Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1157 BottiIn Re: Connie Botti File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair Julius Uehlein John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket 99- 012 -C2 Order No. 1157 06/20/00 07/07/00 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 seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et 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. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Connie L. Botti, a public employee in her capacity as a Computer System Analyst for the Public School Employes' Retirement System, violated Sections 3(a) and 3(c) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when she used the authority of her office or confidential information obtained from holding public employment to obtain a private pecuniary benefit by negotiating employment with Eagle Computer Associates at a time when she was reviewing proposals from Eagle Computer Associates to perform a year 2000 compliance audit of PSERS computer codes. II. FINDINGS: 1. Connie L. Botti has been employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employes' Retirement System (PSERS) since June of 1972. a. Botti was employed as computer analyst from March 1989 until April 24, 1997, when she was promoted to a Senior System Analyst. b. Botti's current annual salary is $70,083.00. c. While employed by PSERS, Botti has also held the positions of Fiscal Technician, Fiscal Assistant, Clerk Typist, Administrative Officer, Division Chief, and Senior Systems Analyst. 2. Botti has performed the following duties while employed by PSERS: a. Information Technology Office Program Manager, Division of Enterprise Program Manager - November, 1998 to the present b. Member, Bureau of Information Systems, Information Systems Planning Team - July, 1994 to November, 1998 c. Supervisor, New Application Systems Development April, 1993 to July, 1994 d. Project Administrator, February, 1992 to April, 1993 e. Computer System's Analyst, New Application Systems Development - March, 1989 to February, 1992 f. Division Chief, Annuitant Payroll Division - April, 1986 to March, 1989 g. Fiscal Technician, Accounts Receivable Section - June, 1984 to April, 1986 h. Fiscal Assistant, Annuitant Payroll Section - April, 1980 to May, 1984 i. Fiscal Assistant, District Reporting - November, 1978 to April, 1980 j. Clerk Typist, Annuitant Payroll Section - June, 1972 to November, 1978 3. Botti's job duties since at least July 1996 to the present have included the following: Serve as the Information Technology consultant between the Agency and the Information Technology Office (ITO) and to serve as Program Manager, aiding the Directorate of the Division of Enterprise Program Management (EPM). - Responsible for performing senior technical analysis on current business Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 3 (5) - Perform problem analysis, determines cost effective and efficient problem resolutions. functions. Defines a plan of action to correct the problems, coordinates the information systems requirements for ITO. Assists with implementation and post implementation phases. Responsible for managing the EPM programs, including the methodologies, processes, standards, procedures, policies, controls, etc. for ITO in accordance and in support of the Public School Employes' Retirement System's (PSERS) mission. The major categories of management programs include: asset management, information architecture, office management, project management process, quality management, and strategic planning process management. 4. Botti, at the time of the allegations, was a Senior Computer Systems Analyst. 5. Botti's served as a member of the Information Systems Planning Team which was responsible for planning, administering, and controlling all activities within the Bureau of Information Systems. a. The primary area of responsibility for this position is managing information system projects and processes with the following major activities. Major Activity: % Time Spent (1) Plans, defines, monitors, and controls information system projects. 55% (2) Participates in setting automated technology short - termed and long- 10% range direction. (3) Monitors the effectiveness of bureau activities and recommends 10% business process improvements. (4) Develops and monitors adherence to automated technology policies, standards, and procedures for both the bureau and agency. Develops planning documents such as BIS budget and Automated Technology Multi -Year Plan. (6) Performs administrative activities. (Refer to ISP functions) 6. The Information Systems Planning Team within the Bureau of Information Systems relates primarily to managing information system projects and processes. Functions performed include, but are not limited to: a. Project selection including - establish the need or opportunity - identify general business rules - estimate delivery dates and resource requirements - establish feasibility - establish risks - identify projects that are inappropriate or infeasible 5% 5% 15% Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 4 - prioritize projects for planning and implementation - select projects that will be acted on now - acquire agency commitment and support - establish business ownership b. Project definition including - project goals and objectives - work requirements - deliverables - quantity and quality or work - staffing requirements - resource requirements c. Project planning including - ensure existence of accurate project plans - master scheduling d. Project monitoring and controlling including - monitor work and resources - problem recognition and resolution - remove obstacles - communicate project progress and status - maintain project commitment and support - maintain business ownership e. Post - project review including - project effectiveness - project management effectiveness - planning and estimation evaluation - staff performance f. Automated Technology (AT) direction planning including - understands PSERS❑ strategies, goals, and objectives - awareness of AT industry direction - identify AT resources to meet PSERS❑ future needs - develop PSERS❑ AT short -term and long -term plans - market the AT plan - coordinate implementation of the plan - develop the AT Multi -Year Plans and Budget Business Process Management including - develop policies, standards, and procedures - monitor adherence - evaluate effectiveness - coordinate implementation of improvements h. Organizational requirements including - develop and implement organizational structure - evaluate effectiveness - coordinate implementation of improvements - identify staffing requirements - selection of staff g. Staff Development including - coach and train staff members - develop and maintain skills inventory - develop staff training and development plans Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 5 - coordinate implementation of training plans - performance management j. Resource Acquisition including - develop Requests for Information and Proposals - evaluates responses - develops and negotiate contracts - review product specifications 7 Paul Bart was Chief Technical Officer over the Bureau where Botti was employed. 8. In 1998 PSERS employees, under the supervision of Deputy Executive Director Jeff Clay, were assigned a project to ensure the agency's computer systems were Y2K compliant. a. The employees were assigned to three groups with one group responsible for the mainframe computer, another responsible for PCs and the third responsible for facilities work. 9. Botti was Project Manager of the group having responsibility for the mainframe computer. a. Botti supervised four PSERS' employees who were responsible for capacity planning, application remediation, conversion activities, and test scripts. 10. PSERS contracted with the Unisys Corporation to do the remediation work on the agency's computers to ensure the systems were Y2K compliant. a. Unisys Corporation subcontracted the work out to Tata Infotech, Ltd., a company based in Pennsylvania and in India. b. The remediation work performed by Tata Infotech, Ltd., was completed by October of 1998. 11. In October of 1998 Clay decided to verify the Y2K remediation work performed by Tata Infotech, Ltd. and PSERS staff in order to ensure the computer system was Y2K compliant. a. Clay directed Botti to locate a company that was capable of performing the verification and validation work needed to ensure the computer was Y2K compliant. 12. Botti searched for companies capable of performing the verification and validation work by reviewing Unisphere Magazine, a publication for Unisys Computer users. a. Botti did not use project team members for this work. b. Botti handled the research herself. c. Botti did not seek proposals or publicly advertise. 13. Botti ultimately identified two companies with the capabilities necessary for reviewing, verifying and validating the computer system was Y2K compliant. 14. Botti determined that the Unisys Corporation, and Eagle Computer Associates were capable of performing the verification and validation work. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 6 15. Eagle Computer Associates, of Lansdale, PA, advertised in the Unisys Magazine that this type of project was one in which their company specialized. 16. On January 14, 1999, Botti contacted Eagle Computer Associates, by e -mail, seeking information as to their ability to perform the verification and validation work. a On January 20, 1999, Eagle Computer Associates, by return e -mail, informed Botti they were capable of performing the work and requested a telephone number where they could contact her. b. Botti responded, by an e-mail message on January 20, 1999, that her phone number was 717- 720 -4760. 17. On January 21, 1999, Steve Marengo, President, CEO, and part owner of Eagle Computer Associates, contacted Botti by phone, questioning her about PSERS' verification and validation requirements. 18. During the telephone conversation of January 21, 1999, Marengo offered Botti a possible opportunity for employment with Eagle Computer Associates. a. Eagle Computer Associates regularly placed generic advertisements in the Unisphere Magazine offering employment opportunities for a variety of positions. 19. On January 22, 1999, Botti e- mailed Marengo a copy of her resume and requested information concerning the type of job she was being offered. a. Botti e- mailed her resume from her computer at PSERS. 20. Due to decoding problems Eagle Computer Associates was unable to receive Botti's resume at that time. a. Eagle did receive Botti's resume on or about January 26, 1999, via regular mail. 21. Botti and Marengo engaged in a series of conversations, by telephone, on January 25, 1999, January 29, 1999, February 1, 1999, and February 2, 1999. On February 3, a possible offer of employment was discussed and arrangements were made for Botti to met with Marengo, at Eagle Computer Associates' Lansdale, PA office, for a job interview. a. The interview was set for Wednesday, February 3, 1999, at 5:15 p.m. 22. The conversations regarding Botti's possible employment by Eagle came during the time period that Eagle was attempting to obtain a contract from PSERS. a. Botti's assignment was to research companies and provide input to Deputy Executive Director Jeff Clay and others to make a decision regarding the work. b. Marengo was aware that Botti had input on the award of the contract. 23. On January 26, 1999, Robert E. Gordon, Eagle Computer Associates' Vice President for Marketing, faxed to Botti Eagle's proposal for they Year 2000 compliance audit. a. Gordon's office is located in Zionsville, Indiana. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 7 24. Gordon sent copies of the proposal to Marengo and Eagle's Vice President for Professional Services Thomas Fabian, at the Lansdale office. 25. Eagle Computer Associates' proposal contained the following information: 1. COBOL Code Assessment $.18 per line of code 2. ALGOL Code Assessment $.18 per line of code 3. LINC Application Assessment $41,600.00 26. Botti, at the January 26, 1999 Project Leadership Team Meeting, informed Clay that her search for mainframe testing tools had been narrowed to two vendors, Eagle Computer Associates and Unisys, who would subcontract the work to Tata Infotech, Ltd. a. Botti explained that the cost for Eagle Computer Associates work would be $41,000 for the LINC tests and $.18 per line for the COBOL and ALGOL testing. b. Botti stated Unisys, using Tata Computer Company, would charge $65,000 for the work. 27. Botti informed Clay that Unisys would use a different tool for the verification and validation test than the tool used for the remediation work. a. Clay advised Botti that he would rather use a different tool than Unisys originally used in order to get an independent verification. 28. On January 28, 1999 Botti submitted a memorandum to Clay and Paul Bart, PSERS Chief Technical Officer and Botti's supervisor, informing them that she was only able to find two companies that provided the verification and validation work and the following were the costs from each company. 29. Botti provided Clay and Bart with the costs as she obtained from Eagle and Unisys. a. Eagle Computer Associates COBOL Verification $.18 x 440,000 *LOC = ALGOL Verification $.18 x 9,000 *LOC = LINC Verification Total $ 79,200.00 $ 1,620.00 $ 41, 600.00 $ 122,420.00 b. Unisys Corporation COBOL Verification 440,000 *LOC ALGOL Verification 9,000 *LOC LINC Verification Total * Approximate 30. Botti informed Clay and Bart that the proposal submitted by Eagle Computer Associates was written while the proposal submitted by the Unisys Corporation was verbal. $65,000.00 31. The information provided by Botti was considered by Bart as a recommendation by Botti to use Eagle Computer Associates as the contractor for the verification and validation work. 32. The final decision to hire the contractor was Jeff Clay's, after discussion with PSERS Executive Director. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 8 a. Clay relied on the information provided by Botti to aid in his decision. 33. Botti, at the February 1, 1999 Project Leadership Team Meeting, informed Clay, Bart, and other members of the Team that she forwarded a memo to Clay outlining what both Eagle Computer Associates and Unisys could provide. (See Finding No. 35). 34. At the February 9, 1999 Project Leadership Team Leadership Meeting, Botti advised members of the Team that a decision had been made to contract with Eagle Computer Associates to test the mission critical mainframe systems. a. The decision made was based on information provided by Botti. 35. On February 3, 1999, Botti went to the Eagle Computer Associates office, Century Plaza Suite 403, 100 Main Street, Lansdale, PA and met with Steve Marengo and Tom Fabian for an employment interview. a. This interview occurred prior to a decision being made by PSERS to award the contract to Eagle. 36. During the course of the interview Marengo asked Botti about the status of the proposal submitted by his computer, Eagle Computer Associates to PSERS. a. Botti and an Eagle Computer Associates employee discussed the Y2K readiness of a computer software program, Cardinal Express, which is used by PSERS. 1. Marengo had met Botti on several prior occasions, approximately six years ago, when Marengo was employed by Cardinal Express and the company was doing business with PSERS. 37. Marengo offered Botti a position with his company. a. The salary was primarily commission along with a corresponding incentive based upon company sales. b. Marengo did not check on Botti's qualifications or background with anyone at PSERS prior to offering her the position. 38. On February 5, 1999, Botti contacted Marengo by telephone and informed him that she would not accept his offer of employment with Eagle Computer Associates. a. Botti did not accept the employment offer indicating the extensive travel as one of the reasons for declining the position. 39. Marengo informed Botti that he would leave the offer of employment open, and if any of the circumstances on which she based her decision changed, she should call him. 40. After Botti declined Marengo's offer of employment, she made one inquiry on behalf of Eagle concerning the Y2K status of Cardinal Express. 41. On February 26, 1999, Botti met with Elizabeth Zug, a Systems Analyst IV at PSERS, and asked about the Y2K status of the Cardinal Express software which came under Zug's area of responsibility. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 9 a. As project manager over the mainframe software for the Y2K compliance, the Cardinal Express issue was only tangentially related to Botti's area of responsibility. b. Botti informed Zug that she discussed the Cardinal Express software's Y2K compliance with Steve Marengo and he informed her the software was not Y2K compliant. 42. Zug questioned Botti as to why she was discussing the software's Y2K compliance with Marengo and Botti informed Zug that Marengo wanted to hire her to a position at Eagle Computer Company. 43. Zug had previously determined that the Cardinal Express software was Y2K compliant for the purpose it was used at PSERS. 44. Eagle Computer did not interview any other person for the position Botti was offered at the time Botti was interviewed and has not interviewed or hired anyone for the position since the Botti interview. 45. On February 19, 1999, Paul Bart and Jeff Clay became aware that Botti had interviewed for a position with Eagle Computer Associates at a time when she was reviewing a proposal from the company for a possible contract with PSERS. 46. Bart and Clay directed Terry Moser, a Computer Systems Analyst V at PSERS, the task of reviewing the proposed Eagle Computer Associates contract. a. Moser determined that Eagle Computer Associates would subcontract some of the verification and validation work proposed for PSERS out to another contractor. 47. Based on Botti's involvement with the contract and her possible employment with Eagle, Clay made a decision to not award the contract to Eagle. 48. In early March, 1999, Marengo contacted Botti and questioned her concerning the status of the proposal Eagle Computer Associates submitted for the Y2K verification and validation work. a. In early March of 1999 Marengo contacted Botti at PSERS and again offered her a position with Eagle Computer Associates. 49. Botti created an appearance of a potential conflict of interest when she was evaluating Eagle Computer Associates for a contract with PSERS at a time when she was interviewing for a position with Eagle. a. During the time period from January 1999 through February 1999 when she was obtaining quotes from Eagle for a PSERS contract, Botti discussed employment opportunities with Eagle President and CEO Steve Marengo. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Connie Botti (Botti), has been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101, et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 10 The issue is whether Botti violated Sections 3(a) and 3(c) as to the allegation that she, as a public employee, used the authority of her office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit by negotiating employment with Eagle Computer Associates (Eagle) at a time when she was reviewing proposals from Eagle to perform a year 2000 compliance audit for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) computer codes. 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 1103(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 1103. Restricted activities. (c) Accepting improper influence. - -No public official, public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward or promise of future employment based on any understanding of that public official, public employee or nominee that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(c). Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act provides in part that a public official /public employee shall not solicit or accept anything of monetary value based upon any understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 11 facts. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant Botti has been employed by (PSERS) since 1972. Although Botti has served in various capacities at PSERS, she was a Senior Computer Systems Analyst during the relevant time period. In 1998, PSERS undertook a project to ensure that the agency's computer systems were Y2K compliant. Employees were assigned to three different groups of responsibility: the computer mainframe, PC's, and facilities work. Botti was project manager of the group responsible for the mainframe computer. PSERS contracted with Unisys Corporation (Unisys) to do the remediation work on the agency's computers which was completed in October, 1998. Unisys subcontracted the remediation work to Tata Infotech Limited which actually performed the work. After the Executive Director of PSERS decided to verify that the Y2K remediation work was in fact Y2K compliant, he requested Botti to locate a company that was capable of performing the verification. Following some research and review, Botti determined that Unisys and Eagle Computer Associates (Eagle) were capable of performing the verification work. In January, 1999, Botti contacted Eagle regarding its ability to perform the verification and validation work. In a subsequent conversation, the President and CEO of Eagle offered Botti a possible opportunity for employment with the company. Botti then e- mailed a copy of her resume and information concerning employment with Eagle using her computer at PSERS. In several subsequent telephone conversations, employment was discussed and arrangements were made for a job interview. These conversations occurred during the time that Eagle was attempting to obtain the PSERS contract. On January 26, 1999, Botti informed PSERS Executive Director that her search for mainframe testing had narrowed to two vendors, Eagle and Unisys. The Executive Director advised Botti that he would prefer to use a different tool than Unisys," which did the original work as to Y2K compliance, so as to obtain an independent verification. On January 28, 1999, Botti submitted a memorandum detailing the verification work and costs from each of the two companies. The offer from Eagle was for $122,420 and the offer from Unisys was $65,000 subject to certain approximation as to the total job cost. The final decision to hire a contractor lay with the Executive Director of PSERS who relied upon information provided by Botti to aid him in his decision. On February 9, 1999, Botti announced that a decision had been made to award the contract to Eagle. On February 3, 1999, Botti went to Eagle for an employment interview. During the course of her interview, Botti was asked about the status of Eagle's proposal to do the validation and verification computer work. Botti was then offered a position with Eagle which did not do any check on her qualifications or background with anyone at PSERS prior to offering her the position. Two days later, Botti contacted Eagle and advised that she would not accept the offer indicating that extensive travel was one of the reasons for her decision. Botti was advised that the offer of employment would remain open in the event that she changed her mind. Eagle did not interview any other person for the position offered to Botti and has not interviewed or hired anyone for the position since the Botti interview. After Botti declined Eagle's offer of employment, she made an inquiry on behalf of Eagle concerning a Y2K status of "Cardinal Express." Botti made the inquiry to a PSERS systems analyst, who was responsible for the Cardinal Express software. Cardinal Express was only tangentially related to Botti's area of responsibility. Botti informed the systems analyst that the Cardinal Express software Y2K compliance was discussed with Eagle and Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 12 Botti was informed that the software was not Y2K compliant. When the systems analyst asked Botti why she was discussing this issue, Botti informed her that Eagle wanted to hire her for a position with the company. The systems analyst had previously determined that the Cardinal Express software was Y2K compliant for PSERS purposes. When it became common knowledge at PSERS that Botti had interviewed for a position with Eagle at a time when she was reviewing a proposal for that company, a review was made of the proposed Eagle contract. Based upon Botti's involvement with the contractor and possible employment with Eagle, the Executive Director made a decision not to award the contract to Eagle. It is stipulated that Botti created an appearance of a potential conflict of interest when she evaluated Eagle's proposal for PSERS at a time when she was interviewing for a position with Eagle. As to the above stipulated facts before us, we must determine whether Botti, as a Computer Systems Analyst in PSERS, violated either 1103(a) or (c) of the Ethics Act regarding her involvement as to the award of the PSERS contract to Eagle at a time when she had discussions and meetings with Eagle as to an offer of employment with that company. The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case by finding no violation based upon an insufficiency of evidence. As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, we have held that a public official/ employee may not use the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit or advance an opportunity for employment. See, Catone, Order 994; Metrick, Order 1037. In this case, although Botti was involved in discussions and meetings with Eagle at the time she was reviewing Eagle's contract proposal for a PSERS Y2K compliance and verification project, there is no evidence to establish that Botti used her position or the authority of her office to obtain the offer of employment with Eagle. Without the requisite use of authority of office, there can be no violation of the Ethics Act. McGuire and Marchitello v. SEC, 657 A.2d 1346 (1995). Accordingly, based upon such insufficiency of evidence, we find that Botti did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to her participation in the PSERS contract with Eagle while she was considering an offer of employment with that company. Turning to Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, there is no showing, based upon the evidence of record, that there was any "understanding" between Botti and Eagle regarding her offer of employment vis -a -vis the award of the PSERS contract with Eagle. Without the existence of such an understanding, we find no violation of Section 1103(c) based upon an insufficiency of evidence. As to the Stipulation of Findings and Consent Agreement, we believe that the Consent Agreement is the proper disposition for this case based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. In that Botti remains a public employee employed by PSERS, she must exercise care in the performance of her duties to ensure that situations such as the above do not reoccur. If such situations occur in the future, Botti must remove herself from the process and comply with the written and verbal conflict disclosure provisions to her supervisor as set forth in Section 1103(j) of the Ethics Act. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Botti, 99- 012 -C2 Page 13 1. Connie Botti, as a Computer Systems Analyst with Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS), is a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. 2. Botti did not violate Section 1103(a) and Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act as to negotiating employment with Eagle Computer Associates when she was reviewing proposals from Eagle Computer Associates to perform a Y2K compliance audit for PSERS based upon an insufficiency of evidence. In Re: Connie Botti ORDER NO. 1157 File Docket: 99- 012 -C2 Date Decided: 06/20/00 Date Mailed: 07/07/00 1 Connie Botti, as a Computer Systems Analyst with Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS), did not violate Section 1103(a) and Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act as to negotiating employment with Eagle Computer Associates when she was reviewing proposals from Eagle Computer Associates to perform a Y2K compliance audit for PSERS based upon an insufficiency of evidence BY THE COMMISSION, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR