Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1152 SantoreIn Re: Norma Jean Santore STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Julius Uehlein Louis W. Fryman John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket 99 -01 1 -C2 Order No. 1152 4/12/2000 4/28/2000 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation as to the above -named Respondent regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seg., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 seq., which inter alia provides for the completion of pending matters under that Act. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved and the Stipulation of Findings appears as the Findings in this adjudication. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $ 1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Norma Jean Santore, a public official in her capacity as Fayette County Sheriff, violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401, et seq.) when she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary benefit of a member of her immediate family when she participated in the hiring of her son as the Chief Deputy Sheriff and when she participated in setting her son's wages as well as recommending and participating in a vote of the Salary Board to increase his wages. II. FINDINGS: 1. Norma Jean Santore has served as the Sheriff of Fayette County since November 12, 1982. a. Santore has been employed by the Fayette County Sheriff's Department . since at least 1970, serving as Chief Deputy prior to her election. 2. During 1999, the Fayette County Sheriff's Department employed 12 individuals including four full time deputy Sheriffs and three part time deputies and one contract deputy and three (3) office personnel. 3. The Fayette County Sheriff's Office is one of nine row offices in the Fayette County Courthouse. 4. Individual row officers are responsible for hiring and firing of employees in their respective office. a. The Sheriff is solely responsible for all hiring within the Sheriff's Department. 5. The Fayette County Salary Board fixes the number of positions and salaries of county employees. a. Salary boards are created pursuant to provisions of the County Code. b. The Salary Board is composed of the three county commissioners and the county controller. (1) The chairman the of the rd y C ommissioners is typically the o chairman Y Boa c. Individual row officers also sit on the Salary Board to participate in actions regarding their respective offices. d. The Salary Board has no solicitor to attend meetings or provide legal advice. 6. The Salary Board generally meets and each year. a. County positions and salaries meeting. 7. Mark D. Santore is the son of Norma Jean Santore. organizes on the first Monday of January are reviewed and re- established at this Santore, 99 -01 1 -C2 Page 3 8. Mark Santore was employed by Consolidated Coal Company, Dillworth Coal Mines, in Rices Landing, PA, from November 15, 1978, through August 24, 1995. a. Mark Santore held various positions, including general inside laborer and timberman. b. Mark Santore's ending salary was $16.448 per hour, or $34,212.00 annually. c. Mark Santore terminated his employment with Consolidated Coal for medical reasons. 9. In or around August 1995, a full -time Deputy Sheriff position became vacant in the Fayette County Sheriff's Department. a. At least six individuals had filed applications for a Deputy Sheriff position within the first six months of 1995. b. Some of the applicants who were not Fayette County residents, were not considered. (1) The Sheriff had a policy to hire only county residents. c. Mark D. Santore filed an application on August 1, 1995, on or about the time the vacancy became available. 10. Mark Santore was interviewed for the Deputy Sheriff position by Sheriff Norma Santore. a. Sheriff Santore knew that Mark Santore was seeking other employment due to medical problems at his current employment. (1) This was a factor in Sheriff Santore's decision to hire her son. 11. No records exist that other applicants were considered or interviewed for this position. 12. Mark Santore had no prior law enforcement experience. a. Mark Santore previously helped in the Sheriff's Office during an emergency. 13. Deputy Sheriff requirements as outlined in the Fourth Class County Code, at the time of Mark Santore's hiring were as follows: a. A high school diploma or GED. b. No prior criminal record. c. Passing of a medical /physical exam. d. Citizen of the United States. e. Has not acted as a private detective or agent in a labor dispute for the past two years. Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 4 14. Mark Santore was hired by Santore as a full -time Fayette County Deputy Sheriff effective August 28, 1995. 15. Santore sent correspondence to Harry Fike, then County Controller, to enter the name of Mark Santore on the payroll of the Sheriff's Office effective August 28, 1995, to fill a vacant Deputy Sheriff position. 16. The position of full -time Deputy Sheriff is a union position. a. The union representing the Sheriff's Department is the Service Employee International Union, Local 585, AFL -CIO. b. The contract existing at the time Mark Santore was hired encompassed the period from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1998. 17. A motion approved during the January 5, 1995, Salary Board meeting provides that "all new hires and vacant positions shall be hired at the entrance level and minimum salary for that position." 18. The existing union contract in August, 1995, established the minimum starting salary for the Deputy Sheriff position at $8.35 per hour. a. The annual wage was $16,293.00, based on a 37.5 hour work week. 19. Mark Santore was hired at an annual salary of $16,293. 20. Mark Santore received a $0.25 per hour increase, to $8.60 per hour, at the February 20, 1996, meeting of the Salary Board. a. This raise was mandated by the union contract in existence at that time. b. Norma Santore was present at the February 20, 1996 meeting of the Salary Board. c. Santore made the motion to the Salary Board for the approval of the wages for the employees of the Sheriff's Department and participated in the vote approving the increase. (1) All full -time deputies received the pay increase. 21. No public disclosure was made by Santore that she was hiring her son or that he would be affected by the salary increases. a. It was common knowledge at the Fayette County Courthouse that Mark Santore was Santore's son. b. Sheriff Santore was not advised that she could not vote on matters affecting her son. 22 to The th position of Chief retirement of the hef Deputy Sheriff John Mongell on or February 8, 1996. 23. The position of Chief Deputy Sheriff is a management position. a. The Chief Deputy position is not covered by the union contract. Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 5 24. The starting annual salary for the vacant Chief Deputy Sheriff position was set at $22,678.00, or $11.63 per hour, based on a 37.5 hour work week during the February 20, 1996 Salary Board meeting. a. The chief deputy salary was based on the starting salaries of other row office chief deputies at that time. b. Santore presented the salary to the Salary Board and participated in setting and approving the salary, for the vacant Chief Deputy position and voted yes for the establishment of that salary. c. The motion was unanimously approved. 25 No individual was named to the vacant Chief Deputy Sheriff position at the February 20, 1996 Salary Board meeting. 26. On February 26, 1996, a job vacancy for the Chief Deputy Sheriff position was posted. a. Qualifications were attached to the posting. b. Interested individuals were to apply in writing to the Sheriff's Office by March 8, 1996. 27. Between the dates of February 26, 1996, and March 8, 1996, at least seven individuals applied for the Chief Deputy Sheriff position. 28. Mark Santore, one of the applicants, filed an application for the Chief Deputy Sheriff position on February 26, 1996. 29. At the time of his application for Chief Deputy Sheriff, Mark Santore had Tess than one year law enforcement experience. 30. Mark Santore was not interviewed for the Chief Deputy position. a. No other applicants were interviewed for the chief deputy position as the Sheriff decided to promote from within. b. Sheriff Santore considered Deputies Paul Wozniak and Mark Santore, but settled on Mark Santore because he took college courses. 31. Effective March 11, 1996, Mark Santore was promoted to the position of Chief Deputy Sheriff by his mother, Sheriff Norma Santore. a. Santore sent correspondence to County Controller Gerald Bukovitz dated March 11, 1996, to enter the name of Mark D. Santore on the payroll under the title of Chief Deputy Sheriff as of March 11, 1996. b. Mark Santore's starting salary was set at Si 1.63 per hour, or $22,678.00 annually. c. Mark Santore was promoted to Chief Deputy 20 days after the salary for the Chief Deputy position was set. Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 6 32. Mark Santore had Tess than one year experience as a Deputy Sheriff and six months experience in law enforcement at the time of his promotion to Chief Deputy. 33. Mark Santore did not receive a salary increase in 1997. 34. In 1998 and 1999, Norma Santore, in her capacity as Sheriff, participated in actions of the Salary Board resulting in pay increases for her son or attempting to secure raises for her son. a. Santore also sought raises for other members of her staff. 35. At the February 3, 1998 Salary Board meeting, Norma Santore made a motion that, retroactive to January 1, 1998, employees be granted a 3% increase in salary pursuant to the approved labor contracts between county and respective unions as applicable over the 12 -month period. a. Santore voted yes on the motion which passed by a 4 to 0 vote. 36. At the same meeting, Santore made a motion that all non -union and management, full -time and part-time employees receive a (3 %) raise retroactive to January 1, 1998. a. The roll call vote was 3 -1, with Santore voting in the majority. b. Mark Santore, as Chief Deputy is considered a management employee and would be one of the group of employees benefitting from the pay increase. c. At this same session of the Salary Board the other row officers each made the same motion regarding the non -union and management employees and their respective offices. Each of these motions also passed with one dissent. 37. There is no record in the meeting minutes that Santore publicly disclosed her relationship with Mark Santore at the February 3, 1998 meeting. a. Santore did not abstain from the vote affecting the salary of Mark Santore. b. The Salary Board records votes, but does not formally approve minutes from prior meetings. 38. Mark Santore's salary increased from $11.63 to Si 1.98 per hour, or $683.00 annually, as a result of this raise. 39. A motion was made by Santore to pay full -time Deputy Sheriffs for an eight -hour day at the August 19, 1998, meeting of the Salary Board. a. This was an increase from a 7.5 hour work day. b. The roll call vote was 3 -0. c. There is no record of an abstention by Santore. Santore, 99 -01 1 -C2 Page 7 d. This motion increased the yearly- salary of Mark Santore to $24,918.00, based on a 40 -hour work week. 40. A second motion made by Sheriff Santore, during the August 19, 1998, Salary Board meeting, increased the salary of the Chief Deputy Sheriff to $29,400.00 annually, with no overtime, effective January 1, 1999. a. There is no record in the meeting minutes that Santore publicly disclosed her relationship with the Chief Deputy Sheriff at this meeting. b. Santore voted yes on the motion. c. The roll call vote was 2 -2, with Commissioners Vicites and Sean Cavanaugh voting no. d. The motion did not pass. e. Santore also motioned for raises for other members of her staff. 41. At the February 10, 1999, Salary Board meeting, Santore seconded a motion made by Commissioner Sean Cavanaugh that effective January 1, 1999, employees, non -union and union, would be granted a 3% increase in salary except for any employee who was hired or received a raise after June 30, 1998, pursuant to approved labor contracts between the county and respective unions as applicable over the 12 -month period. a. b. c. Santore voted yes on the motion. The roll call vote was 4 -0. As a non -union employee, Mark Santore was eligible to receive the raise. 42. There is no record in the meeting minutes that Santore publicly disclosed her relationship with Mark Santore at this meeting. 43. Mark Santore's salary increased from $11.98 to $12.34 per hour, or $25,667.00 annually, as a result of this raise. 44. A motion was also made by Santore, during the February 10, 1999, Salary Board meeting, to increase the salary of the Chief Deputy from $25,667.00 to $28,667.00 annually. a. This motion also included a request to create a position in the Sheriff's Department of Lieutenant at $27,057.00 annually and to increase the salary of the Sergeant position from $23,937.00 to $26,937.00. b. The roll call vote was 2 -1 -1 to approve, with Commissioner Vincent Vicites voting no and Controller Gerald Bukovitz abstaining. c. Santore's affirmative vote was deciding. 45. County Commissioners Cavanaugh and Vicites were opposed to the salary increases for Mark Santore and other row office chief deputies on the grounds the increases were not budgeted. a. Sheriff Santore believed that funds were budgeted for the raises. Santore, 99 -01 1 -C2 Page 8 46. On February 12, 1999, the County Commissioners met for the purpose of overturning the salary increases for the chief deputies. a. Commissioners Vicites and Cavanaugh directed Controller Bukovitz to withhold payment of the increases. b. Bukovitz did not attend the meeting. 47. An opinion from the county solicitor as to the salary board action was requested by Vicites. a. Vicites questioned whether it was legal for Santore to participate in a salary board vote that resulted in a financial benefit to her son. b. Vicites participated in all previous Salary Board meetings which affected Sheriff Santore's son, and never questioned Santore's right to vote on any matter affecting Mark Santore. 48. Solicitor Joseph Ferens issued an opinion which provided, in part, as to the actions of Norma Santore. "The Sheriff has never attempted in any manner to hide the relationship. However, it seems clear under the law that the sheriff must publicly disclose her relationship prior to her voting. By not doing so, it appears that an apparent conflict of interest was created, which could taint the entire resolution and possibly create a liability for the county." a. Solicitor Ferens had not previously shared this opinion with the Sheriff. 49. Solicitor Ferens recommended the Salary Board be convened to rescind the February 10, 1999, board action. 50. A meeting of the Fayette County Salary Board was called by the chairman (Vicites) on February 24, 1999, at 11:00 a.m. a. Santore was present at this meeting. b. A motion was made by Vicites and seconded by Cavanaugh to rescind the increase in salary of Chief Deputy from $25,667.00 to $28,667.00 and to rescind the creation of the Lieutenant position and the increase in the Sergeant salary. c. The roll call vote was 3 -1 to approve the motion, with Santore casting the dissenting vote. d. Prior to the meeting, Mark Santore had informed the Commissioners he would not accept any raise. e. Mark Santore never received any increase in compensation as a result of the February 10, 1999, Salary Board. 51. Mark Santore has been compensated for the position of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff as shown below: Year Wage 1995 5, 587.00 1996 22, 788.00 1997 23,735.00 1998 26,542.00 1999 18,382.00 TOTAL: $97,014.00 Santore, 99 -01 1 -C2 Page 9 a. 1999 wages account for wages earned through August 28, 1999. b. In August 1998, full -time Deputy Sheriffs' work weeks were increased from 37.5 hours per week to 40 hours per week. (1) The increase in work hours affected at least five Deputy Sheriffs, including Mark Santore. c. Non -union raises received by Sheriff's Office employees in 1998 and 1999 affected at least five employees, including Mark Santore. 52. Sheriff Santore believed no laws would be violated by hiring her son because she knew that one previous sheriff, Jacob Echard, had employed his son as his deputy. a. Santore further believed that since her son was not a resident of her home, no conflict existed. 53. It was common knowledge to those in the Fayette County Courthouse that Mark Santore was the Sheriff's son. 54. When voting on salary issues, Sheriff Santore was not advised that she could not vote on matters affecting her son. 55. In 1985, Sheriff Santore employed Mark Santore as a special deputy to help during the emergency caused by the Election Day floods. a. No objections were raised to this employment. 56. The chief function of the sheriff's office for Fayette County is to serve legal process. a. This office has minimal law enforcement responsibilities. b. During his employment with the Sheriff's office, Mark Santore performed minimal enforcement activity. c. During the time period served as deputy sheriff, Mark Santore received all training and passed all courses required for a deputy sheriff. He performed his assigned duties and worked extra hours without being paid. San ore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 10 57. Santore was not aware of the provisions of the Ethics Law and was not advised of potential conflicts by the county solicitor when participating in salary board matters. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Norma Jean Santore, hereinafter Santore, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq. /Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101, et seq. The issue is whether Santore violated Section 3(a) as to the allegations that when she used the authority of her office as the Fayette County Sheriff for the private pecuniary benefit of a member of her immediate family when she participated in the hiring of her son as the Chief Deputy Sheriff and when she participated in setting her son's wages as well as recommending and participating in a vote of the Salary Baord to increase his wages. Section 1103. Restricted activities. (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined under the Ethics Act as follows: Section 1102. Definitions. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. §1102. Section 1 103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 2. Definitions Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 11 65 P.S. §402. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Santore has served as the Fayette County Sheriff since November, 1982. Individual county row officers, including the Sheriff, are responsible for the hiring and firing of employees in their respective offices. However, the County Salary Board, composed of the County Commissioners, the County Controller, and individual row officers, fixes the number of positions and the salaries of county employees. Mark Santore, Santore's son, applied to fill a vacancy as to a Deputy Sheriff position in the Fayette County Sheriff's Department. Of the six individuals that applied, only applicants residing in Fayette County would be considered given the policy of the Sheriff to hire only county residents. Santore, knowing that her son was seeking other employment due to medical problems, made the decision to hire him to the Deputy Sheriff position. It is unknown whether any other Fayette County applicants were considered or interviewed for the position. Mark Santore was officially hired by Santore effective August 28, 1995, to the position of a full -time Deputy Sheriff which is a union position subject to an existing contract. Although Mark Santore previously helped out in the Sheriff's office during an emergency, he had no prior law enforcement experience. Based upon a January 5, 1995, Salary Board motion that all new hirees for vacant positions be at an entrance level at minimum salary, the salary for the Deputy Sheriff position was $8.35 per hour, or $16,293 annually. Mark Santore received a 25C an hour increase at the February 20, 1996, meeting of the Salary Board which was mandated by the union contract. Santore made the motion at the Salary Board for approval of the wages for her employees which increase was given to all full -time deputies. Santore made no public disclosure that her son would be affected by the salary increase although such was common knowledge. The Fayette County Chief Deputy Sheriff position became vacant in February, 1996, due to a retirement. The Chief Deputy Sheriff position is one of management that is not covered by union contract. The starting salary for a Chief Deputy Sheriff is $1 1.63 per hour or $22,678 annually. That salary was set by the Salary Board at a February 20, 1996, meeting where Santore made the salary presentation and participated in the unanimous approval of the motion. The job vacancy for Chief Deputy Sheriff was posted on February 26, 1996. At least seven individuals applied for the position including Mark Santore who at that time had less than one year law enforcement experience. Neither Mark Santore nor any of the other applicants were interviewed for the Chief Deputy position. Santore considered Deputies Paul Wozniak and Mark Santore for the vacancy but chose Mark Santore because he had taken college courses. Effective March 11, 1996, Mark Santore was promoted by Santore to the position of Chief Deputy Sheriff with a starting salary of $11.63 per hour or $22,678 annually. This action occurred within twenty days after the salary for that position was established. In 1998 and 1999, Santore participated in other actions of the Salary Board that resulted in pay increases for her son. In particular, at a February 3, 1998, Salary Santore, 99 -01 1 -C2 Page 12 Board meeting, Santore made a motion, which passed on a 4 -0 vote, that employees be granted a 3% increase, retroactive to January 1, 1998, pursuant to the labor contract between the county and respective unions. At that time, Santore also made a motion that all non - union /management employees receive a 3% raise retroactive to January 1, 1998. That motion passed on a 3 -1 vote with Santore voting for the majority. Mark Santore as Chief Deputy was one of the group of employees who benefitted from that pay increase, given that he was a management employee. At that session, the other row officers similarly made motions regarding non -union and management employees in their respective offices. As a result of such action, Mark Santore's salary increased from $11.63 to $11.98 per hour for an annual raise of $683. At an August 19, 1998, Salary Board meeting, Santore made a motion to increase the full -time pay for Deputy Sheriffs from 7.5 to 8.0 a day which motion passed on a 3 -0 vote. Such action resulted in a yearly salary increase to Mark Santore to $24,918. At that same meeting, a second motion was made by. Santore to increase the salary of the Chief Deputy Sheriff to $29,400 annually effective January 1, 1999. Although Santore voted in favor of her motion, it failed on a 2 -2 vote. At a February 10, 1999, Salary Board meeting, Santore seconded a motion to grant both union and non -union employees a 3% salary increase, effective January 1, 1999, except for those employees who were hired or received a raise after June 30, 1998. Santore voted for the motion which passed 4 -0. That action resulted in Mark Santore's salary being increased from $11.98 to $12.34 hour or $25,667 annually. At that board meeting, Santore made a motion to increase the salary of the chief deputy from $25,667 to $28,667 annually. That motion passed on a 2 -1 -1 vote with Santore casting the deciding vote. Two County Commissioners opposed the salary increases for Mark Santore and the other row office chief deputies on the grounds that the increases were not budgeted. One County Commissioner requested an opinion from the County Solicitor as to the Salary Board action because he questioned whether it was legal for Santore to participate in the Salary Board vote that resulted in a financial benefit to her son. The Solicitor issued an opinion that although the Sheriff never attempted to hide her relationship with her son, she must publicly disclose her relationship prior to voting because the failure to do so would give the appearance of a conflict and possibly create a liability for the county. The Solicitor recommended that the Salary Board reconvene to rescind its February 10, 1999, action. At a meeting February 24, 1999, of the County Salary Board, a motion was made to rescind the increase in salary of a chief deputy which passed on a 3 -1 vote with Santore dissenting. Prior to that meeting, Mark Santore informed the Commissioners that he would not accept and did not receive any increase in compensation as the result of the February 10, 1999, Salary Board action. Santore believed that she could hire her son because a previous Sheriff had employed his son as a Deputy. Santore was not aware of the provisions of the Ethics Law and was not advised of potential conflicts by the County Solicitor when she participated in Salary Board matters. The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case as follows: a violation of Section Santore, 99- 011 -C2 Page 13 3(a) when Santore participated in the hiring of her son for the positions of Deputy and Chief Deputy Sheriff, and when she participated in the setting of her son's wages for the positions of Deputy and Chief Deputy sheriff; and a payment of $4,000 payable in the eleven (1 1) equal monthly installments of $333.33 with a final payment of $333.37 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission, with the first payment to be received within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 to the above facts, we find a violation as to the actions taken by Santore as County Sheriff as to the hiring of her son. But for the fact that Santore was Sheriff, she could not have hired her son to the positions of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff. The actions of Santore were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order No. 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits consisting of the hiring of Mark Santore to the compensated positions of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff of Fayette County. Mark Santore, as the son of Santore, is a member of her immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Law. Accordingly, Santore violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she hired her son to the compensated positions of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff. See, Spencer, Order No. 998. As to the actions of Santore on the Salary Board, we exclude from our consideration those instances where the raises affected a subclass consisting of a group, occupation, or profession of two or more individuals that were affected to the same degree. This is based upon the exclusion to the definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" as defined by the Ethics Act. As to the actions of Santore regarding the raises for her son as Chief Deputy Sheriff, we find that Santore violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in an attempt to obtain a salary increase that individually benefitted her son at the August 19, 1998, and February 10, 1999, meetings of the Salary Board. See, Taylor, Order 983. As to the Consent Agreement filed by the parties, we believe it to be the proper disposition for this case based upon the above analysis. Therefore, Santore is directed to make payment of $4,000 in eleven (11) equal monthly installments of $333.33 with a final payment of $333.37 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission with the first payment due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. Lastly, we remind Santore that elected office is a public trust. Any effort or use of public office for financial gain is a violation of that trust. Accordingly, as to any future conduct, Santore is reminded that she must not participate in such matters and must observe the disclosure requirements of the Ethics Act in all instances where she has a conflict. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Norma Jean Santore, as the Sheriff in Fayette County, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. 2. Santore violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she hired her son to the positions of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff. 3. Santore violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in an attempt to obtain salary increases that would individually benefit her son at the August 19, 1998, and February 10, 1999, meetings of the Salary Board. In Re: Norma Jean Santore ORDER NO. 1152 File Docket: 99- 011 -C2 Date Decided: 4/12/2000 Date Mailed: 4/28/2000 1. Norma Jean Santore, as the Sheriff in Fayette County, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she hired her son to the positions of Deputy Sheriff and Chief Deputy Sheriff. 2. Santore violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act in an attempt to obtain salary increases that would individually benefit her son at the August 19, 1998, and February 10, 1999, meetings of the Salary Board. 3. Santore is directed to make restitution in the amount of $4,000 payable in eleven (11) equal monthly installments of $333.33 with a final payment of $333.37 through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with the first payment due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. 4. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by the Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, ogtis,u6 P.A., DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR