HomeMy WebLinkAbout669-R SpahrMr. Larry Spahr
c/o Robert Ceisler, Esquire
321 Washington Trust Building
Washington, PA 15301
Re: 87 -028 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, P ENNSYLVANIA 17120
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 669 -
Date Decided: Februar 22 1989
Date Mailed: March 7, 199
Dear Mr. Spahr:
The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding
you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. On a hearing in the matter was conducted and relevant evidence and 1989
testimony was presented. The Commission has now completed its
investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions, and findings
on which those conclusions based are as follows: g
1. Allegation: That you, a Union Township Supervisor, violated
Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's
public official's use of office or confidential informatio gaie or
through that office to obtain financial gain, when you received
compensation for duties other than roadmaster, laborer or
secretary /treasurer and received township paid insurance, overtime and
holiday pay without auditor approval.
A. Findings:
1. You served as an elected Township Supervisor in Union Townshi P,
Washington County Pennsylvania.
a. You served in this position since 1978.
b. You were appointed as a township roadmaster.
2 . Minutes of the Union Township Board of Auditors meetings
indicate the following regarding compensation for supervisors.
a. January 3, 1979 - seven per cent increase for supervisors
was voted on and approved.
b. January 8, 1980 - increase of six percent for supervisor
was voted on and approved. s
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 2
c. January 5, 1982 - compensation for supervisors was set at
$6.80 per hour.
d. January 4, 1983 - compensation for
roadmasters was fixed at $6.80 per
e. January 4, 1986 - compensation for
set at $9.41 per hour.
f.
January 6, 1987 - compensation was set for roadmaster
supervisors who operate equipment at $9.81 per hour and
$9.09 for those who do not.
(i) It is noted that no other compensation was requested by
the supervisors acting as roadmasters and therefore no
motion or vote was made on Insurance, paid vacation or
paid holidays.
g. January 5, 1988 - compensation for supervisor roadmasters
set at $10.21 per hour with time and one half fnr work
exceeding 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week.
(
supervisors acting as
hour.
roadmaster supervisors
George Uremovich and Steve Parrish requested
hospitalization insurance for roadmasters /employees
working full time or a minimum of 15 hours per week.
(ii) The auditors also authorized certain paid holidays for
supervisor /employees.
3. Pursuant to a standard procedure the Union Township Auditors
would make a notation as the last item on the annual reorganizational
meeting minutes indicating the compensation that had been fixed for
the township supervisors.
a. These notations indicate as follows:
(i) January 5, 1981 - wages for supervisor - roadmasters,
$6.80 per hour.
(ii) January 4, 1982 - wages for supervisor- roadmasters,
$6.80 per hour.
(iii) January 3, 1983 - wages for supervisor -
roadmasters, $6.80 per hour.
(iv) January 3, 1984 - wages for supervisor- roadmasters,
$7.15 per hour.
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 3
(ii) Occupation listed as road supervisor.
b. Premium statements (annual) for hospitalization covers
you (no. 042381) indicate as follows: ge for
(i)
(v) January 7, 1985
$9.11 per hour.
(vi) January 7, 1986
$9.46 per hour.
(vii) January 5, 1987 - wages for supervisor -
roadmasters fixed at $9.09 for non-operators and
$9.81 for operators.
4 . A review of the minutes of the township supervisor meeting years 1981 through 1987 do not indicate any action or discussion
of health medical or hospitalization insurance benefits for township
supervisors. ssion
5 . The minutes of a meeting of the township supervisors on Oc
5, 1983 indicate that on motion of Gabi tober
secretary /treasurer was authorized to increasenlife insuran eecover age
on employees to $20,000 per person.
6. Records obtained from the Trustees Insurance Fund Camp as follows: , p Hill, PA
a. State Mutual Life Assurance Company of erica
insurance enrollment card for hose talization, lifepand
weekly indemnity coverage for Larry, George and Teresa
Spahr dated January 3, 1978.
(i) Enrollment is for insurance as a Union Township
employee and dependents.
Statement Date
Amount
September 1, 1979
$325.00
September 1, 1980
$420.00
September 1, 1981
$1,708.00
September 1, 1982
$
September 15, 1983 $1,505.00
September 14, 1984 $1,505.00
- wages for supervisor- roadmasters,
- wages for supervisor- roadmasters,
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 4
(ii) The above coverage was cancelled on September 9, 1987.
(iii) A refund of $58.70 was received by the township as
a result of this cancellation.
(iv) The above statements covered a one year period.
c. Premium statements (annual) for life insurance coverage for
you, (no. 62- 04 -49) indicates as follows:
(i)
September 16, 1985
September 19, 1986
Statement Date
July 1, 1979
July 1, 1980
July 1, 1981
July 1, 1982
July 15, 1983
July 16, 1984
July 15, 1985
July 15, 1986
July 15, 1987
$1,505.00
$712.00
Amount
$66.95
$66.95
$66.95
$66.95
$66.95
$45.60
$45.60
$45.60
$73.40
(ii) The township auditors approved this coverage for 1988
and therefore $38.70 of the payment for 7/15/87, (the
pro -rated portion covering the period after January 1,
1988) was authorized as part of your compensation.
d. Premium statements (annual) for disability insurance
coverage for you, (no. 009893) indicates as follows:
(i) Statement Date Amount
December 1, 1978 $48
December 1, 1979 $48
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 5
December 1, 1980 $48
December 1, 1981 $48
December 1, 1982 $48
December 15, 1983 $41
December 14, 1984 $41
December 16, 1985 $41
December 15, 1986 $41
December 15, 1987 $41
(ii) The township auditors approved this coverage for 1988
and therefore $41.00 of the payment for 1 2/15/87, (the
amount for the period after January 1, 1988), was
authorized as part of your compensation.
7. A Union Township audited financial statement dated December 3,
1983 to the township board of supervisors from the township board of
auditors contained the following comment as an area of concern:
a. Insurance coverage for supervisors as a practice under
question by PA Ethics Commission.
8. By letter dated March 23, 1983 to the Union Township Board of
Supervisors, Township Solicitor Robert L
C
supervisors that they could participate in the ltownship'ss gre
rou
insurance policies so long as the policy identifies the supervisors as
employees.
9. By memo dated April 13, 1987 to the Union Township Board of
Supervisors, Township Solicitor Robert L.
supervisors that a su Ceisler advises the
receive health insurance benefits butathatatheaaffirmativ e app e a p p r ova to
the auditors must be obtained. ivroval of
10. Township records contained an update memo from the Pennsylvania
State Association of Township Supervisors dated March 5, 1984 noting a
recent Ethics Commission ruling determining that a non - employed receive insurance benefits
township supervisor was not eligible to g
the township expense. at
(i) The memo advises supervisors to consult with the township
sp
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 6
1.. Records of Union Township indicate the following regarding
overtime pay to you.
a. Weekly time report for August
at $10.73; total $32.19.
Weekly time report for August
at $10.73; total $10.73.
g.
g.
6 -10, 1984 - 3 hours overtime
19 -25, 1984 - 1 hour overtime
c. Weekly, bi- weekly, or semi- monthly payroll report, August
1985 - 3 hours overtime at $13.67; total $41.01.
d. Daily time report for January 27, 1986 - 2 hours overtime
$14.19; total $28.38.
e. Weekly time report, December 10 -14, 1984 - 8 hours for
distribution of cheese and butter 8 hours at $7.15 per
hours; total $28.60.
f. Daily time report for June 27,.1985 - 8 hours at $9.11 per
hour for distribution of cheese and butter; total $72.88.
Total of above payments $213.79
12. Michael T. Borne testified as follows:
a. He served as an Auditor in Union Township from 1981 to
1986.
b. The auditors in their reorganizational meeting approved the
applicable hourly rate for supervisors.
c. The supervisors never requested the auditors to approve
insurance benefits, overtime pay or holiday pay.
d. He did not speak to the supervisors about benefits but the
auditors made internal comments regarding supervisors'
compensation.
e. The auditors received a letter from the solicitor
questioning the auditors' authority on some of the internal
comments.
f. After the auditors became aware that the supervisors were
receiving insurance benefits, they wrote letters to DCA and
to the State Ethics Commission.
The auditors received a response from either DCA or the
at
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 7
•
e • After the
receiving
practice.
State Ethics Commission that the supervisors would not be
entitled to insurance benefits.
h. In the 1983 Audit Statement, the auditors questioned
whether the supervisors were full -time
entitled to receive paid holidays. employees so as to be
i. He did not think any supervisor was a full -time employee.
Jack Gabig, as a supervisor, was working 40 hours a week and
would be full -time.
k. The auditors approved only the hourly rate as compensation
for supervisors.
1. The auditors felt that supervisors should be treated
comparably to road workers regarding the applicable hourly
rate.
m• The auditors made several expressions that the supervisors
were not entitled to benefits.
n. The auditors did not surcharge the supervisors.
13. Donald Bucich provided the following testimony:
a. He served as an Auditor in Union Township for six years.
b. After a reorganizational meeting, the auditors set the
hourly rate for compensation for supervisors.
c. Aside from 1988, there was never any request to approve
insurance coverage for supervisors.
d. There was
pay.
never any request to approve holiday or vacation
auditors learned that the supervisors were
insurance benefits, they decided to question the
f. The auditors questioned the
practice
internal comment to the 1983 Audit Sta it in an
g. The auditors received a copy of a letter from the solicitor
to the supervisors expressing his legal opinion that the
practice was legal.
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 8
h. After discussions with people in other townships and the
DCA, the auditors questioned the practice in the 1984 Audit
Statement.
i. The supervisors did not request approval in 1986 or 1987 for
insurance or holiday pay or vacation pay.
The chairman of the Board told him that the auditors had no
authority to rule on something to which . the supervisors were
entitled.
•
k. The auditors did not intend to deprive the supervisors of a
comparable hourly rate that employees received.
1. The auditors did not surcharge the supervisors.
m. The, supervisors participated in the same insurance plan
that was provided for all township employees.
n. The insurance plan was in existence prior to the time that
you became a supervisor.
o. Overtime pay had to be approved as compensation.
p. The auditors did not approve or surcharge as to overtime.
14. George Uremovich testified as follows:
a. He is a supervisor and full -time roadmaster who works a
forty hour week and overtime on occasion.
b. He voted to pay insurance premiums like all other bills.
c. Prior to 1988, he did not request the Board of Auditors to
approve insurance, holiday pay or overtime pay as part of
your compensation.
d. He did not receive vacation, sick or personal days.
e. He received holiday pay in 1986 and 1987.
15. You provided the following information in relation to this
situation:
a. You have been a township supervisor since 1978.
b. You began receiving insurance benefits at that time.
j .
Mr. LarrySpah
Page 9
c. You were appointed roadmaster in every year except for a
part of 1982.
d. The township pays for the insurance benefits.
e. The insurance benefits were not approved by the township
auditors for 1983 a question arose as to the supervisors
participation in the insurance program.
f. In 1983 a question arose as to the supervisors
participation in the insurance program.
g. At that time the supervisors discussed the matter and
requested a legal opinion from the solicitor. The
solicitor stated it was not necessary for auditors to
approve the plan and that the supervisors could participate
in the program.
h. A subsequent solicitor's opinion was received by the
supervisors indicating that the law had changed.
i. In 1987 after the solicitor indicated that the auditors had
to approve the benefits you were going to cancel your
coverage but Township Auditor Bucich told you not to.
The auditors finally approved the insurance benefits for
supervisors in 1988.
k. You were not aware of the auditors ever approving overtime
pay, or holiday pay.
1. You were paid for overtime because you were covered by the
employee contract.
m. The supervisors approved this contract.
n. You were never the deciding vote on the award of the
contract or the payment of bills or wages.
o. You stated that distribution of butter and cheese was
traditionally a function of the roadmasters.
16. You provided the following testimony:
a. You are a supervisor in Union Township
b. The prior Board of Supervisors, before
of the Board, provided group insurance
employees.
since 1978.
you became a member
to township
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 10
c. The township plan provides coverage to all employees.
d. The township plan does not treat the supervisors
differently then any other members of the plan.
e. The plan does not provide the supervisors with the
possibility of realizing any cash or divided annuity.
f. You had three conversations with Dan Bucich about insurance
and recommended that the Board of Auditors seek a legal
opinion.
A second conversation occurred in Dave Mathies' Office
wherein Mr. Gabig was also present.
h. The third conversation was among Mr Bucich, Mr. Normberger
[sic] and Mr. Gabig regarding a second opinion by the
solicitor that contradicted his prior opinion.
g •
i. Mr. Bucich expressed his concern that if insurance coverage
were dropped, the township might incur a liability.
In your conversation with•Mr. Bucich, you considered
Bucich's statement as one opinion which weighed insurance
coverage versus potential liability of the township.
k. Holiday and overtime pay were part of the benefit under the
road employees' contract.
1. The provisions for holiday and overtime had been in all
contracts beginning at a point in time prior to him
becoming a supervisor.
j•
m. You received holiday and overtime pay on occasion.
n. The benefits received by the supervisors are no different
than those received by the road crew under the collective
bargaining agreement.
o. You were paid for surplus food distribution on two
occasions.
p. The roadmasters in Union Township have been traditionally
employed to do the food distribution.
q. Overtime occurred for either resurfacing of roads or state
CP -2 jobs.
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 11
r. Snow removal would also warrant working
s. Township insurance benefits were billed
you voted to pay those premiums as part
t. You voted for payment of insurance premiums
overtime.
to the township and
of a list of bills.
u. You admitted that the auditors never approved compensation
for the supervisors.
v. The supervisors received an opinion from the solicitor that
the s upervisors /employees had the right to participate in
the program.
w. The supervisors never formally requested the auditors to
include insurance as part of their compensation.
X• After the solicitor issued a second opinion, you informed
Mr. Gabig that the auditors would be contacted regarding
dropping the insurance.
Since you work full -time as Director of Elections, your
position in the township is part -time,
B. Discussion: As a township supervisor, you are a public official
as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. 5402;
Sowers, Opinion 80 -050. As such, you are subject to the provisions of
the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you.
Generally, 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. §403(a).
The first matter for consideration involves your receipt of
i paid township paid insurance benefits. p
to h pion insurance
determined Within the above provision of law,
may not receive at theetownship'se pense, hospit lization, sor
medical and life insurance benefits when such supervisor acts onlin
the capacity of a supervisor. Krane Opinion 84 -001; Cowie, Opinion
84 -010. Additionally, even if such a y supervisor is employed by the
township as a superintendent, secretary /treasurer, roadmaster or
Y-
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 12
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 Svnoski v. Hazle
Township, 93 Pa. Commw. 168 500 A.2d 1282, (1985); In re: Appeal of
the Auditors Report of Muncv 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. Ct. , 531 A.2d 536 (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)
of 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 539 of its Opinion:
"Section 7 of the Ethics Act instructs the
Commission to investigate situations where there
is a reasonable belief that financial conflict nay
exist, and if conflict is found, to require the
offender to remove himself from the conflict
without gain." _(Fnmhasis 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. See In re:
Report of Audit of South Union Township, 47 Pa. Commw. 1, 407 A.2d
906, (1979).
In the instant matter, you were the township supervisor/
roadmaster. The record reflects that you have received township paid
benefits since 1978. 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 (prior to 1988) was given in this case as can be verified
from the auditor's minutes. Further, your township solicitor
specifically noted in a April 13, 1987 memo 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
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 13
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
reimburse the township for this financial gain. You must
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. §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. §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.
S407 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 matter relating to insurance benefits which must be
addressed by this Commission concerns House Bill 1577 of 1987 which
was signed into law on March 30, 1988 as Act 41 of 1988.
Although Section C of Act 41 addresses the question of amnesty as
to insurance benefits that were received by non - employee supervisors
and hence does not address the question of insurance benefits that
were received by employee supervisors who did not get auditor
approval, it is noted that Section 2 of the Act provides for a blanket
amnesty to "elected officials, except township supervisors who are
provided for in Section 525, [Section C] and appointed township
officials who are not employees of the township." Since working
employee supervisors are elected officials and since this category of
supervisors was not provided for in Section 515, Section 2 is then
applicable and provides:
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 14
"Any such insurance coverage contract entered
into by a township between January 1, 1959, and
March 31, 1985, that includes or provides coverage
for elected officials, except as provided in
section 515, or appointed township officials who
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,
assessment, surcharge, forfeiture or disciplinary
action of any kind may occur as a result of
participation 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 be implicated by Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act but no penalty
or assessment will occur because of the above amnesty provision. The
receipt of said insurance benefits after March 31, 1985 would
transgress Section 3(a). In this case, you received a financial gain
of $3,097.28 for the period of April 1, 1985 forward. The foregoing
amount must be returned to. your governmental body, Union Township.
Turning to the matter of your receipt of pay or overtime
overtime pay, Section 515 of the township code sets forth when
supervisors may receive compensation. Generally, township
supervisors may be employed by the township as a roadmaster, laborer,
or secretary /treasurer as noted above. 53 P.S. 565515;.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, supra. It is clear, therefore,
that the duties for which a township supervisor may be compensated are
strictly regulated by the township code; the supervisor's pay must be
specifically set forth by the township board of auditors. While you,
as roadmaster, were eligible to be compensated for services rendered
in that position, the pay and overtime pay for which you were
compensated were not related to your roadmaster position but were
related to the office supervisor.
You, thus, received compensation that was not part of that
provided for by law.
Further, this Commission has already held that township cudiaors
have no authority to fix compensation for township supervisors who are
performing duties outside of those fixed by law or for working in
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 15
positions not established in the township code. Nanovic, 85 -005. The
auditors have indicated they did not approve this a ;"
the auditors did not have the power to fix a compensation was
allowed by law and that was regulated by statute (compensation as a
supervisor).
You, however, argue that there should be no violation on a
"philosophical basis" because the supervisors have acted ethically and
have done nothing for which they should be criticized. The difficulty
with this argument is that this Commission must apply the Ethics Act
and may not decide cases on some amorphous concept of ethics. Snyder
vim. Thornburgh 496 Pa. 324, 437 A.2d 1 (1981).
It is then suggested that the McCutcheon case is distinguishable
because the supervisors, in the cited case, only took insurance for
themselves. This argument fails by virtue of the decisions in the
Synoski and Muncv Creek Township cases, supra. As to the assertion
that these benefits which were received were comparable to other
employees, the crucial element is that working supervisors must obtain
auditor approval for these benefits and that was not done.
Your argument that your solicitors opinion is a good faith
defence has been discussed and rejected, supra.
You then argue that Act 41 of 1988 warrants a dismissal of the
complaint on the theory that working supervisors did not need auditor
approval effective March 30, 1988. You assert that Act 41 indicates a
legislative intent that this coverage was proper without auditor
approval. The argument is fatally flawed because the General Assembly
only provided amnesty for the period between January 1, 1959 and March
31, 1985; the legislative intent is clear that the amnesty ends as of
March 31, 1985. Since restitution is ordered for the period after
March 31, 1985, this order is consonant with Act 41 and the
legislative intent therein.
As for the holiday pay and overtime pay, the fact that the
requisite auditor approval was lacking defeats that argument.
As a result, this Commission finds that you received
compensation in the form of pay and overtime pay that was not in
accordance with that set forth by law. The gain which you received
for this type of pay amounts to $213.79.
Lastly, you question the accuracy of the restitution computation
as to the benefits. In this regard, ou
hearing, y presented no evidence at the
g, aside from claiming in your closing argument that the figure
is inaccurate. Subsequently,
differs from the computation submitted lbyethe Invepstigative which
Since your computation incorrectly excludes the coverage for your wife
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 16
e:tich was also provided by the township and since it attempts to take
a double credit of $41.00, the correct amount is $3,097.28 as
determined by the Investigative Division.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a township supervisor in Union Township, you are a
"public official" and, as such, are subject to the
provisions of the Ethics Act."
2. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act is implicated when you
received various insurance benefits at township expense
for the period up to March 31, 1985; however, since
House Bill 1577 of 1988, which was signed into law as
Act 41 of 1988, provides amnesty as to the receipt of
those benefits, no penalty or assessment will occur for
that period.
3. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you
received a gain through public office consisting of
township paid insurance benefits 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 during the period
between April 1, 1985 and 1988 when you received auditor
approval, which gain amounts to $3,097.28.
4. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you
received pay and overtime pay as a supervisor which was not
within the compensation provided in the Second Class
Township Code, which gain amounts to $213.79.
5. The total financial gain which you received from insurance
benefits and pay and overtime pay which was not part of the
compensation provided by law amounts to $3,311.07.
6. You are hereby ordered to remit to the State Ethics
Commission, within thirty (30) days of the date of this
order, the amount of $3,311.07, made payable to Union
Township as restitution for the financial gain that you
received.
7. 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
Mr. Larry Spahr
Page 17
Order is final and will be made available as a public document 5
business days after service (defined as mailing).
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). The confidentiality provision does not restrict
respondents consultation with legal counsel.
By the Commission,
Joseph W. Marshall, III
Chairman