Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout672 LohrMrs. Judith Lohr R.D. #2 ' Eighty Four, PA 15330 Re: 86 -129 -C Dear Mrs. Lohr: A. Findings: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF TICE COMMISSION ORDER W. 672 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, an Auditor in Somerset Township, 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 voted at the meeting of January 8, 1985, to set the salary of your husband as township roadmaster. 1. You previously served as an auditor in Somerset Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. 2. Your husband, William Lohr served as a township supervisor in Somerset Township, Washington County, Pennsylvania. a. He served in this position in 1984 and 1985. 3. Part of the official duties of the township board of auditors is to fix the compensation to be paid for township supervisors serving as roadmasters, laborers or secretary /treasurer on an annual basis. 4. Minutes of the Somerset Township Board of Auditors meetings provide the following information: J aditit a. January 4, :. ° e4 — Lee Inn Marchezak moved tT •- t t' Roadmas be paid a part -time hourly . -E tL,: of y 5.90, second by Ann Perchinsky. Judy Lohr abstailed. b . Ja. :ua.ry 9, 1985 - Ann Perchinsky made a motion tha z salary fcr roadmaster be the same, that is $6.90 an hour. Judy Lohr and Lee Ann Marchezak concurred; The same benefits as previously fixed were also approved. These be' , fits included: overtime pay, vacation and death leave, h.Jlids.y pay and sick leave. 5. You provided the following information in relation tf t'is situation: a. You did not vote just for your husband but for the supervisors as a group. b. Your husband didn't even receive the funds au never claimed all the hours he worked. c. Your vote did not matter as the auditors unanimously agreed to fix the 1'.85 wages for the supervisors. d. The 1985 vote did not increase your husband's comp - m ation but kept it at the same level. 6. The W -2 Wage and Tax Statement for your husband fr. 1985 indicates that he was paid $3,500 as compensation fr - r' - 'rset Township. B. Discussion: As an auditor for Somerset Township, yrt "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics Ac' S. 5402; 51 Pa. Code 51.1. As such, your conduct must r ';he provisions of the Ethics Act. 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 onfidentir 1 information received through his holding public office to obtain financial - air. other than compensation provided by law fo-: imself, a member of his immediate family, on - business with which e is associated. 65 P.S. Code 5403(a). Mrs. Judith Lohr Page 3 Section 3(a) specifically provides, in part, that a public official may not use public office to obtain a financial gain other than compensation provided for by law for a member of her immediate family. The term "immediate family" is defined under the Ethics Act as follows: Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. S402. Clearly, your husband, William Lohr, who is a township supervisor in Somerset Township is a member of your immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. In the instant matter, the question before this Commission is whether your actions as a township auditor in voting to set the salary of your husband as township roadmaster transgress the provisions of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above. The minutes of the Somerset Township Board of Auditors for January 9, 1985 indicate that a motion was made to continue the salary for the roadmaster at $6.90 per hour and that you and another individual concurred in that and specifically approved that salary as well as various benefits at rates or amounts which were previously fixed. Thus, you, through your actions, have violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act because you were a public official who used public office through your participation and approval of the salary and benefits which resulted in a financial gain to your husband as township supervisor. The fact that the township board of auditors was unanimous in its action is not exculpatory since this Commission has determined that abstention on your part is required under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. See McCaique, Order 392. Further, the fact that your husband's compensation was not increased nevertheless implicates Section 3(a) because you used public office through your participation in approving that compensation for your husband. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As an Auditor for Somerset Township, you are official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics 2. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act approved at a meeting to set the salary of your township supervisor /roadmaster a "public Act. when you husband as 3. This matter will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement authority for review and appropriate action. v . M P J'id .1" 2 %C >' 4 — it file; :.t this case will rem•_Liu confident'al °nth S action 8(a) of this Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 5408 (a) . :c-° ever, thi: rder Is final and will made available as a public document 15 days Ater service (defined as nailing) unless you file documentation with 's Commission which justifies reconsideration and /or chLllenges Je/tinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code 52.38. During this 15- CAA period, no one, including the respondent unless he waives his -_ ght to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of 3 Lovnission ling is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined wit more than. $1,000 cx imprisoned for not more than one year or botr , 65 P.S. S ":G9(e). By the Commission, Joseph W. Marshall, 1i .. Chairman