HomeMy WebLinkAbout1186 GaliziaIn Re: Stephen Galizia
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair
John J. Bolger
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
Donald M. McCurdy
00- 040 -C2
Order No. 1186
2/26/01
3/12/01
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation 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., by the above -named Respondent. 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 untimely filed and a hearing was deemed
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.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter
11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989
and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998.
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 Chapter 11 of Act
93 of 1998. 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.
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Stephen Galizia, a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Union
Township, Lawrence County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act
93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit by
approving payment for benefits for himself and his family without working the required
number of hours under the township plan to be included in such benefits.
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).
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. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" 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.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Stephen Galizia has served as a Union Township, Lawrence County, Supervisor
since January 1998.
a. Galizia serves as the Supervisor liaison to the Planning and Zoning Hearing
Boards.
b. Galizia also was appointed as Assistant Roadmaster in 1998 and 1999 and
Parks and Ground Supervisor in 1999.
2. Union Township is a Second Class Township and is governed by three elected
supervisors.
3. Each year at reorganization meetings, the supervisors appoint individuals to fill
various employment positions including roadmaster, secretary /treasurer, tax
collector, zoning officer, etc.
a. A wage sheet is usually attached to the reorganization meeting minutes that
outlines the rates of compensation and benefits, if any, that are approved by
the board for the employees.
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 3
1. The wage is prepared after the meeting and after the minutes have
been prepared and approved.
b. The wage sheet is made available to the township auditors when setting
wages and benefits for supervisors employed by the township.
4. The board of supervisors set minimum hour requirements for some township
employees.
a. Roadmaster hours were set at a minimum of forty (40) hours per week.
1. The roadmaster traditionally had been a township supervisor.
b. The secretary /treasurer hours were set at a minimum of twenty -one (21)
hours per week.
c. These hour requirements are listed on the wage sheet.
d. In 1999 and 2000, assistant roadmaster hours were listed at 22 hours per
week.
e. These hours were not voted on by the board during reorganization meetings.
5. The township contracts with Highmark Blue Cross /Blue Shield (BC /BS) for basic
medical benefits and the AFSCME Health and Welfare Fund for prescription, vision
and dental benefits for township employees.
6. The township is billed monthly both from Highmark and AFSCME for health care
premiums for township employees.
a. Health insurance premiums are not submitted to the board of supervisors for
approval prior to payment being made.
b. The supervisors have approved a motion authorizing the township
administrative secretary to pay utility and healthcare bills when received at
the township office without supervisor approval.
c. Payments are made by the township for health insurance premiums in
advance for an upcoming month.
7 The Labor Agreement between the Township and AFSCME, AFL -CIO, includes
benefits that township employees are entitled to receive.
a. The agreement covers the period of November 16, 1997, through November
15, 2001.
8. During the late summer or the fall of 1998, Galizia discussed with the other
members of the board of supervisors whether Galizia could be included on the
township's health insurance plans.
a. In 1998 the township did not have a policy in effect authorizing supervisors
not employed by the township to be included in insurance plans.
b. At that time Galizia was employed by SMG Enterprises, Inc. and was
covered under his wife's employer's health insurance plan.
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 4
c. In September 1998 Supervisors Kevin Guinaugh and Ralph Nuzzo agreed to
appoint Galizia assistant roadmaster.
1. The position of assistant roadmaster did not exist prior to 1998.
9. During the September 24, 1998, Board of Supervisors meeting Galizia was
appointed to the part -time position of assistant roadmaster by a 2 to 0 vote.
a. Galizia abstained from this vote.
b. The position did not exist prior to this meeting.
10. Supervisors Nuzzo and Guinaugh believed that Galizia should work a minimum of
22 hours per week to be eligible to receive benefits.
a. This requirement was not included in the September 24, 1998, motion to
appoint Galizia to the Assistant Roadmaster position.
11. At a special meeting on October 2, 1998, the Township Board of Auditors set
Galizia's rate of compensation at $5.15 per hour and affirmed health benefits for
him to be the same as other township employees.
12. Galizia began serving as the assistant roadmaster effective October 1, 1998.
13. Galizia and his wife began receiving township paid BC /BS benefits effective
November 1, 1998.
a. Galizia and his wife received these benefits continuously through December
31, 1999.
14. Galizia and his wife began receiving township paid AFSCME benefits effective
December 1, 1998.
a. Galizia and his wife received these benefits continuously through December
31, 1999.
15. At the reorganization meeting of the board of supervisors on January 4, 1999,
Galizia was re- appointed to the position of assistant roadmaster.
a. A twenty -two hour per week work requirement for the position of Assistant
Roadmaster was listed on a wage sheet that was attached to the 1999
Reorganization Meeting Minutes and forwarded to the township auditors.
16. At the auditors' reorganization meeting on January 8, 1999, the auditors set
Galizia's rate of compensation at $5.15 per hour and affirmed health benefits for
him to be the same as other township employees.
17. Galizia took a leave of absence from his position as assistant roadmaster effective
April 1, 1999.
a. Galizia listed his purpose for the leave of absence was "personal reasons."
b. Galizia submitted his request for a leave of absence via letter.
18. By letter dated April 28, 1999, Galizia resigned from the position of assistant
roadmaster.
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 5
19. Galizia's letter of resignation states, in part:
"My wife and I will continue to pay for our hospitalization each month so no expense
will be brought upon our taxpayers, just as others have done in the past."
20. The supervisors voted to accept Galizia's resignation on June 16, 1999.
21. Galizia did not make any payments or reimbursements to the township for
healthcare coverage after resigning from the position of assistant roadmaster on
April 28, 1999.
a. Galizia was never billed for healthcare coverage during the time period when
he was not employed by the township.
22. On or about June 16, 1999, the board of supervisors discussed appointing Galizia
as supervisor in charge of Parks and Recreation.
a. A similar position previously existed in the township but had been held by a
township union employee.
b. The position had been vacant for several years.
23. On June 16, 1999, the board of supervisors appointed Galizia to the part -time
position of Supervisor of Parks and Grounds and Supply Purchaser.
24. Galizia began working as the Supervisor of Park and Grounds and Supply
Purchaser on June 17, 1999.
25. At a special meeting on July 22, 1999, the auditors set Galizia's rate of
compensation at $5.15 per hour and set benefits such as hospitalization, dental and
vision the same as other township employees.
a. Galizia did not receive compensation as the Supervisor of Park and Grounds
and Supply Purchaser until after the auditors set his rate of compensation.
26. Galizia was laid off by Union Township effective November 17, 1999.
a. The supervisors informed Galizia of the layoff via letter dated November 16,
1999.
b. Township policy permits laid off employees to continue to receive benefits
until recalled or permanently furloughed.
27. Galizia continued to receive township paid health benefits in 1999 following his
resignation as assistant roadmaster and after his layoff until December 31, 1999.
28. Galizia has not been employed by or received benefits from Union Township since
December 31, 1999.
29. The costs for health insurance paid by the township for township employees
including Galizia is as follows:
a. 1998:
BC /BS: $135.16/week, $608.23 /month
AFSCME: Did not receive in 1998
b. 1999:
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 6
a. 1999
BC /BS: $608.23 /month - 1/99 through 10/99
AFSCME: $91.45 /month
30. During the time period following Galizia's resignation from the position of assistant
roadmaster effective April 28, 1999, the township paid health insurance premiums
for Galizia as follows:
Week
4/29 -5/5
5/6 -5/12
5/13 -5/19
5/20 -5/26
5/27 -6/2
6/3 -6/9
6/10 -6/16
1999 Totals
Cost of AFSCME
Per Week
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$ 20.96
$146.72
Cost for BC /BS
Per Week
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 141.45
$ 990.15
b. The cost of AFSCME benefits was $91.45 per month during this period in
1999.
c. The cost of BC /BS was $608.23 from January 1999 through October 1999.
d. The cost of BC /BS was $741.51 from November 1999 through December
1999.
e. Weekly premium costs were determined as follows:
BC /BS - January to October
$608.23 /month x 10 months /43 weeks = $141.45 per week
BC /BS - November to December
$741.51 /month x 2 months /9 weeks = $164.78 per week
AFSCME
$91.45 /month x 11 months /48 weeks = $20.96 per week
31. All three supervisors and the appointed secretary/treasurer have signature authority
on township accounts.
a. Township checks require the signature of two supervisors and the
secretary /treasurer.
32. Galizia signed township checks that were used to pay healthcare providers and
included benefits to him and his wife during weeks that he was not employed by the
township as follows:
Payee Check Number
BC /BS 8811
AFSCME 8812
BC /BS 8974
Check Date
03/25/99
03/25/99
06/07/99
Check Amount
$6,146.80
$1,280.30
$6,146.80
Month of Coverage
May 1999
April 1999
July 1999
a. Galizia did not sign all checks to the healthcare providers while he was an
employee of the township.
33. Prior to Galizia being appointed assistant roadmaster, Township Solicitor, Donald
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 7
Nicolls, advised supervisors regarding health benefits paid for by the township
which working and non - working supervisors are entitled to receive.
a. By letter dated August 26, 1998, Solicitor Nicolls advised the supervisors
that a non - working or a working supervisor who took office on January 1,
1998, could be included within the township's insurance plans provided that
the appropriate plan, including supervisors, was in place on or before
December 31, 1997.
b. Nicolls also advised that if a plan was enacted during a supervisor's term,
the supervisor could not be included in the plan until the beginning of his
next term of office.
c. The township did not have any such plan in effect on or before December
31, 1997.
34. By letter dated December 1, 1999, Solicitor Nicolls advised the supervisors that
working supervisors are entitled to the same benefits as non - supervisor employees,
including benefits that an employee is entitled to receive when laid off.
a. The supervisors must approve inclusion in the plan.
b. A supervisor requesting inclusion in any existing township health plan must
submit a letter in writing to the supervisors for their approval.
c. This advice was in response to questions raised about Galizia after Galizia
was laid off.
35. From April 28, 1999 through June 16, 1999, Galizia and his wife received township
paid health benefits totaling $1,136.87 when he did not work for the township.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Stephen Galizia, hereinafter
Galizia, has been a public official 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."
The allegation is that Galizia, as a Union Township Supervisor, violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office for township paid benefits
for himself and his spouse without working the required number of hours under the
township plan for the receipt of such benefits.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above prohibits a public official /public
employee from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
Having noted the allegation, the applicable law and the procedural issue, we shall
now summarize the relevant facts.
Stephen Galizia has served as a Union Township Supervisor from January 1998, as
Assistant Roadmaster in 1998 and 1999 and Parks and Ground Supervisor in 1999.
At the reorganization meetings of Union Township, the supervisors appoint
individuals to fill various employment positions such as roadmaster, secretary /treasurer,
tax collector, and zoning officer. A wage sheet that outlines the rates of compensation and
benefits approved by the board is made available to the township auditors when setting
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 8
wages and benefits for supervisors employed by the township. The board of supervisors
sets minimum hour requirements for some township employees.
The township contracts with two different entities for basic medical, prescription,
vision, and dental benefits for its employees. Health insurance premiums are not
submitted to the board of supervisors for approval; the township administrative secretary
pays utility and healthcare bills when received at the township office as per an
authorization from the board.
In the latter part of 1998, Galizia discussed with the other two supervisors whether
he could be included on the township's health insurance plans. In 1998, the township did
not have a policy in effect authorizing non - employee supervisors to be included in
insurance plans.
During the September 24, 1998, Board of Supervisors meeting, Galizia was
appointed by a 2 to 0 vote to the part -time position of assistant roadmaster, a position
which did not exist prior to 1998. Galizia abstained from that vote. The other two
supervisors set a twenty -two (22) hour per week minimum requirement for Galizia to work
as assistant roadmaster to be eligible for township paid health benefits.
At a special meeting on October 2, 1998, the Township Board of Auditors set
Galizia's rate of compensation at $5.15 per hour and affirmed health benefits for him to be
the same as other township employees. Galizia began serving as the assistant
roadmaster effective October 1, 1998. Galizia and his spouse began receiving township
paid medical benefits effective November 1, 1998, which continued through December 31,
1999.
At the reorganization meeting of the board of supervisors on January 4, 1999,
Galizia was re- appointed to the position of assistant roadmaster. The supervisors again
set a twenty -two (22) hour per week minimum requirement for Galizia to work as the
assistant roadmaster. At the auditors' reorganization meeting on January 8, 1999, the
auditors set Galizia's rate of compensation at $5.15 per hour and affirmed health benefits
for him to be the same as other township employees.
On April 1, 1999, Galizia took a leave of absence noting personal reasons. By letter
dated April 28, 1999, Galizia resigned from the position of assistant roadmaster, stating, in
part: "My wife and I will continue to pay for our hospitalization each month so no expense
will be brought upon our taxpayers, just as others have done in the past." Galizia did not
make any payments or reimbursements to the township for healthcare coverage after
resigning from the position of assistant roadmaster.
On or about June 16, 1999, the board of supervisors discussed appointing Galizia
as supervisor in charge of parks and recreation. On June 16, 1999, the board of
supervisors appointed Galizia to the part -time position of Supervisor of Parks and Grounds
and Supply Purchaser, a vacant position previously held by a township employee.
At a special meeting on July 22, 1999, the auditors set Galizia's rate of
compensation at $5.15 per hour and affirmed health benefits for him to be the same as
other township employees. Galizia was furloughed by Union Township effective November
17, 1999.
The township has a policy which permits "laid off" employees to continue to receive
benefits until recalled or permanently furloughed. Galizia continued to receive township
paid health benefits until December 31, 1999. From April 28, 1999, after Galizia resigned
as assistant roadmaster, the township paid $1,136.87 in health care benefits for Galizia.
Township checks require the signature of two supervisors and the
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 9
secretary /treasurer. Galizia cosigned township checks to healthcare providers that
included payments for benefits to him and his spouse. Galizia did not sign all checks to
the healthcare providers while he was an employee of the township.
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the
actions of Galizia violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
The findings establish that Galizia as a public official used the authority of office in
this case. But for the fact that Galizia is a supervisor, he could not have prevailed upon
the other two supervisors for his appointment as Assistant Roadmaster and then as
Supervisor of Parks and Grounds and Supply Purchaser. In addition, Galizia cosigned
many of the checks to the benefits providers as to the insurance benefits that he and his
spouse received at township expense. Such actions were uses of authority of office. See,
Julliante, Order 809.
The receipt of insurance benefits at township expense is a pecuniary benefit in that
Galizia had no out of pocket expenses of his own to pay such premiums for himself and his
spouse. See, Dusenberry, Order 1064.
The pecuniary benefit inured to Galizia and his spouse who is a member of his
immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. See, 65 Pa.C.S. §1102.
The only remaining question is whether the pecuniary benefit is private. We have
held that a pecuniary benefit is private if such benefit is not authorized in law in that the
receipt of that benefit through the use of office would be contrary to law. See, Freind,
Order 800.
The resolution of this case turns upon whether Galizia was entitled to receive
township paid insurance benefits. The answer lies in the Second Class Township Code
(Code). Sections 65606(a) and (c)(1) of the Code provide in part:
A decision by the township to pay, in whole or in part, to include
supervisors not employed by the township in insurance plans, as
authorized in subsection (c), shall not be implemented with regard to
any nonemployee supervisor until the beginning of the next term of
that supervisor.
Supervisors, whether or not they are employed by the township, and
their dependents are eligible for inclusion in group life, health,
hospitalization, medical service and accident insurance plans paid in
whole or in part by the township. Their inclusion in those plans does
not require auditor approval, but does require submission of a letter
requesting participation at a regularly scheduled meeting of the board
of supervisors before commencing participation. The insurance shall
be uniformly applicable to those covered and shall not give eligibility
preference to or improperly discriminate in favor of supervisors.
65 P.S. §65606(a), (c)(1)
Unfortunately, there is no case law interpreting this most recent amendment to this
section of the Code. Similarly, there is no debate as to this provision in the legislative
history. In Akerly, Order 976, we reviewed the prior amended version of this section of the
Code; however, that version contained different phraseology from the current amendment.
Galizia, 00- 040 -C2
Page 10
As a consequence, an isolated reading of the current amendment is the only available
means for determining the circumstances under which a supervisor may receive township
paid insurance benefits under the Code and derivatively whether Galizia violated the
Ethics Act.
The above section of the Code provides that supervisors, regardless of their
employment status with the township, are eligible for insurance benefits provided they
submit a written letter requesting participation at a regular board meeting and meet the
three conditions that the plan is uniform, nondiscriminatory and nonpreferential as to
eligibility. For nonworking supervisors, the plan needs to be in place before the beginning
of their terms.
One might argue that the grant of eligibility of supervisors as to township paid
insurance benefits constitutes an unqualified right to such benefits. But such an approach
might negate the three conditions imposed upon supervisors as to the receipt of such
benefits. We ponder how the Code could give a seemingly unqualified right to supervisors
to receive township paid insurance benefits, even if they are not employed, but qualify the
receipt of such benefits by requiring uniform and nondiscriminatory application without
eligibility preference to supervisors. Similarly, how can a supervisor who does not work be
eligible while at the same time not be allowed to have an eligibility preference. It may very
well be that the Code is inconsistent.
The parties have filed a Stipulation of Findings together with a Consent Agreement
wherein it is proposed to resolve the case by finding that Galizia technically violated
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he received township paid health benefits from
April 1999 to June 1999 totaling $1,136.87, with Galizia making payment to Union
Township through this Commission of $1,136.87 within 30 days of the date of issuance of
this order. In that the parties in this case, the Investigative Division and the Respondent
through their counsels, have entered into the Consent Agreement following a negotiation
process with each side accepting the terms, we will approve the Consent Agreement and
defer interpreting the above provision of the Code. If or when that interpretation becomes
necessary, hopefully there will be case law on the issue.
We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth an
appropriate disposition for this case, based upon the totality of the facts and
circumstances. Accordingly, Galizia is directed to make payment of $1,136.87 through this
Commission to Union Township within 30 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action
by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement
action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Galizia, as a Supervisor in Union Township, is a public official subject to the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Galizia technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he received
township paid benefits from April 1999 to June 1999 totaling $1,136.87.
In Re: Stephen Galizia
ORDER NO. 1186
File Docket: 00- 040 -C2
Date Decided: 2/26/01
Date Mailed: 3/12/01
1 Galizia, as a Supervisor in Union Township, technically violated Section 1103(a) of
the Ethics Act when he received township paid benefits from April 1999 to June
1999 totaling $1,136.87.
2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Galizia is directed to make payment of
$1,136.87 through this Commission to Union Township within 30 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no
further action by this Commission.
b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR