Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout714 WalterMr. Eugene V. Walter R.D. #1 Claysburg, PA 16625 Re: 86 -105 -C Dear Mr. Walter: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Order No. 714 Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair G. Sieber Pancoast Dennis C. Harrington Michael J. Washo Date Decided: July 27, 1989 Date Mailed: Julv 28. 1989 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 deemed 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, a Supervisor for Kimmel Township, Bedford County, violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978), when you were compensated by the Township for administrative work you claimed as "township business :" 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. S403(a). Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 2 A. Findinas: 1. You serve as a Township Supervisor in Kimmel Township, Bedford County, Pennsylvania. a. You are chairman of the township board of supervisors. b. You have served as a township supervisor from 1978 to the present except for a one month period in March of 1989. c. You have also served as a township roadmaster from 1983 until the present date. d. You previously served as a township auditor and a school director. 2. Township supervisors who served as employees of the township were compensated for the services that they rendered in such positions. a. Township auditors approved compensation to be paid to township supervisors who were employed by the township as either roadmaster, secretary /treasurer, laborer. b. Township supervisors were also compensated for services rendered other than those as indicated in sub - finding 2(a) above. This additional compensation was for services rendered on "township business" generally. 3. Minutes of the Kimmel Township Auditor's meetings indicate the following in relation to the compensation that had been fixed by the township auditors for supervisors who were providing services in relation to township business, and the discussions in relation thereto: January 5, 1981 - Supervisors on business, $7.00 per hour. A motion was made by Auditor Eugene Nale and seconded by Auditor H. Knisley and the payment of such wages was approved by such auditors. January 4, 1982 - Supervisors on township business, $7.35 per hour, was approved on a motion by Eugene Nale and seconded by H. Knisley. January 9, 1983 Supervisors on business, $7.75 per hour, approved on a motion by Auditor Harry Knisley and seconded by Eugene Nale. Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 3 January 7, 1984 - Supervisors on township business, $8.50 per hour was approved on a motion by Auditor D.D. Eicher and a second from both Harry Knisley and Eugene Hale. January 12, 1985 - These minutes reflect that Supervisors on township business was listed among the annual wages paid by the township but there was no amount indicated for calendar year 1985. January 11, 1986 - Minutes reflect that wages for supervisors on township business was eliminated by the township supervisors. January 11, 1987 - Minutes indicate that the subject of wages paid to the supervisors was discussed by the auditors and comparisons were made with several surrounding counties. There was no mention of any payment for supervisors on township business. March 6, 1987 - Minutes reflect that there was much discussion at this meeting. Present were Auditors Harry Knisley, Dennis Walter, and Eugene Hale. Township Supervisors Eugene Walter, Lester Smith, and Vernon Corle were also present. With regard to the issue of dental insurance, the auditors advised the supervisors that they would not agree to pay such premiums for the supervisors. After much conversation, the supervisors agreed to repay any premiums with regard to dental care paid by the township. It was indicated that Township Supervisor Eugene Walter was questioned concerning receipts that he had presented for payment to the township. Supervisor Walter stated that he did not need to present receipts that the voucher on purchases was sufficient for him to be reimbursed. Supervisor Walter stated that he had contacted the township solicitor who told him that the voucher was a legal receipt. The auditors decided to accept the vouchers when presented by Walter if the township solicitor would provide written approval of this policy of using the voucher instead of receipts. The meeting resulted in the following decisions by the auditors. The dental care premiums paid on behalf of Supervisors Walter and Smith must be repaid. Supervisor Smith also had to pay the township for hospitalization premiums that were expended in his behalf. It is believed that he did not work Hr. Eugene V. Walter Page 4 enough hours to earn such payments. Supervisor Walter was told that he had to come up with a voucher authorization from the township's solicitor or suitable receipts for any bills that he would present for payment with regard to his voucher. The auditors stated that if all conditions are met that they will accept the audit and sign and send it to the proper places in Harrisburg and Bedford. If the above conditions were not met, the auditors stated their intent to surcharge the supervisors as appropriate. Also, Auditors Dennis Walter, Eugene Hale and Harry Knisley, and Supervisors Eugene Walter and Lester Smith agreed to repay amounts noted. May 27, 1987 - Minutes indicate that the township auditors met with Jim Kaplan, a state auditor, in an attempt to obtain assistance in filing a surcharge. Records indicated that Kaplan was based in Kitanning, Pennsylvania, and phone number 412 -783 -6466. Minutes indicated that Mr. Kaplan reviewed township records for 1985 and 1986. September 9, 1987 - Minutes of this meeting reflect that Mr. Jim Kaplan, Pennsylvania Auditor General's Office, disclosed his findings at this meeting. Kaplan provided his findings as follows: a. There were payments by the township for medical and dental insurance benefits to an ineligible employee. The individual, Supervisor Lester Smith, did not meet the eligibility requirements and that he did not work fifteen hours per week for the township. The cost of this insurance for Smith was indicated as $645.00. Kaplan recommended that the township review this matter and determine if any action is required to recover these funds. b. Kaplan recommended that the township strengthen its controls over disbursements, requiring documentation to support the actual cost c. Kaplan cited the inefficient use of township funds. He stated that the monthly allowance of $43.75 which was paid to the township secretary for an office in his home, was unnecessary. Be emphasized that the township now had a township building with supportive equipment and that all of Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 5 township business could easily be handled at the township building. Kaplan recommended that the township supervisors review the situation to see if this allowance to the township secretary was necessary. d. Also, minutes indicated that at this meeting, Supervisor Walter produced the receipts that the auditors were seeking. Minutes reflect that the auditors were satisfied with the receipts presented by Supervisor Walter and thus only one issue was not resolved in that a $645.00 amount paid by the township for Supervisor Lester Smith's medical and dental insurance was the only recoverable item. Mr. Kaplan then told the auditors that if recoverable funds are exceeded by court costs to the township, it is advisable to consider dropping the charges. Minutes reflect that Auditor Nale then made a motion to drop a surcharge action which was pending in Bedford County Court due to an assessment of estimated lawyers fees. November 7, 1987 - Minutes of this meeting reflect that there was much discussion over the results of the Pennsylvania Auditor General's Audit and the results that were presented to the township. Again, there was much discussion of all the issues and Auditor Nale disclosed his reasons for making the motion to drop the surcharge action. Minutes do not reflect whether or not any action was taken on Mr. Nale's motion to drop the surcharge action. 4. You were compensated by the township for services rendered in addition to those that were provided as township roadmaster. a. This compensation was allocated to you in relation to other township business on which you worked. 5. Records of Kimmel Township reflect the following hours worked by you on township business that was unrelated to working on the township roads facilities or equipment: Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 6 DATE CHECK # VOUCHERS EXPLANATION TWP. BUS. MUM a. 2/7/83 236 Conference with Commissioners 4 hrs. in Bedford Conference with Solicitor in Bedford Conference with Solicitor and School Board Committee Conference with Solicitor 3 hrs. 3 hrs. 3 hrs. 3/7/83 258 Meeting with School Board 2 hrs. in Claysburg Conference with Commissioners 3 hrs. in Bedford 4/4/83 291 Meet with Solicitor in Bedford 4 hrs. Meet with Monthly Authorities 5 hrs. in Bedford 8/1/83 419 Monthly Meeting in Bedford 3 hrs. 9/6/83 440 Conference with Planning 3 hrs. Commission and Solicitor and County Commissioners and pick up a barrel in Bedford and vicinity Planning Commission (Bridge) 21/2 hrs. Sewage Officer 10/3/83 479 Conference with Commissioners 5 hrs. and Solicitors and Library 11/7/83 502 LLNW Meeting in Bedford 4 hrs. Claysburg - Kimmel Sale 4 hrs. 12/5/83 523 Conference with Solicitor in 3 hrs. • Bedford Buy Office Furniture in 9.11 hrs. Harrisburg Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 7 12/29/83 538 Meeting with School Committee 1983 Total: 63.5 hrs. at $7.75 each = $492.12 b. 2/6/84 551 Conference with Solicitor and Commissioners and get lock repairs, Bedford and Charlesville Meeting with Planning Commission 3 hrs. at Bedford Conference with Solicitor and Soil Conservationists and Pick up Transmission Oil at Bedford and Everett 4/2/84 613 Meeting with Assessors at 4 hrs. Bedford Conference with Solicitors and 5 hrs. Assessors and Look for Truck and Mower in Claysburg, Everett and Bedford 6/4/84 706 Bid Notice for Mower and Truck 3 hrs. at Bedford Conference with Solicitor and Mr. Diehl, Location not indicated Conference with PennDot at Hollidaysburg Conference with Solicitor Ickes, Location not Indicated Conference with Enterprise Entire Service, Location not Indicated 2 hrs... 5 hrs. 31 hrs. 41 hrs. 2 hrs. 31 hrs. 3 hrs. 7/2/84 746 Conference with School District 7 hrs. and also transfer license at Claysburg and Bedford 8/6/84 783 Conference with Solicitor and 31 hrs. get Jeep at Bedford Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 8 Conference with Attorney and 41 hrs. Police at Bedford 9/10/84 815 Conference with Commissioners 4 hrs. and Tax Office at Bedford Conference with Solicitor at 3 hrs. Bedford 11/5/84 872 Conference with Solicitor 31/2 hrs. and Truck Repairman at Bedford Hearing with Judge at Bedford 12/28/84 918 Emergency, Monthly and Club Claim Meetings at Altoona 6 hrs. 3 hrs. 1984 Total: 71 hrs. at $8.50 each = $603.50 c. 2/4/85 966 Conference with the Solicitor 3 hrs. (driveways) at Bedford Pick up Battery and Alternator 6 hrs. and Conference with the Solicitor at Bedford, Roaring Springs and Altoona Signs and Conferences at 7 hrs. Huntingdon and Kimmel Township Solicitor - Baer -702# at Bedford 4 hrs. Conference with Solicitor 31/2 hrs. (read letter) at Bedford Conference with the Solicitor 3 hrs. (Bare) at Bedford 3/4/85 1011 Conference with Solicitor at 2h hrs. Bedford Conference with Solicitor at 2 hrs. Bedford Conference with Solicitor at 3 hrs. Bedford Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 9 Solid Waste Meeting at Bedford 3 hrs. 4/1/85 1039 Conference with Solicitor and 3 hrs. Soil Conservationist at Bedford 5/6/85 1075 Conference of Municipal Service 10 hrs. Providers and Pick up and Order Signs at Altoona, Kimmel Twp. and Huntingdon Conference with Solicitor and Work on Tractor Seat at Bedford and Everett 3 hrs. 6/3/85 1102 To see Municipal Services in 21 hrs. Operation at Hollidaysburg Conference with Municipal 5 hrs. Services at Harrisburg Conference with Solicitor 4 hrs. Regarding Records of Prothonotary at Bedford Conference with Planning Commission and Soil Conservationist at Fishertown 31 hrs. Conference with Solicitor at 21 hrs. Bedford Conference with Municipal 4 hrs. Service Providers at- Hollidaysburg 7/1/85 1148 Conference with Solicitor at 21 hrs. Bedford Purchase Office Supplies at 1 Hour Roaring Springs Conference with Solicitor 3 hrs. at Bedford 8/5/85 1176 Conference with Solicitor 41 hrs. and Pick up Office Supplies at Bedford and Roaring Springs Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 10 Hours 63.5 71 100.5 Conference Bedford 12/2/85 1310 Conference Bedford with Solicitor at with Solicitor at Conference with Solicitor (702) at Bedford Conference with Engineers at Hollidaysburg Conference with Solicitor (702 and an Ordinance) at Bedford 2 hrs. 3 hrs. 4 hrs. 3 hrs. 3 hrs. 1985 Total: 100.5 hrs. at $8.75 each = $879.37 6. Total hours worked and amounts paid to you for services unrelated to . work on the township roads, facilities or equipment from 1983 - 1985 are as follows: Year Rate Total 1983 7.75 $492.12 1984 8.50 $603.50 1985 8.75 $879.37 $1,974.99 7. Eugene T. Wale, provided the following information in relation to the instant situation: a. He served as a township auditor from 1972 to the present. b. Approximately 1981, he voted for the approval of payments to township supervisors for work that they did while on township business. c. At that time, this payment sounded like a good idea because township supervisors were not being treated fairly under certain situations. d. The township's auditors approved this payment unanimously and believed that such was appropriate under the township code. Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 11 e. Later, township citizens began to criticize the abuse of payments for township business by township supervisors. f. Supervisor Walter refused to provide receipts for many of the cash reimbursements that he received from the township. The township surcharge action was initiated in order to recover certain funds, however, this action was subsequently withdrawn. 8. You provided the following information in relation to the instant situations a. You served as a township supervisor for Kimmel Township since 1978. b. You had continued to serve in this position except for a one month period in March of 1989. c. You had resigned from your role in March, but then you were asked to return to the position at the end of that month. d. You served as a township roadmaster from March 1983 to the present. e. The concept of paying township supervisors for work that they performed on township business originated around 1978. These payments have been approved by the township board of auditors. f. You have no idea that such payments would not be appropriate until you attended a state convention in 1985 where this issue was discussed. g. You discussed thereafter, the concept of township business payments with other supervisors and you were the moving force in having these payments abolished. h. The township was a small rural area which needed someone who was available to resolve many of the problems that were brought to the board of supervisors. All of the other township supervisors were employed full -time capacities and were not available during the normal work day. As a self - employed individual, you could shift your hours of work so as to handle township problems. i. Solving most of the township problems was delegated to you because of your availability. You performed many functions for the township and were not reimbursed as you never put a voucher in for approval. • g. Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 12 k. You could not recall at this time the reasons for your meetings with the township solicitor but all meetings were necessary. 1. In a generalized answer to the Investigative Complaint, you indicate as follows: (1) You were thrust into your position as a result of the death of the prior roadmaster and were guided by the advice of others whom you thought knew something about the maintenance of roads and equipment. (2) The conferences you attended with commissioners related to the transfer of a bridge to the county. You attended conferences with the Soil Conservation and Fish Commission because of disputes with land owners concerning run off water from roads. (4) Conferences with the township engineers were to have road dockets researched and surveyed, due to disputes with land owners or preliminarily to vacating roads. You had conferences with the police and attended hearings relative to harassment of work crews. (6) You had conferences with the solicitor to seek his advice in an effort to resolve the above problems. The above activity, in your view, related to the township business category. Maintaining the township building is in your view part of the roadmaster duties. You provided elaboration upon the vouchers explanation set forth in Finding 5. B. Discussion: Township Supervisors in townships of the second class are public officials as that term is defined in the State Ethics Act. 65 P.S. S402. As such, their conduct must conform to the requirements of the State Ethics Act. See, Sowers, 80 -050, Szvmanowski, Order No. 539. Initially, it is noted that Section 5 of Act 9 of June 26, 1989 provides, in part, as follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act, and cause of action initiated for such (3) (5) ( (8) (9) Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 13 violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior thereto." Since the occurrences in this case transpired prior to the effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the provisions of Act 170 of October 4, 1978, P.L. 883 to determine whether the Ethics Act was violated. Under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, 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); Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432, 531 A.2d 536 (1987). 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 35,000 or more Annual Maximum Compensation Fifteen hundred dollars Two thousand dollars Twenty -six hundred dollars Thirty -three hundred dollars Thirty -five hundred dollars Four Thousand 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 the use of a passenger car, or Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 14 a two axle four - wheeled motor truck having a chases 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. §65515. 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. 565512. 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 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 Code provides for compensation at the specific meetings outlined in 5512, 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 Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 15 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 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. 565410. The compensation to be paid to supervisors working in such positions is to be fixed by the township board of auditors. 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, 27 D & C 3d 253, (Berks 1983). It is clear, therefore, that the duties for which a township supervisor may be compensated are strictly regulated by the 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. In this case, you received $1,974.99 in "administrative services pay" from the township which was other than compensation provided by law. Although the auditors did approve "township business" compensation for certain years, this Commission has already held that township 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, Opinion 85 -005. 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: Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 16 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 supra. Since you obtained a financial gain of $1,974.99, you are hereby directed to forward within thirty days a check to the State Ethics Commission payable to the order of Kimmel Township in the amount of $1,974.99. C. Conclusion and Order 1. As a township supervisor in Kimmel Township, you are a public official 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 which was not compensation provided by law when you received "township business" pay. 3. The amount of gain received by you referenced in paragraph 2 amounts to $1,974.99. 4. You are hereby ordered to remit to the State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the date of this order a check in the amount of $1,974.99 payable to the order of Kimmel Township. 5. Failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph 4 will result in the referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority. 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 Mr. Eugene V. Walter Page 17 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 with 51 Pa. Code 52.38. 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 th Commission , i e ena G. Hughes Chair Mr. Eugene V. Walter R.R. 1, Box 706 Claysburg, PA 16625 Re: Order No. 714, File No. 86 -105 -C Dear Mr. Walter: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING P.O. BOX 11470 HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470 TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610 August 24, 1989 On August 15, 1989, the State Ethics Commission received your payment for reimbursing Kimmel Township as required by Order No. 714. We have forwarded your check No in the amount of $1,974.99 to Kimmel such. JJC /na This letter will be part of the cc: Public Binder . 155 dated August 11, 1989 Township. Order and a public record as