Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout708 CigarskiMr. Charles Cigarski Chase Road Shavertown, PA 18708 Re: 88 -027 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 708 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair W. Thomas Andrews G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington James M. Howley Date Decided: June 1, 1989 Date Mailed: June 8, 1989 Dear Mr. Cigarski: The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of the State Ethics Act, No. 170 of 1978, 65 P.S. 401 et. seq. You were notified in writing as to the commencement of the investigation and as to the specific allegation(s). The investigation has now been completed and a Findings Report was issued to you which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division of the State Ethics Commission. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is now completed. This Order of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual allegations, findings, discussion and conclusion as follows: I. Allegation: That you, Supervisor of Jackson Township, Luzerne County, violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978) , when you voted at a board of supervisors • meeting to have the township take over a road owned by you: 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 Charles Cigarski Page 2 he is associated. 65 P.S. S403(a). A. Findings 1. You served as a township supervisor for Jackson Township, Luzern County, Pennsylvania. a. You have served in this position since January, 1978. b. You are currently in your second term as a supervisor. 2. You owned a tract of land in Jackson Township from which you sold parcels for the purpose of erecting residential dwellings. As part of the development of the land, you constructed a road so that there would be access to these homes. This road was Marilyn Drive and was privately owned by you. were personally responsible for the maintenance of Marilyn that it was privately owned by you rather than by Jackson a. b. 3. You Drive in Township. 4. Minutes of the township board of supervisors' meetings reflect the following regarding the township's acquisition of Marilyn Drive: a. September 14, 1987 - the township engineer reported that Marilyn Drive,_ in the Starcrest Development, is available for liquid fuel funds and recommended that it be accepted by the township. Chairman Zincavage indicated that he did not have the opportunity to inspect this road, therefore, no action should be taken until he could make such inspection. b. November 2, 1987 - Marilyn Drive, Starcrest Manor: cul -de- sac at end of road has been widened to PennDot standards relative to acceptance requirements. Road length is 654.7 feet. A drainage ditch has been constructed on the high side of the new road. This drains to a township pipe located on Mountain Road at the intersection of Marilyn Drive. The township pipe drains portions of Mountain Road and portions of Starcrest Manor onto private lands located across the street. According to township officials, the present drain on Mountain Road, used by the township and Starcrest Development, had been an established outlet drainage for a number of years. Utilizing area topographic maps, Starcrest Development generated less than 10% of the volume of run off in the existing drainage pipe on Mountain Road. (1) Thomas Adams said that he inspected the roads and found Charles Cigarski Page 3 5. By way of letter dated June Supervisors from John T. DeFazio, Incorporated, Consulting Engineers advised as follows: a. that they are as good as any road in the township, the drainage is going down the township drain. Mr. Adams moved that Marilyn Drive and Starcrest Manor be accepted. Charles Cigarski recorded the motion and it passed on the vote of Adams and Cigarski, Zincavage voting no. (a.) You admit voting but assert that there was no intention on your part to violate the law. c. February 1, 1988 - Joseph Stager moved that accept Marilyn Drive, Starcrest Manor, engineer's recommendations. Thomas Adams motion and it passed on the vote Stager, Adams (1) You state that you should not have voted which had been inspected by Mr. Adams and the township per township seconded the and Cigarski. in the matter Mr. Stager. 3, 1987 to the Jackson Township R.S. of Michael J. Pasonick, Jr. and Surveyors, the supervisors are a. Marilyn Drive was inspected on May 30, 1987 to determine if the road had been constructed to township standards so it could be considered for acceptance by Jackson Township. b. The roadway was recently paved and the cartway width distance is 20 feet. c. A drainage ditch was constructed on the high side which carries run off water from the development to a drainage system on Mountain Road. The drainage facilities in this area are adequate for the development. d. Total road length is approximately 650 to 700 feet. The road R/W is 50 feet. The R/W at cul -de -sac is unknown. PennDot requires an 80 foot R/W at the cul -de -sac locations in order to receive liquid fuels reimbursement. e. DeFazio recommends acceptance of Marilyn Drive subject to receipt of the R/W map for the Road, the legal description on R/W and assurance that the R/W at cul -de -sac is at least 80 feet. 6. John P. DeFazio, provided the following information in relation to the instant situation: He is employed by Pasonick Consulting and Engineering firm. Charles Cigarski Page 4 b. This firm has been the engineering firm for Jackson Township for many years. c. He is assigned to handle the township account. Charles Cigarski was the developer of Starcrest Manor. d. He inspected Marilyn Drive at Cigarski's request to determine if the road was acceptable for takeover by the township. e. DeFazio recommended the widening of the cul -de -sac at the end of the road and additional work to the drainage ditches adjacent to the road before he would approve the road for acceptance. Although Cigarski was not happy with the requirements, he complied with them. (1) You assert that you did the required work and indicated no emotion. f. At a meeting of the township board of supervisors on September 9, 1988, he advised the township board of supervisors that the road was acceptable for liquid fuel funds and recommended that the township accept the road. g. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation allocates a certain amount of money in liquid fuel funds per mile per year for the maintenance of township roads. h. He cold not estimate the cost to Cigarski if the township had refused to take over the road and Cigarski would be required to maintain the road and conduct snow removal operations thereon. Such cost would be impossible to determine. 7. Thomas Adams provided the following information in relation to the instant situation: a. He has served as a Jackson Township Supervisor since January, 1984. b. He is aware of the circumstances regarding the township's acceptance of Marilyn Drive. c. Although he doesn't recall Cigarski making a public statement indicating that he owned Marilyn Drive, it was common knowledge that he did own this property. The township solicitor may not have been present at the meeting when the approval vote was taken. d. He inspected the road and found that it was in good Charles Cigarski Page 5 condition. e. The township engineer inspected the road and required some minor changes. After such was complete the township engineer recommended acceptance of the road by the township. f. The township supervisors were required to treat Mr. Cigarski as any other citizen. g • The individuals who lived on Marilyn Drive were entitled to township services regarding road maintenance and snow removal. h. The supervisors depended upon the township engineer regarding this situation and the engineer did not indicate that there would be any problems with the road. 4. Walter Zincavage provided the the instant situation: following information in relation to a. He has served as a January, 1977. b. Charles Cigarski built a development on 13 lots of property that he had owned on Marilyn Road. (1) You deny the above noting that you did not build on 13 but only 7 lots; additionally, there are four homes on Marilyn Drive. Jackson Township Supervisor since c. There was a water run -off problem with this property. (1) It is denied that there was a run -off problem; you assert that the problem was caused by property opposite Marilyn Drive. d. The matter regarding the township's acceptance of the road arose during a meeting on September 14, 1987. e. Township engineer, Jack DeFazio, had inspected the road. f. The engineer reported that only 10% of the water run off in the township drainage pipe on Mountain Road came from Marilyn Road. The engineer, therefore, recommended that the township take over the road. He originally placed the matter on hold because he had not had a chance to inspect this area. h. The matter subsequently arose at a November 2, 1987 Charles Cigarski Page 6 Supervisors' meeting. i. Mr. Cigarski did not make any public announcement that he had an interest in this road. (1) You deny the above on the basis that it was common knowledge that you owned Marilyn Drive which was named after your daughter. He explained to Mr. Cigarski that it may be a conflict of interest for him to vote on the matter. k. Mr. Zincavage voted against the motion to approve the road. Supervisor Adams also voted for acceptance of the road and Mr. Cigarski broke the tie by casting a vote in favor of the township's acceptance of this road. (1) You admit the above but state you acted in ignorance of any violation of law because you complied with engineering requirements. 1. The township solicitor was not present at this meeting. m. He was against the township taking over this road in light of the water run off problems. (1) You deny the above noting that Mr. Zincavage was against the matter because of personal differences. 9. Joseph Stager provided the following information in relation to the instant situation: a. He has served as a Jackson Township Supervisor since January, 1988. b. He was aware of the controversy regarding the takeover of Marilyn Drive. c. He talked to the township engineer who advised him that the road was acceptable. d. Based upon the engineer's recommendation, he voted for accepting the road. e. He made the motion to accept the road. f. If there was any problem with the road, he wouldn't have voted for its acceptance. 10. You provided the following information in relation to the instant � Charles Cigarski Page 7 situation: c. You began to sell parcels of this land as building lots in 1982 for the purpose of developing residential units. d. You presented the road for township's approval and such was examined by the township engineer. e. The engineer required that you make several changes to the road before he would recommend it for approval by the township. f. You made the changes and the engineer recommended that the township accept the road. g. You made it known publicly that this was your road. h. You voted for the township's acceptance and takeover of this road. j. a. You have served as a township supervisor in Jackson Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania since 1978. b. You owned a parcel of land that had been in your family since 1914. (1) You admit the above but note that your solicitor was away on active duty when the vote was taken to accept the road in November, 1987. After you realized your error in December, 1987 you requested that the matter be brought up again in February, 1988. Since your vote was not needed for acceptance, you did not believe that you violated any law. i. You believe that it was proper for you to vote for the township to take over the road because the engineer approved such. This vote was taken on November 2, 1987. The motion was made by Supervisor, Thomas Adams, and you seconded the motion. k. You and Adams voted to approve the motion. 1. The matter was once again brought up at a supervisors' .meeting on February 1, 1988. This was done because a question was raised as to whether you should have voted on this issue. m. At the February 1, 1988 meeting, a new supervisor had taken office and the supervisors therefore, took another vote Charles Cigarski Page 8 regarding the takeover of the road by the township. n. The new supervisor, Mr. Stager, made the motion and Supervisor, Thomas Adams, seconded it. You, once again, voted along with Stager and Adams to approve the township's takeover of this road. o. Your road did not contribute to any water problem in the township. It would have cost you money to maintain this road as a private road and to hire someone to remove snow from the road during the winter. You were unable to determine how much such costs would be. (1) You note that the township takes over all roads approved by the engineer. B. Discussion: As a supervisor for Jackson Township, you are a public official as the term is defined under the Ethics Act. 65 P.S. 402; 51 Pa. S1.1. As such, you are subject to the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are applicable to you. Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above provides in part that a public official may not use public office to obtain a financial gain for himself other than compensation provided for by law. In the instant matter, the issue before us is whether you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by voting in favor of the township taking over your private road. This matter arose because you owned a tract of land wherein you sold parcels for the purpose of erecting residential dwellings. In the development of those homes you constructed an access road known as Marilyn Drive. Because the Drive was privately owned by you, you were personally responsible for its maintenance. The matter of turning over Marilyn Drive to the township was reviewed by John T. DeFazio, R.S. of Michael J. Pasonick, Jr. Incorporated which was the engineering firm for Jackson Township. Upon inspection by Mr. DeFazio, he concluded that the road had been constructed to township standards but recommended the widening of the cul -de -sac at the end of the road as well as additional work as to drainage ditches adjacent to the road before he could approve the road for township acceptance. You did perform the necessary work. The matter of the acceptance by the township of Marilyn Drive was put up for a vote at a November 2, 1987 meeting which passed when you cast the deciding vote. The matter was revoted at a February 1, 1988 meeting. At that meeting Joseph Stager moved that the township accept Marilyn Drive, Tom Adams seconded and Stager, Adams and yourself voted in favor of the motion which passed. You admit that you voted in favor of the township taking over the road but you note that you did not intend to violate any law. Although you concede that Charles Cigarski Page 9 it would have cost you money to maintain this drive as a private road, you point out that the township takes over all roads which are approved by the engineer. In applying Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act to the above facts, it appears that all the requisite elements necessary for violation have occurred. You as a public official voted in favor of the take over by the township of your private drive which was clearly a use of public office. In addition, your use of office resulted in a financial gain to you in that you were benefited because you no longer had to expend your own personal finances for maintenance and upkeep of Marilyn Drive. Finally, the gain you received was compensation other than provided for by law because there is no provision in the second class township code which would allow for your voting in such a situation. Accordingly, you violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you voted in favor of a motion which allowed the township to take over Marilyn Drive. Although this Commission will take no further action in this case, we must express concern, and caution you, to avoid such situations in the future. The Preamble to the Ethics Act provides in 'part that public office is a public trust and any effort to realize financial gain through public office is a violation of that trust. You should have been more sensitive to the fact that you had a personal and financial interest in the acceptance of Marilyn Drive by Jackson Township. Therefore, in any future situations, you must abstain from participation, note that of public record and set forth the reasons for your abstention. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a Jackson Township supervisor, you are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you voted in favor of a motion which directed the township to take over a private road that you personally maintained. 3. The Commission will take no further action although you are directed to avoid such circumstances in the future by abstaining from participation. This Order is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, you may request reconsideration which will defer public release of this Order pending action on your request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this Order. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of your reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity Charles Cigarski Page 10 with 51 Pa. Code S2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a) during the fifteen day period and no one, including yourself, unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude you from discussing this case with your attorney at law. Any person who violates 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, 65 P.S. 409(e). By • Co ena G. Hughes hair