HomeMy WebLinkAbout1153R HoltIn re: Ronald Holt
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket: 98- 010 -C2
X -ref: Order No. 1153 -R
Date Decided: 06/20/00
Date Mailed: 07/07/00
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair
Julius Uehlein
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration of Holt, Order
No. 1153 issued on April 28, 2000. Pursuant to Section 21.29 of the Regulations of the
Commission, the discretion of the State Ethics Commission to grant reconsideration is
properly invoked as follows:
§21.29. Finality; reconsideration.
(b) Any party may ask the Commission to reconsider an order or
opinion within 15 days of service of the order or opinion. The requestor shall
present a detailed explanation setting forth the reason why the order or
opinion should be reconsidered.
(c) A request for reconsideration filed with the Commission will
delay the public release of an order, but will not suspend the final order
unless reconsideration is granted by the Commission.
(d) A request for reconsideration may include a request for a
hearing before the Commission.
(e) Reconsideration may be granted at the discretion of the
Commission if:
(1) A material error of law has been made.
(2) A material error of fact has been made.
(3) New facts or evidence are provided which would lead to
reversal or modification of the order or opinion and if these could not be or
were not discovered by the exercise of due diligence.
51 Pa. Code §21.29(b), (c), (d), (e).
This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the
Discussion and Reconsideration Order.
This Reconsideration Order is final and shall be made available with Order No. 1153
as public documents on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of issuance of this
Order.
Holt, 98- 010-C2
Page 2
DISCUSSION
On April 28, 2000, we issued Holt, Order No. 1153, following our review of the
record in this case.
The allegation was that Holt as a Revenue Auditor for the Pennsylvania Department
of Revenue violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office
for a private pecuniary benefit by performing auditing services for Farmer's Training Center
(FTC) during his regular work hours for the Department of Revenue; when he failed to
report on Statements of Financial Interests (FISs) for the 1994, 1995, and 1996 calendar
years income received from that company and from his private accounting business; and
when he failed to report his ownership of Ronald Holt Accounting.
In applying the allegation to the facts of record, we found that Ronald Holt, as a
Revenue Auditor, violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when he performed and received
compensation for providing accounting services to FTC at times when he listed himself as
working or took paid sick leave for which he received compensation from the
Commonwealth and violated Section 5(b)(5) when he failed to list FTC as a source of
income in excess of $1,000 on his FIS forms for calendar years 1994, 1995, and 1996.
We found that Holt did not violate Section 5(b)(5) or (9) of the Ethics Act as to ownership or
income received from Ronald Holt Accounting on his FIS forms for calendar years 1994,
1995, and 1996, based upon an insufficiency of evidence. We ordered restitution of
$264.17, plus a treble penalty of $792.51, totaling $1,056.68, and referred the case for
criminal prosecution.
Following the issuance of Order No. 1153, Holt filed a Petition for Reconsideration
on May 15, 2000. The Investigative Division filed an Answer to the Petition for
Reconsideration on May 17, 2000.
Holt in support of his request for reconsideration proffers the following arguments:
Holt reported the money he received from FTC as taxable income; Holt had no obligation
and in any event did not do tax work for FTC; no substantial proof of record supports a
finding of intentional action by Holt in failing to list FTC as a source of income on his FISs;
we erred in considering 1996 as a time period for violation since the income was below the
reporting threshold; we failed to apply the 360 day deadline against the Investigative
Division for completing its investigation, considering the August 6, 1997 letter from the
Secretary of Revenue to Robert P. Caruso, the telephone call between Caruso and Al
Taylor in Revenue, the August 25, 1997, Holt termination letter from the Secretary of
Revenue, the FAX from Sheridan in Revenue to McGrath on August 25, 1997, the January
26, 1998, docketing of the preliminary inquiry and the commencement of the investigation
by letter of March 27, 1998; the four documented days of Holt at FTC constitute de minimis
action; Holt had no conflict because he did not hold himself out as an Auditor 11 for FTC nor
did he receive any pecuniary benefit; Holt's FISs contained "implanted information" so
that the case should be dismissed; we should open the record and subpoena IRS records
to contradict Farmer's testimony that Holt did tax work for FTC; Holt did not intend to
violate the Act by his failure to list income from FTC on his FISs based upon his perception
of accountant privilege; and we made material errors of law and fact as to our analysis and
decision. Holt seeks new hearings or oral argument in Philadelphia followed by a
modification of Order 1153.
The Investigative Division argues that Holt's arguments were raised and dispelled in
Order 1153 which decision is supported by clear and convincing proof.
Most of the arguments raised by Holt in his request for reconsideration were raised,
analyzed, and dispelled in the base order. We will not discuss those same issues for a
second time.
Holt, 98- 010 -C2
Page 3
We will, however, comment upon three arguments made by Holt: no conflict
because he did not hold himself out as an Auditor II for FTC; "implanted information" on
his FISs; and FTC income below the reporting threshold for 1996. Whether Holt held
himself out as an Auditor II to FTC is immaterial to the issue before us, namely, Holt
working for FTC on Commonwealth time. Second, the claim that "implanted information"
altered Holt's FISs is irrelevant. Our inquiry focused upon the omission of listing FTC as a
source of income. Holt has already admitted that he did not include such information on his
FISs. As to the third assertion, Holt admitted that he received income from FTC in 1996 in
the amount of $2,000, far in excess of the reporting threshold. See, Holt, Order '1153, Fact
Finding 21j.
No argument has been raised by Holt which would meet the requisite standard for
reconsideration. No material error of law has been established. No material error of fact
has been established. No new facts or evidence has been provided which would lead to a
reversal or modification of the Order. Holt has failed to meet his burden of proof to
establish any need for reconsideration. The Petition for Reconsideration is denied.
In re: Ronald Holt
RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1153-R
1. The Petition for Reconsideration of Holt, Order No. 1153, is denied.
File Docket: 98- 010 -C2
Date Decided: 06/20/00
Date Mailed: 07/07/00
BY THE COMMISSION,
DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR