The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1194 LahrIn Re: Richard Lahr File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Donald M. McCurdy 00- 044 -C2 Order No. 1194 April 9, 2001 April 16, 2001 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. 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 deemed waived. The record is complete. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Richard Lahr, a public official in his capacity as a supervisor for Benner Township, Centre County, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by submitting and approving hours for compensation as a township roadmaster which were related to his duties as township supervisor. II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that Richard Lahr violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998). 2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on July 10, 2000. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On September 6, 2000, a letter was forwarded to Richard Lahr, by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7099 3400 0012 4638 2592. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Debra Lahr, with a delivery date of September 8, 2000. 5. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Richard Lahr in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation. 6. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on February 22, 2001. 7. Richard Lahr has served as a Benner Township Supervisor since January 6, 1992. 8. Benner Township is a second class township with a board of three supervisors that serve as the legislative body of the township. 9. All three supervisors have been annually appointed roadmasters since 1992. a. Supervisors work as roadmasters on an as needed basis. 10. Lahr has been appointed roadmaster during reorganization meetings on the following dates: January 6, 1992 January 6, 1997 January 4, 1993 January 5, 1998 January 3, 1994 January 4, 1999 January 3, 1995 January 4, 2000 January 2, 1996 January 2, 2001 11. The township auditors set the rate of compensation for supervisors performing road inspections at $12.00 per hour plus mileage reimbursement during meetings of January 3, 1995, January 3, 1996, and January 7, 1997. Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 3 12. On January 6, 1998, the township auditors set the rate of compensation for supervisors performing road work and related township work at $13.50 per hour plus mileage reimbursement. a. The $13.50 per hour salary for road work and related township work was re- approved by the auditors on January 5, 1999. 13. Since 1992 Lahr has served as the township representative to the Centre Region Municipal Planning Organization (CRMPO). a. Lahr was appointed and reappointed the CRMPO representative during reorganization meetings on the following dates: January 6, 1992 January 4, 1993 January 3, 1994 January 3, 1995 January 2, 1996 January 6, 1997 January 5, 1998 January 4, 1999 January 4, 2000 January 2, 2001 14. The CRMPO is a regional organization in which representatives from various municipalities, in and around the Centre County region, meet to discuss how state and federal projects will affect the regional municipalities. a. This position requires the attendance at CRMPO and other planning organization meetings. b. There is no written job description on file with the township for this position. 15. Lahr was compensated by the township for attending meetings in relation to his position as the CRMPO representative at the rate set by the township auditors for a supervisor working as a roadmaster and performing road related work. 16. The two auditors serving in 1998 and 1999 were aware that Lahr was performing duties other than roadmaster or road duties, including serving as the CRMPO representative. a. The auditors did not specifically set a wage for duties performed in capacity not related to road work. b. One auditor believed the wage set for related township work covered any other duties performed by the supervisors that were compensable by law. 17. From at least January 1995, through July 1999 Lahr submitted time sheets to the township delineating duties that he performed for the township. a. Lahr submitted the time sheets to the secretary /treasurer for payment to be included with the township payroll. b. The time sheets included duties that Lahr performed as the CRMPO representative and roadmaster. c. The time sheets were submitted as a basis for Lahr's compensation as a roadmaster and CRMPO representative. 18. Lahr was compensated as CRMPO representative at the same rate of pay as set by the auditors for supervisors performing road work. Date Description Hours Check # 02/14/96 CRMPO Meeting 2.5 13371 02/26/96 Correspondence 2.0 13487 03/01/96 Correspondence 2.0 03/07/96 Correspondence 1.0 03/11/96 Correspondence 1.0 03/13/96 CRMPO Meeting 2.0 13603 03/18/96 Correspondence 1.0 03/19/96 Correspondence 0.5 03/29/96 Correspondence 0.5 04/10/96 CRMPO Meeting 1.5 13749 04/25/96 Correspondence 1.0 05/07/96 Correspondence 1.0 07/10/96 CRMPO Meeting 2.0 13916 08/20/96 Meeting with Patton Twp. (Filmore Rd.) 1.0 14231 08/29/96 Meeting with College Twp (Shiloh Rd.) 1.5 09/19/96 Meeting with College Twp (Shiloh Rd.- PaDot) 2.0 10/04/96 Correspondence 1.0 14338 10/09/96 Correspondence (CRMPO - PaDot) (Shiloh Rd.) 1.0 10/30/96 CRMPO Meeting 2.5 14490 11/04/96 Correspondence 1.0 11/19/96 PaDot Meeting at College Twp. 2.0 11/21/96 Correspondence 2.0 11/27/96 Correspondence 1.0 Date Description Hours Check # 09/25/95 PMT Meeting 2.0 12877 10/11/95 CRMPO Meeting 1.5 12989 10/18/95 PMT Meeting 2.5 10/24/95 PSU Meeting 1.0 11/08/95 CRMPO Meeting 1.5 13088 Total: 8.5 8.5 Hours @ $12.00 /hour = $102.00 Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 4 19. From September 1995 through July 1999 Lahr was compensated for performing duties as the CRMPO representative, which included attendance at various meetings, and other duties that were administrative in nature and encompassed in the elected position of township supervisor as follows: 1995 1996 Date Description Hours Check # 05/14/97 CRMPO Meeting 2.5 14885 06/04/97 Regional Stormwater Meeting at College Twp. 2.0 08/12/97 TAC Meeting (Spring Creek Drainage Study) 2.0 15518 08/26/97 TAC Meeting (Spring Creek Drainage Study) 2.0 08/27/97 CRMPO Meeting 2.0 09/03/97 Meeting with Spring Twp.(Re:PI.Gap Fire Company) 1.0 15649 09/10/97 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 2.5 09/24/97 CRMPO Meeting at College Twp. (Sub- Committee) 2.0 11/05/97 CRMPO Meeting at College Twp. 2.0 15914 11/17/97 Correspondence 2.0 12/5/97 PSU Meeting at Toftrees 2.0 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at COG Total: 22.0 22 Hours @ $12.00 /Hour = $264.00 Date Description Hours Check # 01/01/98 Meeting with Solicitor 1.0 16144 01/29/98 IICC Meeting (Willowbank) 2.5 02/02/98 Correspondence 1.0 02/25/98 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 2.0 16251 03/09/98 1 -99 Meeting at Twp. (Re: Rishel Hill Rd.) 2.0 03/10/98 Meeting with Solicitor and Road Crew at Twp. 1.5 03/12/98 Meeting with Airport Assoc. at ScantiCor) 1.0 03/16/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting (re: Expansion at COG office) 1.5 16357 03/25/98 CRMPO Meeting at SC Boro 2.0 04/08/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting (re: expansion at COG office) 2.0 04/09/98 AAIA Meeting at Airport (re: SBWJA) 1.0 04/16/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at COG 1.5 16398 Date Description Hours Check # 12/01/96 CRMPO Meeting 1.0 12/20/96 Joint Meeting at College Twp.(Regional Stormwater) 1.5 14690 Total: 35.5 35.5 Hours @ $12.00 /Hour = $426.00 Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 5 1997 1998 Date Description Hours Check # 04/29/98 CRMPO Meeting at Boro 1.5 17484 05/27/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Twp. Bldg. 1.0 16540 05/27/98 CRMPO /County Transportation Meeting at Vo -tech 2.5 06/01/98 MPO Expansion Committee Meeting at COG 2.0 17046 07/16/98 MPO Expansion Committee Meeting at COG 1.5 07/20/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Twp. Bldg. 1.5 07/29/98 CRMPO Meeting at SC Boro 2.0 09/14/98 Meeting with SBWJA, HRG, AND County Adm. at Benner Twp. 1.0 17144 09/15/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting with State College Boro. 2.0 09/22/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Benner Twp. 1.0 09/29/98 TAC Meeting at College Twp. 2.0 09/30/98 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 2.0 10/21/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Twp. 1.5 17332 10/23/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at COG 2.0 11/06/98 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at COG 2.0 11/12/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Twp. 1.0 11/25/98 CRMPO Meeting at Boro. 2.0 12/11/98 CRMPO Meeting at Boro. 1.5 17484 12/19/98 Meeting with Solicitor at Twp. 1.0 Total: 50.0 50 Hours @ $13.50 /Hour = $675.00 Date Description Hours Check # 01/13/99 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 1.5 17484 01/20/99 CRMPO Meeting at Vo -tech (Traffic Plans and Expansion) 2.0 17696 02/10/99 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at COG Offices 1.5 02/19/99 Meeting at Solicitor Office (re: Filmore Farms) 1.0 03/04/99 1 -99 Meeting at College Twp. (COG) 1.5 05/05/99 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 1.5 18275 05/12/99 CRMPO Sub - Committee Meeting at SC Boro. 1.5 07/28/99 CRMPO Meeting at Ferguson Twp. 1.5 Total: 12.0 Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 6 1999 Date Check No. Amount Lahr's Action Vote 10/02/95 12877 $90.19 Made Motion 3 -0 11/06/95 12989 116.72 Seconded Motion 3 -0 12/04/95 13088 15.90 Seconded Motion 3 -0 02/19/96 13371 26.55 Made Motion 3 -0 03/18/96 13487 132.77 Made Motion 3 -0 04/18/96 13603 127.45 Made Motion 3 -0 06/03/96 13749 31.87 Made Motion 3 -0 07/15/96 13916 37.18 Made Motion 3 -0 10/07/96 14231 95.60 Seconded Motion 3 -0 11/04/96 14338 31.87 Made Motion 3 -0 12/16/96 14490 122.16 Made Motion 3 -0 01/20/97 14609 37.19 Seconded Motion 3 -0 04/07/97 14885 47.82 Seconded Motion 3 -0 09/02/97 15518 63.76 Made Motion 3 -0 10/06/97 15649 63.76 Seconded Motion 3 -0 12/16/97 15914 69.07 Made Motion 2 -0 02/16/98 16144 53.79 Seconded Motion 3 -0 Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 7 Date Description 12 Hours @ $13.50 /Hour = $162.00 Hours Check # a. Totals: 1995: $102.00 1996: $426.00 1997: $264.00 1998: $675.00 1999: $162.00 Total: $1,629.00 b. Lahr also submitted and received compensation for performing duties as the CRMPO representative prior to 1995. 20. The time sheets submitted by Lahr were included as part of the township payroll but were subject to approval by the board of supervisors. 21. The payroll is included as part of bill lists that are approved by the supervisors at regular supervisor meetings. a. The entire bill list is approved by a motion and vote. 1. Invoices /bills are not individually approved but are subject to review by the board of supervisors. b. Township payroll checks require the signatures of two supervisors and the secretary /treasurer. 22. Lahr participated in board actions approving the following payments to himself that included payment as CRMPO representative and compensation for serving as a township roadmaster: Date Check No. Amount Lahr's Action Vote 03/16/98 16251 77.70 Seconded Motion 3 -0 04/14/98 16357 83.67 Seconded Motion 3 -0 05/04/98 16398 89.65 Made Motion 3 -0 06/01/98 16540 62.77 Absent 2 -0 09/21/98 17046 83.67 Seconded Motion 3 -0 10/19/98 17144 155.41 Seconded Motion 3 -0 12/07/98 17332 101.62 Seconded Motion 3 -0 01/18/99 17484 48.48 Seconded Motion 3 -0 03/15/99 17696 73.04 Absent 2 -0 08/02/99 18275 54.79 Seconded Motion 3 -0 Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 8 a. Lahr did not sign any of the checks as a member of the board of supervisors. b. Lahr cast the deciding vote to approve payment to himself for check No. 15914. 1. Only Lahr and one other supervisor were present at this meeting when Check No. 15914 was approved to be paid. 23. In February 1999 a township resident raised the issue of township supervisors receiving compensation as township employee for performing supervisory duties. 24. Subsequent to the issue being raised, Lahr sought the advice of township solicitor Terry Williams. a. Williams served as solicitor for the township from 1996 — 1999. b. Based on conversations with the secretary /treasurer, Solicitor Williams recommended contacting the State Ethics Commission for an advice. 25. By letter dated May 6, 1999, Solicitor Williams requested an advice from the State Ethics Commission regarding whether township supervisors could be reimbursed for attending meetings of non - township agencies, for assisting in municipal park projects, for attending property owner conferences, or for preparing the township newsletter. 26. On June 8, 1999, the State Ethics Commission issued Advice No. 99 -555 in response to Williams' request. a. The advice concluded, in part, that supervisors may not receive compensation for attending meetings of non - township agencies, for assisting in municipal park projects, for attending property owners conferences, or for preparing the township newsletter. 27. On July 6, 1999, Solicitor Williams requested a clarification of Advice No. 99 -555 from the State Ethics Commission. a. Williams requested the clarification noting that he omitted facts from the original request that could have affected the Advice. b. The additional facts noted in Williams' letter included amendments to the Second Class Township Code in 1995 which provided the compensation of Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 9 supervisors could be set in any employee capacity not prohibited by the act or any other law. Williams' letter noted that is has been generally regarded as an expansion of the ability of Second Class Township to compensate supervisors for performing "work" duties. 28. On August 17, 1999, the State Ethics Commission issued Advice No. 99 -555C clarifying the original advice. a. State Ethics Commission Advice No. 99 -555C provided, in part, the following: "Although township supervisors may be compensated as township employees in certain positions such as township laborer, newsletter editor or park and recreation director, the supervisor could only be compensated for duties performed in those positions that do not constitute duties associated with the elected office of township supervisor." b. The advice also provided the following regarding compensation for attending "non- supervisor meetings" as follows: As to the last two groupings of "non- supervisor meetings," the first group involving meetings attended by supervisors as elected officials by its very statement mandates that compensation may not be received for such activities as township employees. As to the second category, the attendance of the supervisors at focus group meetings would not allow the supervisors to be compensated as employees for such activities. Participation by the supervisors in vision and historical preservation committees would fall within the area of securing the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the township. The fact that in some instances the supervisors could pay some other non - supervisor to perform that function does not provide the basis for the supervisors to be then compensated for activities they would perform as an elected official." 29. After reviewing his time sheets, Lahr determined that time sheets he submitted for compensation which included hours related to his CRMPO representation, were contrary to the provisions included in Advice No. 99 -555C. 30. From 1995 through July 1999 Lahr was compensated for attendance at the following meetings and performing administrative functions related to his duties as a township supervisor which were determined to not be in compliance with Advice No. 99 -555C. a. Centre Region Municipal Planning Organization (CRMPO) b. Municipal Planning Organization Expansion (MPO) c. Intervalley Intermunicipal Coordinating Committee (IICC) d. Technical Assistance Committee (TAC) e. 1 -99 meetings f. Pennsylvania State University Meetings (PSU) Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 10 g. Spring /Benner Joint Water Authority (SBJWA) h. Administrative Duties: 1. Correspondence 2. Meeting with township solicitor 31. Beginning in August 1999 Lahr ceased submitting time sheets to be compensated by the township for his attendance at CRMPO and related meetings. a. Lahr noted his attendance at meetings on his timesheets but did not request an hourly compensation for his attendance. b. Lahr submitted for compensation hours worked for conducting road inspections. c. Lahr did submit and received mileage reimbursement for his attendance at meetings. 32. The following is a listing of hours that Lahr was compensated as a township employee for attending meetings of non - township agencies that are encompassed within the elected position of township supervisor from September 1995 -July 1999. 1995- 8.5 Hours X $12.00 /Hour = $102.00 1996- 35.5 Hours X $12.00 /Hour = 426.00 1997- 22.0 Hours X $12.00 /Hour = 264.00 1998- 50.0 Hours X $13.50 /Hour = 675.00 1999- 12.0 Hours X $13.50 /Hour = 162.00 Total: $1629.00 33. Richard Bair, CPA, conducts the yearly audit for Benner Township. a. Bair was consulted regarding Lahr's and another supervisor's compensation for meeting attendance and administrative functions. b. Bair recommended that Lahr and the other supervisor "pay down" the hours to be reimbursed to the township with hours worked as roadmaster subsequent to July 1999. c. Bair made this recommendation because of tax related issues. d. The remaining supervisors and the solicitor agreed to this pay -down method. 34. From 1995 through August 1999 Lahr performed road inspections in his capacity as a road master for Benner Township. a. From January 1995 through August 1999, Lahr conducted road inspections totaling 55.25 hours. 1. During this period, Lahr averaged less than one hour per month conducting road inspections. 35. Following the agreement to authorize Lahr to "pay down" hours to reimburse the township, Lahr's road inspection hours increased. Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 11 a. From September 1999 through December 2000, Lahr conducted road inspections totaling 63.25 hours. 1. During this period, Lahr averaged approximately four hours per month conducting road inspections. b. Lahr does not need to get approval from the other supervisors before conducting road inspections. 36. From September 1999 through December 2000, Lahr conducted road inspections totaling 63.25 hours as follows: September 1999: 2.5 Hrs. October 1999: 3.5 Hrs. November 1999: 7.0 Hrs. January 2000: 0.0 Hrs. February 2000: 2.0 Hrs. March 2000 1.0 Hr. April 2000: 2.0 Hrs. May 2000: 2.0 Hrs. June 2000: 5.5 Hrs. July 2000: 4.0 Hrs. August 2000: 6.5 Hrs. September 2000: 9.0 Hrs. October 2000: 7.5 Hrs. November 2000: 7.75 Hrs December 2000: 3.0 Hrs Total: 63.25 Hrs. 37. There are no records on file with the township documenting the number of hours that Lahr agreed to reimburse the township. a. Lahr began submitting timesheets with "N /C" beside duties (road inspections) that he could be compensated indicating that he did not want to receive payment. b. The township secretary /treasurer did not pay Lahr for those duties. 38. A financial gain of $775.12 was received by Lahr in the form of compensation as a township employee for attending meetings of non - township agencies that were encompassed within the position of elected township supervisor. 1995 -1999: $1,629.00 "N /C" Hours: - 853.88 (63.25 Hrs @ $13.50/Hr) Total: $775.12 III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Richard Lahr, hereinafter Lahr, 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." Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 12 The allegation is that Lahr, as a Benner Township Supervisor, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted and approved hours for compensation as a township roadmaster which were related to his duties as township supervisor. Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2. 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 P.S. §402/65 Pa. C. S. §1102. Section 3(a)/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. facts. Having noted the issue and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant Lahr has served as a supervisor in Benner Township since January 1992 and as the appointed roadmaster on an annual basis. The township auditors set the compensation for the supervisors who perform duties as roadmasters. At the auditors reorganizational meetings in January of 1995, 1996, and 1997, the compensation of supervisors was set at $12.00 per hour plus mileage for performing road inspections. In January of 1998, the auditors set the compensation for supervisor - employees performing road work at $13.50 per hour plus mileage. Since 1992, Lahr has served as the township representative to the Central Region Municipal Planning Organization (CRMPO). CRMPO is a regional organization with representatives from various local municipalities who meet to discuss how state and federal projects affect their municipalities. Lahr received compensation from the township for attending CRMPO meetings at the rate of $13.50 per hour. From January 1995 through July 1999, Lahr, submitted timesheets to the township and delineated his duties which included roadmaster and CRMPO representative. The duties that Lahr performed for the years 1995 through 1999 are delineated in Fact Finding 19. Lahr's timesheets were included as part of the township payroll that is subject to approval by the board of supervisors. The payroll is included as part of a bills list which is Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 13 approved by the supervisors in one motion and vote. Lahr participated in board actions to approve compensation to himself that included payments as the CRMPO representative. Lahr also received compensation for performing other functions, as delineated in Fact Finding 30, which related to the elected office of supervisor. In February 1999, after a township resident questioned whether township supervisors could receive compensation for performing administrative duties, Lahr contacted the township solicitor who suggested that an advisory be requested from this Commission. An advisory request was sent to the Commission and on June 8, 1999, Advice No. 99 -555 was issued in response. The Advice essentially concluded that supervisors could not be paid for performing administrative duties. Subsequently, the solicitor requested additional advice and on August 17, 1999, the Legal Division issued clarifying Advice No. 99 -555C. Lahr then reviewed his timesheets and concluded that some of the hours for which he received compensation were contrary to the holding of Advice No. 99 -555C. In August 1999, Lahr stopped listing his attendance at CRMPO meetings on his timesheets. Up to that point in time, it appears that Lahr received compensation as a township employee totaling $1,629.00 for duties that related to the elected office of supervisor. At about that time, Lahr began increasing his hours for road inspections but declined to receive payment for such services; instead, Lahr utilized that mechanism to "pay down" the $1,629.00 he received from the township for performing administrative duties. From September 1999 through December 2000, Lahr listed 63.25 hours in road inspections which totaled $853.88 based upon his hourly rate of $13.50. By crediting the $853.88 against the $1,629.00, a balance of $775.12 was the financial gain received by Lahr for performing administrative duties as supervisor. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Lahr violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of Act 9 of 1989. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Lahr used the authority of his office to obtain compensation for performing administrative duties. See, Juliante, Order 809. But for the fact that Lahr was a supervisor, he could not have performed the administrative duties for which he received compensation from the township as a roadmaster. Lahr also used the authority of office in submitting and approving compensation to himself for performing such duties which resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to Lahr himself. Accordingly, Lahr violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted, approved, and received compensation for performing administrative functions encompassed within the duties of an elected township supervisor. Regarding the administrative duties performed by Lahr, such actions are encompassed within the role of a supervisor as an elected official. Lahr could not, but did receive additional compensation for performing administrative functions. See, Cours, Order 1150. As the Commonwealth Court noted in R.H. and T.W. v. State Ethics Commission, 673 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Commw. 1996): T.W. maintains that he is entitled to hourly wages for performing these [administrative] duties. He notes that the recent growth of the Township led to a substantial increase in demands upon the Township government and that the Supervisors have assumed responsibility for meeting much of this burden. With this argument, T.W. implies that, because the rise in activity forced him to work in excess of the stated duties of Township Supervisors, he was properly compensated for such actions with an hourly wage. Lahr, 00- 044 -C2 Page 14 We sympathize with T.W.; however, there is no question that the duties at issue were supervisory in nature. The supervisory salary was statutorily set and encompassed all of the ensuing administrative functions. Thus, T.W. violated the 1978 Act when, in addition to his Supervisor's compensation, he received hourly wages as an employee for performing administrative duties. Id. at 1011. Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. Restitution is warranted in this case. Both parties agree that the amount of restitution is $775.12; however, the parties disagree as to the manner and timeframe for repayment. Lahr seeks to pay the balance back by offsetting his wages for approximately the next nine months. The Investigative Division raises objections as to verification and Lahr's attempt to dictate the term of his own pay back. The investigative Division seeks a pay back in one payment of $775.12 or time payments not to exceed seven months to be made through the Commission. Section 1107(13) provides: (13) Issue findings, reports and orders relating to investigations initiated pursuant to section 8, which set forth the alleged violation, findings of fact and conclusions of law. An order may include recommendations to law enforcement officials. Any order resulting from a finding that a public official or public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of this act may require the restitution plus interest of that gain to the appropriate governmental body. The commission or the Office of Attorney General shall have standing to apply to the Commonwealth Court to seek enforcement of an order requiring such restitution. This restitution requirement shall be in addition to any other penalties provided for in this act. The above section does not limit restitution to gross income; the section is broad to the point of empowering this Commission to even impose interest. Accordingly, Lahr is directed to make restitution to Benner Township in the total amount of $775.12 based upon the following payment schedule: a payment of $86.16 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this order followed by eight individual payments of $86.12, each payable 30 days after the prior payment for a period of eight months. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Lahr, as a Supervisor in Benner Township, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Lahr violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted, approved, and received compensation for performing administrative functions encompassed within the duties of an elected township supervisor. In Re: Richard Lahr File Docket: 00- 044 -C2 Date Decided: April 9, 2001 Date Mailed: April 16, 2001 ORDER NO. 1194 1 Lahr, as a Supervisor in Benner Township, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted, approved, and received compensation for performing administrative functions encompassed within the duties of an elected township supervisor. 2. Lahr is directed to make payment to Benner Township in the total amount of $775.12 payable as follows: a payment of $86.16 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this order followed by eight individual payments of $86.12, each payable 30 days after the prior payment for a period of eight months. 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