HomeMy WebLinkAbout733 SmytheORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 733
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
G. Sieber Pancoast
Dennis C. Harrington
James M. Howley
Date Decided: December 4, 1989
Date Mailed: December 15, 1989
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
c/o Carmen P. Belefonte
200 North Jackson Street
Media, PA 19063
Re: 88 -062 -C
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
Dear Mr. Smythe:
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 held. 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 Chief of Police in Darby Borough,
Delaware County, violated the following provisions of the Ethics Act
(Act 170 of 1978), when you received monies from the borough for work
performed on police cars at an automobile repair shop in which you
are a partner and for failing to file Statements of Financial
Interests as Borough Police Chief:
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
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 2
A. Findings:
of his immediate family, or a business with which
he is associated. 65 P.S. 5403(a).
(c) No public official or public employee or a
member of his immediate family or any business in
which the person or a member of the person's
immediate family is a director, officer, owner or
holder of stock exceeding 5% of the equity at fair
market value of the business shall enter into any
contract valued at $500 or more with a
governmental body unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process,
including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered and
contracts awarded. Any contract made in
violation of this subsection shall be voidable by
a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of making of the
contract. 65 P.S. 5403(c).
1. You serve as the Chief of Police for the Borough of Darby,
Delaware County, Pennsylvania.
a. You have served in this position for approximately 5 years.
b. You have served on the Darby Borough police force for
approximately 19 years.
2. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of
Corporations, indicate the following regarding Del -Co Auto Body,
Incorporated.
a. Date of Incorporation - April 8, 1987.
b. Corporate Address - East Corner of Mill and Walnut Streets,
Darby, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 19023.
c. Aggregate number of shares, 1,000, with no par value.
d. Name of Incorporators: Thomas Foster, 324 S. 3rd Street,
Colwyn, Pennsylvania, 19023.
e. Robert F. Smythe, 480 Pinecrest Road, Springfield,
Pennsylvania,- 19064.
f. Shares issued per incorporator: 250.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 3
3. Records of Darby Borough indicate the following regarding bills
submitted by Del -Co Auto Body, Incorporated, to Darby Borough for
services rendered:
a. Invoice dated 1/29/88 for car No. 4728 identified as a 1983
Plymouth, 4 door, license No. MG99821, Serial No.
2P3BB2644DR233514.
(1) Services rendered are indicated as:
Replace left 3/4 front, sheet metal and parts, refinish
entire car complete.
(2) Total cost: $2,100.
(3) Bill contains approval stamp with handwritten date of
4/27/88 app. and bears the signature of Robert
Mawhinney.
(4) The bill is signed and submitted by Tom Foster.
b. Invoice dated 2/9/88 regarding a 1984 Chevrolet Impala, 4
door, license No. MG93411, Serial No. 2G1AL696GE9267509.
(1) The repair order indicates damage to the front end and
lists various repairs and parts totalling $1,910.68.
(2) Costs parts are listed as $956.48 while labor costs are
identified as $634.40.
(3) The bill contains a stamp approval with handwritten
notation "App. 4- 27 -88" and bears the signature of
Robert Mawhinney.
(4) The bill is signed and submitted by Tom Forester.
c. Invoice dated 2 -20 -87 regarding 1978 Chevrolet Sedan
containing no further information regarding vehicle make or
type.
(1) Bill indicates services rendered as right front door,
special door molding, paint and material, paint and
refinish right front door.
(2) Total costs: $275.
(3) Bill contains stamp approval with handwritten notation
of date, 3/11/87, bearing the initials S.D.G.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 4
4. Records of the Darby Borough contain the following estimates that
were submitted by Gricco's Auto Body, Hook Road and Darby Creek, Darby
Township Pennsylvania, 19079, regarding repairs on borough vehicles:
a. Invoice dated 12 -2 -87 regarding a 1984 Impala, License No.
93411.
b. Estimate relates to repairs for front end damage.
c. Costs not to exceed $2,150.
d. Invoice dated 12 -21 -87 regarding a 1983 Plymouth.
(1) Services rendered to include repair to front end and
refinishing car.
(2) Costs not to exceed $2,400.
5. Records of Darby Borough indicate the following regarding payment
to Del -Co Auto Body for services rendered as identified in finding 3
above.
a. Borough of Darby check No. 14950, Borough of Darby General
Fund, account No. 3080082, Fidelity Bank, North America,
dated 4- 28 -88, payable to Del -Co Auto Body in the amount of
$4,010.68.
b. The check was stamped on the reverse side for deposit only
Del -Co Auto Body, Inc., Robert Smythe - Treasurer with a
date of April 29, 1988.
6. Records of Darby Borough indicate that the Borough maintained
monthly expenditure sheets listing all disbursements made by the
Borough:
a. Expenditure sheets regarding the Public Safety Committee for
March and April of 1988 indicate no expenditures or
disbursements regarding. Del -Co Auto Body.
b. Expenditure sheet for the Public Safety Committee for May,
1988 indicates a payment to Del -Co Auto Body in the amount
of $4,010.68.
(1) This expenditure sheet is signed by the Chairman,
Robert Mawhinney, and is dated July 18, 1988.
7. Records of Darby Borough indicate that a meeting of Darby Borough
Council members was conducted on May 4, 1988.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 5
a. No specific indication is recorded in the minutes regarding
payments to Del -Co Auto Body.
b. The minutes indicate that a motion was made to approve
vouchers and that motion passed by a vote of six to two.
8. Minutes of the Darby Borough Council meetings from June 3, 1987
through and including May 4, 1988 indicate no discussion or reference
to bids or estimates submitted by auto repair shops regarding services
rendered in relation to damage to police vehicles.
9. Records of Darby Borough Council, Public Safety Committee meetings
during the period May 13, 1987 through and including April 27, 1988
contain no reference or discussion of any estimates for repair
submitted by auto body shops regarding services rendered in relation
to damage to police vehicles.
10. Minutes of the Darby Borough Council meeting of August 3, 1988
indicate the following in relation to the instant situation:
a. Borough Mayor Saraullo raised the issue of repairs to
borough police vehicles by Del -Co Auto Body, Incorporated.
b. The mayor expressed his support for Chief of Police Smythe.
c.
d. Saraullo referred to the minutes of the March 5, 1975
meeting and stated that a motion was passed at that time
allowing Del -Co Auto Body to be involved in the borough's
towing and storage of vehicles.
e. The Mayor stated that Mr. Smythe was a police officer at the
time and his interest in Del -Co Auto Body was made known
publicly. The solicitor at that time, Peter Dunn, advised
that there was no conflict of interest.
f. Solicitor Nolan then discussed this issue in relation to
Section 1404 of the Borough Code. He stated that in order
for that section to apply, the person involved must know of
the statute and its prohibitions and intentionally and
knowingly enter into a transaction. Mr. Nolan concluded
that Chief of Police Smythe's statement that he did not know
of or was unaware of this prohibition was sufficient to
prove that he did not violate Section 1404.
g.
Saraullo stated the purpose of having the vehicles repaired
at Del -Co Auto Body was to save money.
Mr. Nolan indicated that Del -Co Auto Body was the low
estimate and saved the borough approximately $500.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 6
h. Mr. Nolan advised that Police Chiefs and Police Officers
have been found by the courts to be employees and not public
officials, consequently Section 1404 does not apply.
11. Minutes of the Darby Borough Council meeting from March 5, 1975
indicate the following regarding proposals for the towing and storage
of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles in the. Borough:
a. Borough Manager, DiGregorio advised that two proposals had
been received for towing and storing abandoned and illegally
parked vehicles. The service will be provided free of
charge to the borough.
b. Further discussion occurred regarding the proposals
received.
c. A motion was made by a Mr. McBride to have Borough Council
accept the proposal which was submitted by Del -Co Auto Body
and this motion was seconded by Mr. Luke.
d. Mayor Sanders questioned the potential conflict of interest
in obtaining the services of Del -Co Auto Body in that a
member of the Darby Borough police force was also an
employee of Del -Co Auto Body.
e. Mr. Dunn, Solicitor, stated that no conflict of interest
was occasioned by this situation.
f. After further discussion on the fines that would be levied
on vehicles, the motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 3.
12. Minutes of the Borough of Darby Council meeting for June 4, 1975
indicate, in part, the following under the heading report of the
Mayor:
a. The Mayor returns to Borough Council the towing and storage
charges ordinance with his disapproval for the following
reasons:
(1) Approval of the ordinance will automatically allow the
Del -Co Auto Company to start towing vehicles and
assessing a towing. and rental charge too. Objection
is made to Del -Co Auto Company being the designated
towing agent for the Borough of Darby.
(2) This objection is based upon the fact that a member of
the Darby Borough Police Department is employed and is
an involved member of this business establishment.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 7
(3) Approval of this ordinance will be executed when a
legal and proper towing agent is approved by borough
council.
b. Borough Council did not adopt a towing or storage ordinance
at that meeting but did approve a Towing and Storage
Agreement at a March 5, 1975 meeting which was implemented
immediately at that time.
c. The report of the Mayor was accepted upon unanimous vote of
council. Such action merely reflected acceptance of the
report but not necessarily the adoption of the substance of
the report itself.
13. Robert Mawhinney provided the following information in relation
to the instant situation:
a. He served as a Darby. Borough Council member and Chairman of
the Public Safety Committee since 1988.
b. Regarding the process for repairing damaged police vehicles,
once he is informed that an accident has occurred, he
instructs the borough manager to take the police cars out to
local shops to obtain estimates regarding the costs of
repair.
c. Police vehicles are normally sent to Suburban Collision,
Gricco's Auto Body and Del -Co Auto Body for estimates.
d. The estimates are returned to the borough through the office
of the Borough Manager, Mr. Gallagher, who brings these
estimates to his attention.
e. He then reviews the estimates at the committee meetings and
picks the lowest bidder. Normally, there is no discussion
on these matters unless a bid has been required.
f. He then directs the Chief of Police to have the vehicle
repaired at the selected shop.
g.
Regarding the two police vehicles repaired by Del -Co Auto
Body, estimates were given to him at a Committee Meeting and
he directed the vehicles be taken to the Del -Co Auto Body.
h. He was aware, at the time, that Chief of Police Smythe had
an interest in that entity.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 8
i. Del -Co Auto Body was the lowest estimate and he was
attempting to save the borough money. Upon repair of the
vehicles, the bills were submitted to the business manager
and thereafter, presented to him for signature. The bills
were then presented to the full council at a regular council
meeting for final approval.
j It is a requirement of Darby Borough Council to approve all
bills before they can be paid.
k. Approval to pay bills to Del -Co Auto Body regarding repair
of the two vehicles was given at the May 4, 1988 meeting of
the Darby Borough Council.
1. He could not explain why the check was disbursed and cashed
prior to the May 4, 1988 meeting. He advised that there may
have been a shortage of vehicles and thereby required to pay
the bill before it was approved by the entire council in
order to obtain a return of the vehicles.
m. Public Safety Committee meetings are open to the public and
are advertised in a local newspaper. The payment of bills
are not specifically reviewed during borough council
meetings unless a bid has been required. He was not aware
of the Ethics Act's open and public process requirements
when a public official is interested in a business
transaction.
14. Philip Gallagher provided the following information in relation
to the instant situation:
a. He served as the Darby Borough Manager.
b. Darby Borough Police Department had two police vehicles that
were - damaged in accidents and repaired by the Del -Co Auto
Body in 1988.
c. Del -Co Auto Body submitted to the borough bills outlining
the repairs completed on the vehicles for payment by the
borough. Robert Mawhinney, Chairman of the Public Safety
Committee, approved these bills prior to submission to
borough council for final approval.
d. Payment to Del -Co Auto Body for the services rendered were
made by way of borough check No. 14950 in the amount of
$4,010.60.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 9
e. This check was signed by Gallagher and his business manager
and Robert Layden, a borough councilmember who is Chairman
of the Finance Committee.
f. Borough Council's final approval of payment of the bill
submitted to Del -Co Auto Body was rendered at the May 4,
1988 regular borough council meeting.
15. Joseph Gricco provided the following information in relation to
this situation:
a. He was the proprietor of Gricco Auto Body.
b. He submitted bids to Darby Borough in 1987 regarding the
estimated costs of repairing two damaged police vehicles.
c. He could not recall who contacted him regarding providing
these estimates.
d. On at least one occasion, he travelled to the police station
to observe a damaged vehicle. Chief of Police Smythe was
present at that time.
e. On the second occasion, he sent a tow truck to the police
station to pick up the vehicle and return it to his shop.
f. Both estimates were mailed to the township although he did
not obtain either job.
He did repair work on other township vehicles such as trash
trucks and smaller trucks.
h. He received business from Del -Co Auto Body shop which is
owned in part by Mr. Smythe.
i. He submitted a written estimate for a damaged borough
vehicle in 1988. After reviewing the amount charged by Del -
Co. to repair the vehicle, he believes that the Del -Co
repair was for less than he could have done it and probably
was done at the cost of the parts.
g.
16. You provided the following information in relation to this
situation in the presence of your attorney:
a. You have served on the Darby Borough Police Department for
19 years and have been the Chief of Police for the last 5
years.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 10
b. Del -Co Auto Body is a corporation that has 1,000 shares of
common stock. Five hundred shares have been issued and you
and your partner, Thomas Foster, each own 250 shares.
c. Regarding the 1983 Plymouth that was repaired by Del -Co Auto
Body, this vehicle was a police car and was damaged in the
pursuit of a stolen car.
d. Regarding the repair of borough vehicles, the police
committee of borough council is notified of damaged vehicles
and they decide if the auto should be repaired. The
president of borough council is also involved in this
process.
e. Accident reports are presented to the Committee along with
the estimates for the repairs and that Committee then
authorizes repair of the vehicle.
f. After approval you, along with the borough manager, would
take care of the repair process.
g. If a car was mobile, you would have one of the police
officers drive the vehicle to the body shop for estimates.
If the vehicle was not mobile, such as the 1983 Plymouth,
the vehicle would be towed to the place of repair for the
receipt of estimates.
h. Both Suburban Collision and Gricco's Auto Body gave
estimates on the 1983 Plymouth repair job.
i. The estimate received from Del -Co Auto Body was handled
either by your partner, Tom Foster, or the estimator Bill
LaVine. You were not present during the estimating process.
j.
The estimating process was not a sealed bid procedure.
k. You probably became aware of the fact that Del -Co was going
to do the work when the Borough Manager told you to take the
car to Del -Co Auto Body and get it fixed.
1. You and your partner had previously agreed that any borough
vehicles would be repaired at cost. This was done so that
the borough would have more money available to fight crime.
m. The same procedure was followed regarding the repair of the
police Chevrolet Impala, a 1984 vehicle that was damaged in
an auto accident.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 11
n. You were not involved in estimating the damage on this
vehicle.
o. You do not recall if the decision to use Del -Co Auto Body
was made at a council meeting.
p. All members of Council knew that you were involved with Del -
Co Auto Body through the course of attending meetings and
dealing with council on a daily basis. Everyone already
knew of your connection with Del -Co Auto Body and no one
confronted you about that situation.
q. In the mid 1970's, an issue came up regarding your company
providing work for the borough and it was decided, at that
time, that there would be no conflict of interest.
r. You have not filed any Statements of Financial Interests in
your position as Chief of Police or as Police Officer in
that you were never supplied the statements and were unaware
of the fact that you had to file them.
17. Records of Darby Borough indicate no Statements of Financial
Interests on file for you, except for a Statement dated March 7, 1989
which contains no designation as to calendar year.
a. The Borough manager in a letter of October 30, 1989 advises
that your statement was filed for the 1989 year.
18. You provided the following testimony:
a. Del -Co has not done any borough repair work since 1988 nor
any towing and storage work for more than 10 years.
b. Del -Co did some work for the borough in 1988 but did not
charge the borough for either parts or labor.
c. You and your partner decided that Del -Co would basically do
borough repair work at cost so that the borough could save
money.
d. The contracting procedures were established by council and
you did not participate in that process.
e. When a borough vehicle was damaged, you were told to send
the vehicle for estimates which would be submitted to
council. You had no discretion as to where to send the
vehicles.
f. Council made the decisions to award contracts.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 12
g. The matter of Del -Co's contracting with the borough was
reviewed by two different borough solicitors who opined that
there was no conflict based upon the manner in which the
contracting was handled.
h. You filed a Financial Interests Statement with the borough
for the first time in 1989 because, prior to that time, you
were not given the form and were not aware of the filing
requirements.
i. You acknowledge that you use the Crimes Code handbook which
contains a copy of the Ethics Act.
B. Discussion:
As the Police Chief for Darby Borough, you are a public employee
as that term is defined under the Ethics Act and Regulations of this
Commission. 65 P.S. S402; 51 Pa. Code 1.1. As such, you are subject
to the provisions of the Ethics Act and the restrictions therein are
applicable to you.
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 violations shall be governed by the prior
law, which is continued in effect for the 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), this Commission has determined that use of
office by a public official to obtain a financial gain for himself or
a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is
associated which is not provided for in law transgresses the above
provision of law. Thus, use of office by a public official to obtain
a financial gain which is not authorized as part of his compensation
is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. State Ethics
Omission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 13
State Ethics Commission, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536 (1987).
Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a public
official /employee from using public office to advance his own
interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19,
540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Likewise, a public official /employee may not
use the status or position of public office for his own personal
advantage; Huff, Opinion 84 -015.
Additionally under section 3(c) of the Ethics Act quoted above,
this provision of law provides, in part, that no public official shall
enter into a contract valued at $500 or more with this governmental
body unless the contract was awarded through an open and public
process.
In the instant matter we must determine whether your actions have
violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and secondly whether Section
3(c) of the Ethics Act has been violated as to the contracting
between the borough and Del -Co, a business with which you are
associated due to your 50% partnership interest therein.
In 1987, Del -Co, an automobile repair shop, billed the borough
for $275 for repairs on a 1978 Chevrolet; by invoice dated January
29, 1988, Del -Co billed the borough in the amount of $2100 for repairs
on a 1983 Plymouth and by invoice dated February 9, 1988, Del -Co
submitted a bill totalling $1,910.68 for repairs on s 1984 Chevrolet.
The record reflects that you had no involvement as police chief
as to the borough procedures for repairing damaged vehicles which did
not involve on open and public process for bidding. In addition, you
testified that you had no discretion as to where the damaged vehicles
would be sent for estimates or where the vehicles would be fixed.
Finally, you stated that you and your partner in Del -Co decided to do
any borough repairs at cost so that the savings could be passed on to
the borough.
In applying the above circumstance to Section 3(a) of the Ethics
Act, we do not find any evidence to establish that you used public
office to obtain a financial gain for Del -Co, the business with which
you were associated. The decisions to award contracts for the repairs
of damaged borough vehicles were made by council; you as police chief
did not participate or vote in those decisions. Accordingly, we find
on the facts presented that you did not violate Section 3(a) of the
Ethics Act.
Regarding the allegation concerning Section 3(c) of the Ethics
Act, we note that Del -Co did submit invoices for the repairs of
vehicles. In 1988, two invoices were submitted which exceeded the
$500 threshold of Section 3(c). In addition, the awarding of
contracts for the repair of vehicles was not done through an open and
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 14
public process but was apparently awarded to the lowest bidder as to
the bids which were solicited.
Under these circumstances we find that you did violate Section
3(c) of the Ethics Act when the business with which you were
associated, Del -Co, entered into two contracts in 1988 which exceeded
$500 and which were awarded without an open and public process.
Finally, we note that you have been a policeman for Darby Borough
for 19 years and police chief for the last five years. As police
chief you are a public employee required to file the Statement of
Financial Interests. Coyle, Opinion 82 -013. You, however, have not
filed any statements except for a form dated March 7, 1989 for an
undesignated calendar year.
Such action violated Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act which
provides:
Section 4. Statement of financial interests
required to be filed.
(a) Each public employee employed by the
Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the
department, agency or bureau in which he iF
employed no later than May 1, of each year that he
holds such a position and of the year after he
leaves such a position. Any other public employee
shall file a statement of financial interests with
the governing authority of the political
subdivision by which he is employed no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position
and of the year after he leaves such a position.
65 P.S. §404(a).
In light of the above deficiencies, you are hereby directed
within 30 days of the issuance of this Order to file an amended
Financial Interests Statement to reflect the appropriate calendar
year. In addition you are directed to file Financial Interests
Statements for the other years when you served as police chief. If
you comply with the above within the 30 day period, no further action
will be taken in this case. Failure to comply will result in the
referral of this matter to the appropriate law enforcement authority.
C. Conclusion and Order
1. As Darby Borough Police Chief, you are a public employee
subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 15
2. You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act regarding
the repair of borough vehicles at Del -Co, a business with
which you were associated, because the evidence does not
establish any use of office on your part to obtain a
financial gain.
3. You violated Section 3(c) of the Ethics Act when Del -Co, a
business with which you were associated, contracted for the
repair of two borough vehicles in 1988 when the contracts
exceeded $500 and were not awarded through an open and
public process.
4. You violated Section 4(a) of the Ethics Act when you failed
to file Statements of Financial Interests for all years that
you served as police chief, except for a Statement dated
March 7, 1989.
5. You are directed within 30 days of the issuance of this
Order to file an amended Statement to reflect the
appropriate calendar year as to the Statement referenced in
paragraph 4.
6. You are directed within 30 days of the issuance of this
Order to file Statements of Financial Interests for all
other years when you served as police chief.
7. Failure to comply with the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 6
will cause the referral of this case 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 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.
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
Page 16
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 the omission,
./ / �C
elena G. Hughes
Chair
Dear Attorney Belefonte:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
P.O. BOX 11470
HARRISBURG, PA 17108 -1470
TELEPHONE (717) 783 -1610
January 9, 1990
Mr. Robert F. Smythe
c/o Carmen P. Belefonte
Cherry, Ferrara, Mutzel, Belefonte
McFadden & Wesner
220 North Jackson Street
P.O. Box 1670
Media, PA 19063
Re: Order No. 733, File No. 88 -062 -C
On January 2, 1990, the State Ethics Commission received your
Statements of Financial Interests as required by State Ethics
Commission Order No. 733.
This letter will become part of the Order when such becomes
public record.
JJC /na
ccs Public Binder
Si erely j
Execut e Director