ethics Act as such payment would not
constitute compensation provided by law. The above interpretation of
the Second Class Township Code is a view that has also been expressed
by the State Association of Township Supervisors which specifically
indicated the supervisors may not be compensated for meetings with
engineers, solicitors, planning commissions, authorities, or
recreation boards. See Township News, May, 1985, Page 66.
The township code sets forth clearly when supervisors may
receive compensation other than as set forth above. Generally,
township supervisors may be employed by the township as a roadmaster,
laborer, or secretary /treasurer. 53 P.S. §65410. The compensation to
be paid to supervisors working in such positions is to be fixed by the
township board of auditors. 53 P.S. §65515, 65531; 65540. Township
supervisors may not receive any other compensation except as provided
above. This concept has been upheld by various courts in the
Commonwealth. In Coltar v. Warminster Township, 8 Pa. Commw. Ct. 163,
302 A.2d 859, (1973), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that
a second class township supervisor may not appoint himself to
positions other than those set forth in the township code (roadmaster,
laborer, or secretary /treasurer), and receive compensation therefore.
See also Conrad v. Exeter Township, 27 D & C 3d 253, (Berks 1 983).
It is clear, therefore, that the duties for which a township
supervisor may be compensated are strictly regulated by the township
code, and when performing in the positions set forth in the code, the
supervisor's pay must be specifically set forth by the township board
of auditors. The "administrative services" for which you were
compensated were related to the office supervisor.
You, thus, received compensation that was not part of the
compensation provided for by law when you received $1,000 from the
township landfill account after you made a motion and voted to approve
this payment. You also received compensation not provided in law when
you received $1,000 from the township sewer account after you seconded
a motion and voted to approve that payment.
'c x. Joseph L. :ovic
'ge 8
It is clear that the auditors did not approve this compensation,
even if they had, this Commission has already held that
auditors have no authority to fix compensation for township
supervisors who are performing duties outside of those fixed by law or
for working in positions not established in the township code.
Nanovic, 85 -005.
What is most disconcerting to this Commission is that you did not
submit any vouchers for these payments and hence, it does not appear
that you even performed any work at all. You, thus, attempted to use
and did use public office to obtain moneys which were not part of your
compensation and which were obtained without ever any work on your
part.
As a result, this Commission finds that you received
compensation in the form of administrative pay that was not in
accordance with that set forth by law. Generally, 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. 5409(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. 5409(c).
The power of this Commission to order restitution or impose a
penalty has been sustained by Commonwealth Court. See McCutcheon v.
State Ethics Commission, supra; Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, _
Pa. Commw. Ct. , 531 A.2d 536 (1987).
Due to the circumstances of this case, this Commission finds
that you must make restitution of your financial gain of $2,000; you
are hereby directed to forward, within thirty days, a check to the
State Ethics Commission payable to Mt. Carmel Township in the amount
of $2,000.
Mr. Joseph L. Serovich
Page 9
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a township supervisor in Mt. Carmel Township, you are a public
official and subject to the provisions of the State Ethics Act.
2. You violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act by using public
office to obtain a financial gain consisting of compensation which was
not provided by law.
3. The amount of gain received by you referenced in paragraph 2
amounts to $2,000.
4. You are hereby ordered to remit to the State Ethics Commission
within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the amount of
$2,000 made payable to Mt. Carmel Township.
5. This order will be referred to the appropriate authority
for review and appropriate action.
Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this
Order is final and will be made available as a public document 15 days
after service (defined as mailing) unless you file documentation with
the Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or challenges
pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15 -day
period, no one, including the respondent unless he waives his right to
challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing,
discussing or circulating this Order.
Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission
proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more
than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65
P.S. 409(e).
By the Commission,
Joseph W. Marshall, III
Chairman
Mr. Joseph L. Serovich
240 East Columbia Avenue
Atlas, PA 17851
Re: Order No. 662, File No. 87 -068 -C
Dear Mr. Serovich:
On September 20, 1988, the State Ethics Commission received
your payment for reimbursing Mt. Carmel Township as required by
Order No. 662.
We have forwarded your check in the amount of $2,000 to the
Mt. Carmel Township.
This letter will be part of the Order and a public record as
such.
JJC /na
cc: Public Binder
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 1 71 08 -1 470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
September 22, 1988
n J. o
xecutjDirector