HomeMy WebLinkAbout1156R KeyserIn re: Jeffrey S. Keyser
File Docket:
X -ref: Order No.
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair
Julius Uehlein
John J. Bolger
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
99- 025 -C2
1156 -R
9/20/00
10/5/00
The State Ethics Commission received a request for reconsideration on
Keyser, Order No. 1156 issued on Jul 7, 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.
1156 as public document(s) on the fifth (5th) business day following the date of
issuance of this Order.
Keyser, 99- 025 -C2
Page 2
DISCUSSION
On July 7, 2000, we issued Keyser, Order No. 1156, following our review of the
record in this case.
The allegation was that Jeffrey Keyser, a Conemaugh Township Supervisor,
Cambria County, violated Section 3(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law,
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) when he submitted and voted to approve expense reimbursement
to himself for expenses not related to township business; when he billed the township
for repairs to his personal vehicle as a result of damages which were in excess of the
actual damages incurred while on township business; and when he participated in
actions of the board to grant sewer hook -up extensions to a company with which he had
private contracts.
In applying the allegation to the facts of record, we approved the Consent
Agreement of the parties and found that: Keyser violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act
when he received expense reimbursement for expenses not related to township
business; violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when he received payment from the
township for repairs to his personal vehicle as a result of damages which were in
excess of actual damages incurred while on township business; and had a conflict when
he participated in board actions as to a sewer hook -up extension to a company with
which he had a business relationship. In addition we ordered a payback of $500.00 as
per the negotiated agreement between the parties.
Following the issuance of Order No. 1156, Keyser timely filed a Petition for
Reconsideration raising the following arguments: he is not guilty of any intentional
misconduct; he is subject to local political attacks; he was set up by various individuals;
and the case should not be released publicly for various personal reasons.
The Investigative Division filed an Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration
arguing that no material legal or factual errors have been submitted to meet the
regulatory requirement for the exercise of our discretion to grant reconsideration.
The parties in this case entered into an agreement to resolve the allegations
subject to our review and approval. The parties agreed to submit the case without
prejudice in the event that we did not accept the submission. The parties further agreed
that if this Commission did accept the submission, which we did, such would be a
resolution of the matter with an express waiver of hearing and appellate rights.
Keyser has not shown any material error of law or fact. There can be no such
error since Keyser agreed to the facts by filing a Stipulation of Findings. As noted,
Keyser entered into a Consent Agreement which we approved.
There is not, nor should there be, any latitude at this juncture to set aside the
agreement which the parties readily accepted. See, Borg- Warner v. Board of Finance &
Revenue, 424 Pa. 343, 227 A.2d 153 (1967). We find the posed objections to our
decision under a consent agreement to be without basis for granting reconsideration.
Brunton, Order 884 -R; Beeler, Order 965 -R.
There is no material error of law or fact nor new facts or evidence presented to
warrant the exercise of our discretion to grant reconsideration based upon the
agreement of the parties.
No argument has been raised by Keyser 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. Keyser has failed
Keyser, 99- 025 -C2
Page 3
to meet his burden of proof to establish any need for reconsideration. The Petition for
Reconsideration is denied.
In re: Jeffrey S. Keyser
File Docket: 99- 025 -C2
Date Decided: 9/20/00
Date Mailed: 10/5/00
RECONSIDERATION ORDER NO. 1156 -R
1 The Petition for Reconsideration of Keyser, Order No. 1156, is denied.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair