Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1216 RinehimerIn Re: John Rinehimer 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- 001 -C2 Order No. 1216 8/23/01 9/7/01 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 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. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That John Rinehimer, a public official in his capacity as a supervisor for Plymouth Township, Luzerne County, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 3(f)/1103(f), 4(a)/1104(a) and 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or a member of his immediate family; and a business with which a member of his immediate family is associated by participating in actions of the board of supervisors to enter into a contract with Snelling Personnel Services, a company which employs his wife; and when the contract with Snelling Personnel Services was entered into without an open and public process; when he participated in discussions and actions of the board of supervisors resulting in the hiring of his son, when he participated in approving payments to his son; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998 calendar year creditors, including tax liens. II. FINDINGS: 1. John Rinehimer served as Plymouth Township Supervisor from January 1988 through December 1999. a. Rinehimer also served as the Plymouth Township Roadmaster from 1993 through 1999. b. Rinehimer served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from 1996 through 1999. 2. Plymouth Township suffered significant damage as the result of flooding which occurred during January of 1996. 3. As a result of the flooding, Plymouth Township applied for disaster relief money from the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 4. Plymouth Township Secretary Irene Brojakowski and Grants Coordinator Bernard Szot were responsible for handling all duties related to grant applications. a. The board of supervisors did not take an active role in completing grant applications. 4. Secretary Irene Brojakowski passed away in April 1999. 5. In his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Rinehimer determined that a temporary employee to replace Brojakowski was needed to assist Szot. a. Supervisor John Rinehimer made the determination of the need for a temporary clerical replacement for Brojakowski prior to formal action being taken by the board of supervisors as a whole. b. Supervisor Rinehimer was not directed by the board to do this. 6. Prior to April 16, 1999, Rinehimer requested Szot [to] contact temporary [employment] agencies and specified that Szot[s] contacts include Snelling Personnel Services. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 3 7. John Rinehimer subsequently contacted Snelling Personnel Services, 297 South Main Street, Wilkes- Barre, PA, on April 16, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. a. Snelling employee Donna Williams received the call from Rinehimer. b. Williams completed a company assignment order based on her conversation with Rinehimer and assigned client number 474082 to Plymouth Township. c. John Rinehimer is identified as the contact and billing person for the township. d. Williams noted on the company assignment order that one (1) clerical employee with some computer skills was needed for light office work and payroll. e. The start date is listed as 04/27/99. f. Bill range quoted was $7.00 to $11.20 per hour. g. Length of assignment was two (2) weeks. 8. Rinehimer himself did not contact any employment staffing services other than Snelling. 9. On April 27, 1999, Rinehimer entered into a signed agreement with Snelling Personnel Services on behalf of Plymouth Township. a. This agreement did not go before the board of supervisors for approval prior to being executed. 10. An estimated bill quote was prepared by Snelling and forwarded to Rinehimer on or before April 27, 1999. a. The quote identified Plymouth Township as the company and John Rinehimer as the contact person. b. The job description listed was "clerical" and stated a billing rate of $11.20 per hour. 11. Rinehimer signed the quote acknowledging acceptance. a. No other township supervisor reviewed or signed the quote. 12. Snelling assigned John Draynock to begin working at Plymouth Township on April 27, 1999. 13. Supervisor Rinehimer made the motion to hire John Draynock as a clerical employee retroactive to April 27, 1999, during the Supervisors' May 3, 1999, meeting. a. Rinehimer noted the motion was based on Mr. Szot's recommendation. 1. Draynock had been working for the township for one week prior to this meeting. 2. Szot's recommendation was based on Draynock's performance during the previous week. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 4 3. Szot played no role in the selection of Snelling or the hiring of Draynock. b. This motion passed by a 2 -1 margin with Supervisor Rinehimer casting a favorable and deciding vote. c. Rinehimer did not mention that Draynock was employed by Snelling or that Snelling would be billing for Draynock's services. 14. John Rinehimer's wife, Donna, was employed by Snelling in 1999. a. Donna Rinehimer was employed by Snelling Personnel Services from March 18, 1999, to January 7, 2000. b. Donna Rinehimer served as a receptionist for Snelling Personnel Services at their 297 South Main Street, Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania, office. c. Donna Rinehimer's hourly wage was $6.00 per hour. d. Donna Rinehimer received a 25¢ per hour pay increase on December 27, 1999. e. Donna Rinehimer did not receive commissions or finders fees. 15. Within one (1) month of his wife securing employment with Snelling, at Rinehimer's direction, contact was made with Snelling in April 1999, requesting a temporary staffing employee and he subsequently a contract was entered into on behalf of the township with Snelling as above described. 16. Snelling invoices to Plymouth Township for Draynock's services were sent directly to Rinehimer's attention. a. Plymouth Township was invoiced by Snelling eleven (11) times between May 6, 1999, and July 15, 1999. 17. Plymouth Township was invoiced by Snelling for labor services provided by John Draynock. Invoice Hours Hourly Total No Date Worked Rate Tax Amount 3113 05/06/99 31.50 $11.97 $ 6.95 $384.01 3123 05/13/99 36.00 $11.97 $ 7.94 $438.86 3134 05/20/99 38.50 $11.97 $ 8.49 $469.34 3147 05/27/99 38.25 $11.97 $ 8.44 $466.29 3157 06/03/99 40.00 $11.97 $26.94 $515.06 1.50 $17.96 (overtime) 3168 06/10/99 27.50 $11.97 $ 6.07 $335.25 3180 06/17/99 35.75 $11.97 $ 7.89 $435.82 3192 06/24/99 37.75 $11.97 $ 8.33 $460.20 3205 07/01/99 35.75 $11.97 $ 7.89 $435.82 3216 07/08/99 31.00 $11.97 $ 6.84 $377.91 3223 07/15/99 29.25 $11.97 $ 6.45 $356.57 382.75 Total $4,675.13 18. Plymouth Township issued the following seven (7) payments totaling $4,675.13 to Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 5 Snelling between June 14, 1999, and July 23, 1999: a. Check Payment of Authorized No Date Amount Invoice No(s). by Rinehimer 3669 06/14/99 $ 899.07 3113 & 3157 Yes 3670 06/14/99 $ 466.29 3147 Yes 3682 06/23/99 $1,243.45 3123, 3134, 3168 Yes 3687 07/01/99 $ 460.20 (3192) No Indication Yes 3689 07/02/99 $ 435.82 No Indication Yes 3698 07/14/99 $ 435.82 No Indication Yes 3709 07/23/99 $ 734.48 No Indication Yes b. Supervisors Rinehimer and Panasiewicz signed the front side of all seven (7) checks issued to Snelling. 19. The contract entered into with Snelling by Rinehimer was done without an open and public process. a. Bids were not requested by Rinehimer or any board member for the temporary service of a clerical worker. b. Advertisements requesting bids for temporary clerical work were not placed in any newspaper in the Wilkes -Barre area. 20. Snelling Personnel Services was not the only temporary [employment] agency in the Wilkes -Barre area. a. Action Personnel, 100 N. Wilkes -Barre Boulevard, Wilkes- Barre, PA, and Russoli Staffing, 1325 N. River Road, Wilkes- Barre, offer the same types of temporary employment staffing services as Snelling. 21. Action Personnel and Russoli Staffing both offer individuals to act as temporary secretarial help who have basic computer skills. a. Action Personnel charged $10.26 per hour for this service during 1999. b. Russoli Staffing charged $12.00 per hour for this service during 1999. 22. Action Personnel's hourly rate was $1.71 per hour less than the rate charged by Snelling. a. Snelling invoiced the township for $381.25 hours at $11.97 per hour and 1.50 hours overtime at $17.96 per hour. b. Plymouth Township would have saved $740.41 by using Action Personnel instead of Snelling. c. Savings based on 381.25 hours at $10.26 per hour ($3,911.63), 1.5 hours overtime at $15.39 ($23.09) for total costs of $3,934.72 instead of the $4,675.13 charged by Snelling. The following findings relate to the allegation that John Rinehimer participated in actions of the board resulting in the hiring of his son. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 6 23. Plymouth Township employs one person in its road department on a full -time basis. a. Part -time help is hired on an as needed basis by the board of supervisors. b. The supervisors annually approve during reorganization meetings a list of part -time employees. 24. Barry Rinehimer is the son of Plymouth Township Supervisor John Rinehimer. 25. During the November 13, 1995, meeting of the board of supervisors, John Rinehimer initiated action to hire Barry Rinehimer as a part -time employee of Plymouth Township. a. Rinehimer stated during the meeting that the snow is flying and the township has only one CDL driver. b. Rinehimer motioned that the township hire Barry Rinehimer for snow plowing on an as needed basis at the rate of $5.75 per hour. c. This action passed by a 2 -0 margin with Rinehimer casting a favorable vote. d. Rinehimer did not publicly disclose that Barry Rinehimer is his son though it was common knowledge in the small community. e. Rinehimer did not abstain from this vote. 26. Plymouth Township did not advertise for a part -time road department employee or driver with CDL license prior to the hiring of Barry Rinehimer. a. Interviews were not conducted for the position of driver. b. No other applicants were considered for the position. c. Barry Rinehimer was the only person hired by the board on November 13, 1995. 27. During the Supervisors' January 4, 1996, reorganization meeting, John Rinehimer motioned and voted to re- appoint all part -time road department workers. a. This motion passed by a 3 -0 margin. b. Barry Rinehimer was one of six (6) employees reappointed at an hourly rate of $5.75 per hour. 28. Barry Rinehimer worked for Plymouth Township from November 1995 through November January [sic] 1996. a. The majority of hours worked by Barry Rinehimer were out of necessity as the result of snowstorms and flooding in January 1996. b. Road Foreman Ray Everats made the determination when to call Barry Rinehimer out to work. c. Barry Rinehimer was otherwise unemployed during the time he worked for the township. d. Barry Rinehimer actually worked on behalf of the township those hours for Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 7 which he was paid. 29. John Rinehimer, in his official capacity as a Plymouth Township Supervisor, signed five (5) timecards and four (4) bi- weekly payroll reports approving hours worked by Barry Rinehimer. a. Timecards were approved as follows: Card Date Req. Hours Overtime Total Hours 11/29/95 8.00 0.00 8.00 12/03/95 11.50 0.00 11.50 01/07/96 40.00 29.25 69.25 01/22/96 52.75 5.50 58.25 01/28/96 34.75 0.00 34.75 Total 147.00 34.75 181.75 30. Barry Rinehimer was compensated by Plymouth Township as a part -time road worker during the winter of 1995 -1996. a. A total of five (5) payments were issued to Barry Rinehimer. b. Barry Rinehimer's corresponding timesheets are missing from Township files. 31. Bi- weekly payroll reports signed by Supervisor Rinehimer included the following total hours worked by Barry Rinehimer. Payroll Period Total Hours 11/19/95 - 12/02/95 8.00 12/31/95 - 01/13/96 69.25 01/14/96 - 01/27/96 58.25 01/28/96 - 02/10/96 34.75 Total 170.25 a. Rinehimer did not sign the bi- weekly payroll report covering the period 12/03/95 - 12/16/95 which included 11.5 hours for Barry Rinehimer. 1. Supervisor Rinehimer signed the corresponding timecard for these hours. 32. Plymouth Township issued the following payments to Barry Rinehimer. Pay Date Check Number Gross Amount Net Amount 12/08/95 4584 $ 46.00 $ 40.68 12/20/95 4596 $ 66.13 $ 58.49 01/17/96 4625 $ 482.25 $369.71 02/01/96 4643 $ 350.74 $273.00 02/15/96 46660 $ 199.81 $162.05 Total $ 1,144.93 $903.93 33. Payroll checks issued to Barry Rinehimer were signed by the township secretary. a. Employee payroll is not voted on during the supervisors' meetings. b. Supervisors' approval of employee time cards enables the township secretary to issue checks. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 8 34. John Rinehimer's participation in the process to hire his son resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to his son totaling $1,144.93. The following findings relate to the allegation that John Rinehimer failed to file Statements of Financial Interests and failed to disclose creditors on Statements of Financial Interests 35. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that Statements of Financial Interests on file with Plymouth Township did not include any filings for John Rinehimer. a. Rinehimer was required to file Statements of Financial Interests annually by May 1 of the following year for calendar years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999. 36. Rinehimer has now filed complete Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1995 through 1999. 37. Rinehimer asserts that he had timely filed his calendar year 1995 through 1999 Statements of Financial Interests as required by the Ethics Law and cannot explain their absence from the township files. 38. John Rinehimer filed a Statement of Financial Interests form with the Luzerne County Board of Elections on March 8, 1999, for calendar year 1998. a. This form was filed by Rinehimer in his capacity as a candidate for the position of Plymouth Township Supervisor. b. Rinehimer did not file a copy of this form with Plymouth Township, his governmental body. 39. Rinehimer's Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Luzerne County Board of Elections for calendar year 1998 included the following financial information: Position: Supervisor /Supervisor Candidate Occupation: Restaurant Owner Real Estate Interests: None Creditors: None Direct /Indirect Income: Rinehimer's Restaurant Office, Directorship or Emp. in any Business: Rinehimer's Restaurant, President All Other Financial Interests: None 40. Rinehimer failed to list creditors on Item 9 of the 1998 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests dated 03/08/99 as follows: a. First National Bank b. Internal Revenue Service 41. Luzerne County Recorder of Deeds records confirm a mortgage dated May 14, 1996, between John and Donna Rinehimer and First National Community Bank on property located at 52 -54 East Main Street, Plymouth, PA 18651. a. 52 -54 East Main Street, Plymouth, PA, is the physical location of Rinehimer's Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 9 Restaurant, not his primary residence. b. This property was mortgaged in the amount of $180,000.00. c. There were no mortgage satisfaction papers filed on this property. 42. Rinehimer did not disclose a tax lien filed against him by the United States Internal Revenue Service in 1998. a. Number Year Filing Date Defendant Amount 2374L 1998 November 12, 1998 John Rinehimer $5,260.44 43. Rinehimer failed to disclose Plymouth Township as a source of income on this Statement of Financial Interests filed on March 8, 1999, for the 1998 calendar year. a. Rinehimer received net payments totaling $4,994.48 from Plymouth Township during calendar year 1998. 44. Rinehimer did not list on Item 14 of the 1998 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests filed on March 8, 1999, Rinehimer's Restaurant as a business with which he has a financial interest. 45. John Rinehimer's participation in discussions and actions of the Plymouth Township Board of Supervisors resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to Snelling Personnel Services, a business which employs his wife; and to his son acting as a part -time township employee, as follows: a. Snelling - $ 740.41 b. Barry Rinehimer - $1,144.93 Total $1,885.34 46. Rinehimer stated that at no time did he willfully or intentionally act to violate the provisions of the State Ethics Act. 47. Rinehimer stated that he believed his actions at all times were reasonable, in good faith, and permitted by the State Ethics Act. 48. Rinehimer stated he believed his actions taken on behalf of the township in contracting with a temporary staffing agency which employed his wife, and recommending his son for part -time employment were for the good of the township, done only out of necessity and occurred with the full knowledge, approval and support of the other township supervisors who later ratified his actions in public. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, John Rinehimer, hereinafter Rinehimer, 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 allegations are that Rinehimer, as a Plymouth Township Supervisor, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 3(f)/1103(f), 4(a)/1104(a) and 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the board of supervisors to enter into a contract with Snelling Personnel Services, a company which employs his wife; when the Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 10 contract with Snelling Personnel Services was entered into without an open and public process; when he participated in discussions and actions of the board of supervisors resulting in the hiring of his son, and in approving payments to his son; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1999 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998 calendar year creditors, including tax liens. 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/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 2/1102. 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 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. Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Section 3(f)/1103(f) of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 provides: Section 3/1103. Restricted activities (f) No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 11 implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 P.S. §403(f)/65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f). Section 3(f)/1103(f) of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 specifically provides in part that no public official /public employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. Section 4/1104. Statement of financial interests required to be filed. (a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part -time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under this section. 65 P.S. §404(a)/65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a). Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests (FIS's) for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 5(b)/1105(b) of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 requires that every public official /public employee and candidate list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate of $1,000/$1,300 or more. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Rinehimer served as a Plymouth Township Supervisor from January 1988 through December 1999 and as board chairman from 1996 through 1999. This case involves Rinehimer's actions in three separate situations. The first scenario involves the hiring of a temporary employee following the death of the township secretary in April 1999. Rinehimer, as Board Chairman, determined that a temporary employee was needed to replace the secretary and directed that temporary Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 12 employment agencies be contacted including Snelling Personnel Services (SPS), which employed Rinehimer's spouse as a receptionist at that time. Rinehimer contacted SPS which prepared a company requisition for a client to be assigned to Plymouth Township with Rinehimer identified as the contact and billing person. Rinehimer did not contact any other temporary employment service other than SPS and entered into the agreement with SPS on behalf of the township without submitting the agreement to the board of supervisors for prior approval. SPS assigned John Draynock to begin working with the township. Approximately one week later, Rinehimer, at a May 3, 1999, meeting of the board of supervisors made a motion to hire Draynock as a clerical employee, which motion passed by a 2 -1 vote with Rinehimer casting the deciding vote. Rinehimer did not mention that Draynock was employed by SPS which would bill the township for his services. SPS invoiced the township a total of $4,675.13 for Draynock's services which was subsequently paid by the township. Rinehimer was one of the two supervisors who signed the front of the township checks that were payable to SPS for Draynock's services. The contract by Rinehimer with SPS was done without an open and public process even though the contract exceeded $500. The record reflects that SPS was not the only temporary employment agency in the area. If Rinehimer had used one of the other employment agencies, the fees for Draynock's services would have been $740.41 less than SPS. The second factual scenario involves the employment of Rinehimer's son with the township road department. The township employs part -time help in its road department on an as needed basis, as determined by the board of supervisors. During the November 13, 1995, township board meeting, Rinehimer took action to hire his son, Barry Rinehimer, as a part -time employee with the township. After Rinehimer noted that the winter was approaching and the township had only one "CDL" driver, Rinehimer made the motion to hire his son on an as- needed basis at the rate of $5.75 an hour. Rinehimer's motion passed by a 2 -0 vote with Rinehimer voting in favor of the motion. The township did not advertise or conduct interviews for that part -time position, or consider any other applicants other than Barry Rinehimer. During the board of supervisors meeting on January 4, 1996, Rinehimer made a motion and voted to reappoint all part -time road department employees including his son. Barry Rinehimer worked for the township from November 1995 into 1996. The hours worked by Barry Rinehimer were necessary and were for work actually done. Rinehimer signed the timecards and payroll reports approving hours worked by his son. In addition, Rinehimer signed many of the bi- weekly payroll reports which included hours worked by his son. For the time period in question, Plymouth Township paid Barry Rinehimer gross wages of $1,144.93. The third factual scenario involves FIS's. During the course of this investigation, it was determined that FIS's for Rinehimer were not on file with the township for the calendar years 1995 through 1999. Rinehimer has now completed FIS's for those five calendar years, although he asserts he had timely filed the FIS's and cannot explain their absence from the township files. Rinehimer, as a candidate, filed an FIS with the county board of elections on March 8, 1999, for the calendar year 1998. On that FIS, Rinehimer listed none under the category of creditors. The record reflects that Rinehimer failed to list as creditors the First National Bank, which held a mortgage on his restaurant in Plymouth, and the Internal Revenue Service, which has a tax lien against Rinehimer. Further, Rinehimer failed to Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 13 disclose Plymouth Township as a source of income and his restaurant as an entity in which he has a financial interest. Rinehimer states that he did not willfully or intentionally intend to violate the Ethics Act and that he believed his actions at all times were reasonable, in good faith, and permitted under the Ethics Act. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find: 1. Rinehimer violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the board of supervisors in contracting and administering a contract for temporary employment services, voting on bill lists, and signing checks to approve payments to that business which employed his spouse; 2. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a business which employed his spouse received a no bid contract in excess of $500 with the township; 3. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in the hiring of his son, a CDL licensed vehicle operator, to perform occasional part -time employment with the township and thereafter "failed to abstain from voting to approve bill lists which included payments to his son "; 4. Rinehimer technically violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to his Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1995 through 1999 which were missing from the files of Plymouth Township during a Commission audit; and 5. Rinehimer technically violated Sections 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act, when he unintentionally omitted the names of two creditors and Plymouth Township as a source of income on his 1998 calendar year Financial Interests Statement. Regarding the utilization of SPS to hire a part -time employee for the township, Rinehimer's involvement constituted uses of authority of office. Rinehimer contacted SPS and arranged for a temporary employee. Further, Rinehimer was involved in voting on bill lists and signing checks to pay SPS. All such actions by Rinehimer were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order No. 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the fees that SPS received in providing a temporary employee to the township. Lastly, that private pecuniary benefit inured to a business with which a member of Rinehimer's immediate family was associated. In that regard, Rinehimer's spouse was employed by SPS as a receptionist during that relevant time period. Accordingly, Rinehimer violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions as to contracting and administering a contract with SPS which employed his spouse. As to the above contract between the township and SPS, there was no advertisement for bids as to the contract which was in excess of $500. Accordingly, Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when the business which employed his spouse entered into a contract in excess of $500 with the township without an open and public process. Turning to the matter of hiring of Rinehimer's son to a part -time position of employment with the township, there were uses of authority on the part of Rinehimer. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 14 Rinehimer participated in discussions, made motions, and voted on those motions to hire his son as a part -time employee with the township. In addition, Rinehimer signed time cards and bi- weekly payroll reports approving hours worked by his son. All such actions were uses of authority of office. Such uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits consisting of the payments that Rinehimer's son received for working as a part -time employee of the township. Lastly, those pecuniary benefits inured to Rinehimer's son who is a member of his immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions to hire his son to a part -time position with the township and signed time cards and bi- weekly payroll reports approving hours worked by his son. Turning to the FIS's, the record reflects that the township did not have FIS's on file for Rinehimer for the calendar years 1995 through 1999. Although Rinehimer states that he filed those FIS's which are missing from the township files, the facts stipulated by the parties reflect that the FIS's were not on file during the investigation. Accordingly, Rinehimer technically violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to FIS's for the calendar years 1995 through 1999 which were not on file with Plymouth Township during a Commission audit. As to the FIS filed by Rinehimer with the county board of elections for the calendar 1998, a review of that FIS reflects that Rinehimer both failed to list two creditors and failed to list Plymouth Township as a source of income. Accordingly, Rinehimer technically violated Section 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act when he unintentionally omitted the names of two creditors and Plymouth Township as a source of income on his 1998 calendar year FIS. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Rinehimer is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,000 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this 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. Rinehimer, as a Supervisor in Plymouth Township, was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998. 2. Rinehimer violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions as to contracting and administering a contract with a business which employed his spouse. 3. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a business which employed his spouse entered into a contract in excess of $500 with the township without an open and public process. 4. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions as to the hiring of his son to a part -time position with the township and signed time cards and bi- weekly payroll reports approving hours worked by his son. 5. Rinehimer technically violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1995 through 1999 which were not on file with Plymouth Township during a Commission audit. Rinehimer, 00- 001 -C2 Page 15 6. Rinehimer technically violated Section 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act when he unintentionally omitted the names of two creditors and the township as a source of income on his 1998 calendar year FIS. In Re: John Rinehimer ORDER NO. 1216 File Docket: 00- 001 -C2 Date Decided: 8/23/01 Date Mailed: 9/7/01 1 Rinehimer, as a Supervisor in Plymouth Township, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions as to contracting and administering a contract with a business which employed his spouse. 2. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a business which employed his spouse entered into a contract in excess of $500 with the township without an open and public process. 3. Rinehimer technically violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions as to the hiring of his son to a part -time position with the township and signed time cards and bi- weekly payroll reports approving hours worked by his son. 4. Rinehimer technically violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act as to Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1995 through 1999 which were not on file with Plymouth Township during a Commission audit. 5. Rinehimer technically violated Section 5(b)(4) and (5)/1105(b)(4) and (5) of the Ethics Act when he unintentionally omitted the names of two creditors and the township as a source of income on his 1998 calendar year FIS. 6. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Rinehimer is directed to make payment in the amount of $1,000 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this 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