Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1226 WilsonIn Re: Deborah Wilson 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 Michael Healey 01- 006 -C2 Order No. 1226 11/15/01 11/30/01 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 Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Deborah Wilson, a public official in her capacity as an auditor for Warsaw Township, Jefferson County, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she used the authority of her office for the private pecuniary benefit of a member of her immediate family when she participated in discussions and actions of the board of auditors to set the salary of her husband for the position of township roadmaster. II. FINDINGS: 1. Deborah Wilson has served as an Auditor for Warsaw Township, Jefferson County, since January 2000. a. Wilson won by write -in vote during the November 1999 general election. 1. Wilson was not seeking the position. b. Wilson held the office of board secretary in 2000. c. Wilson has held the office of Chairman of the Board of Auditors since January 2001. 2. The Warsaw Township Board of Auditors is a three - member board. a. Section 901(a) of the Second Class Township Code requires that two auditors constitute a quorum. 3. The township auditors meet annually in January to reorganize and set compensation and benefits of supervisors employed by the township. a. The township auditors reorganize the first Tuesday after the reorganization meeting of the township supervisors. 4. The township auditors also meet in late January /early February to conduct the annual township audit. a. The three township auditors work as a group in conducting all facets of the annual audit. 5. Deborah Wilson's first meeting as an auditor was January 4, 2000. 6. Michael Wilson is the spouse of Wilson. a. Wilson and Michael Wilson reside at or maintain a mailing address at RD 1 Box 95, Reynoldsville, PA 15851. 7. Michael Wilson has served as a Warsaw Township Supervisor since February 1994. a. Michael Wilson was appointed to fulfill an unexpired term at a special meeting held on February 22, 1994. 8. Michael Wilson was appointed to the position of township Roadmaster at the January 3, 1995, supervisor's reorganization meeting. Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 3 a. Michael Wilson has been reappointed as the township Roadmaster at each subsequent reorganization meeting. 9. Michael Wilson is the only full time, 40 hour per week, working supervisor for Warsaw Township. a. Supervisors Craig Lindemuth and Harold Reynolds work as road crew employees for the township on a part -time, "as- needed" basis only. 10. Since 1995, the board of supervisors make [sic] recommendations to the board of auditors for a salary of working supervisors, including Michael Wilson. a. Warsaw Township Supervisors vote at the annual supervisors' reorganization meetings on wage recommendations and benefits to be presented to the township auditors for consideration. 1. The township auditors are not bound by these recommendations. 11. The Warsaw Township Board of Auditors annually set the wages of supervisors employed by the township road department, including Michael Wilson. a. Wages are set at the reorganization after receiving input from the board of supervisors. 12. At the January 4, 2000, Supervisors reorganization meeting, Supervisor Reynolds made a motion, seconded by Supervisor Lindemuth, to recommend that the working supervisors wages be set at $11.50 per hour. a. The wage recommendation included a $.25 increase over 1999 wages. b. The motion passed unanimously, with Michael Wilson participating. c. No abstentions are noted in the minutes. d. Reynolds also motioned, seconded by Lindemuth, that the Roadmaster's wage be $.50 higher than the wage set by the Board of Auditors for working supervisor. e. The motion passed unanimously. f. No abstentions are noted. 13. Since at least 1995, township policy has been that the individual holding the Roadmaster position receive $0.50 per hour more than the other employees of the roadcrew. 14. Supervisors Reynolds and Michael Wilson presented the supervisors wage recommendations to the township auditors for consideration at the January 5, 2000, auditor's reorganization meeting. a. The wage recommended for Michael Wilson as Roadmaster totaled $12.00 per hour ($11.50 per hour as a working supervisor plus $.50 per hour for the road master position). 1. This was a $.25 /hour increase over 1999. b. The wage recommended for Reynolds and Lindemuth as part -time, "as- Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 4 needed" road workers was $11.50 per hour, the same $.25 /hour increase as Wilson. c. Present for the board of auditors was Glendora Lindemuth, Deborah Wilson and recently elected auditor, Ronald Norman. 15. On January 5, 2000, the Warsaw Township Board of Auditors met to reorganize and set wages and benefits for township supervisors. a. Present were auditors Glendora Lindemuth, Deborah Wilson and Ronald Norman. b. The supervisors presented recommendations approved by the board of supervisors on January 4, 2000. 1. The recommendations included $.25 /hour pay increase and $.50 /hour more for supervisor serving as roadmaster. c. A motion to approve the supervisors' report (salary, benefit recommendations) made by Glendora Lindemuth and seconded by Deborah Wilson was passed. d. Auditor Ronald Norman did not vote or take any official action at the January 5, 2000, auditor's reorganization meeting because he had not yet been sworn in as an auditor. e. Deborah Wilson voted after discussing the situation with the other auditors. 1. Wilson voted because she believed she was required to set supervisors' salary at the reorganization meeting and could not defer until a later date. 16. The compensation package approved by the auditors on January 5, 2000, for the supervisors included a $.25 /hour increase for each working supervisor and an additional $.50 /hour for township roadmaster. a. This was consistent with prior years. 17. Wilson did not publicly disclose her relationship with Michael Wilson during the January 5, 2000, meeting, prior to voting. a. The spousal relationship between Wilson and Michael Wilson was common knowledge in the township. 18. In February 2000, Warsaw Township Secretary /Treasurer Alan Lindemuth received correspondence from a township resident questioning the permissibility of a supervisor's wife holding an auditor's position with the township. a. The question was raised after Deborah Wilson participated in setting wages for her husband during the January 5, 2000, auditors meeting. b. Alan Lindemuth contacted the township solicitor, Ferraro and Young, regarding the issue. 19. On February 22, 2000, Alan Lindemuth also contacted Dean Farnsler of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Legal Division regarding the situation. Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 5 a. Farnsler indicated that there was no conflict of interest except in matters relating to the wages and benefits of the working spouse. b. Farnsler advised that the auditor should abstain from voting on wages and benefits and do everything possible to avoid a tie - breaking vote. 20. On February 23, 2000, Greg Kruk of Ferraro and Young Law Offices contacted Alan Lindemuth regarding the situation. a. Kruk indicated that no conflict of interest existed except in the matter relating to the wages and benefits of the working spouse. b. Kruk's recommendations mirrored Farnsler's. 21. Alan Lindemuth presented the information received from Farnsler and Kruk to the Board of Supervisors at the March 6, 2000, regularly scheduled meeting. a. The presentation is documented as part of the official March 6, 2000, meeting minutes. b. No action was taken by the board of supervisors. 22. On January 3, 2001, the Warsaw Township Auditors conducted its annual re- organization meeting. a. Minutes confirm Deborah Wilson's presence at the meeting. 23. The township supervisors presented wage recommendations for working supervisors to the auditors for consideration at the January 3, 2001, reorganization meeting of the board of auditors. a. The wage recommendation included a $.50 per hour additional compensation for Michael Wilson as Roadmaster. 24. The auditors upon motion, seconded by Norman, approved the supervisors' wage and benefit recommendations. a. The motion passed by a vote of 2 -0 -1. b. Specifically recorded in the minutes is that, "Deborah Wilson abstained from voting because of being married to the working supervisor." c. Norman then made a motion, seconded by Glendora Lindemuth, that full time employees receive a dental reimbursement plan of $800.00 per year per family. d. The motion passed by a vote of 2 -0 -1 e. Specifically recorded in the minutes is that, "Deborah Wilson abstained from voting because of being married to the working supervisor." 25. Michael Wilson received a $.25 per hour increase over his 1999 wage as a result of the January 5, 2000, auditor's re- organization meeting during which his wife cast the deciding vote. a. In 1999, prior to Deborah Wilson's service as a township auditor, Michael Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 6 Wilson was compensated at the rate of $11.25 per hour, plus $.50 /hour additional for serving as roadmaster. b. Michael Wilson's wage increased from $11.75 per hour in 1999 to $12.00 per hour in 2000. c. The amount of raise approved for Michael Wilson was the same as other working supervisors. 26. In 2000, Michael Wilson received $26,592.00 in wages from Warsaw Township in his Roadmaster position. a. Michael Wilson received $24,882.00 in regular wages (2073.5 regular hours x $12.00 per hour). b. Michael Wilson received $1,710.00 in overtime wages (95 overtime hours x $18.00 per hour). 27. Deborah Wilson, in a sworn statement to Ethics Commission investigators, on July 17, 2001, stated that her relationship with Michael Wilson and her ability to vote were openly discussed among the other township auditors at the reorganization meeting. a. She was not comfortable in voting to set compensation and /or benefits for Michael Wilson. b. She and the remaining auditors believed that the reorganization meeting had to be held the first Tuesday after the Supervisor's reorganization meeting as dictated in the Second Class Township Code. c. She had no choice but to participate in the vote establishing wages and compensation for working supervisors because Norman was not sworn in and a quorum would not otherwise be present. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Deborah Wilson, hereinafter Wilson, 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 Wilson, as a Warsaw Township Auditor, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in discussions and actions of the board of auditors to set the salary of her spouse for the position of township roadmaster. Pursuant to Section 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 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 7 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. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 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. Wilson has served as an auditor for Warsaw Township, Jefferson County, ( "Township ") since January 2000. The Warsaw Township Board of Auditors ( "Board ") is a three - member board. Wilson's spouse, Michael, has served as a Township Supervisor since February 1994 and the Township Roadmaster since January 1995. Michael Wilson is the only full - time, 40- hour - per -week working supervisor for the Township. At the Supervisors' January 4, 2000, reorganization meeting, a motion recommending that working supervisors' wages be set at $11.50 per hour - $.25 increase over 1999 wages - passed unanimously. A second motion recommending that the Roadmaster's wage be $.50 higher than the wage set by the Board for a working supervisor also passed unanimously. The Supervisors' wage recommendations were presented to the Township Board of Auditors for consideration at the Board's January 5, 2000, reorganization meeting. The wage recommendations included a rate of $12.00 per hour for full -time roadmaster, and $11.50 per hour for part -time, "as- needed" road workers. On January 5, 2000, all three auditors, including Wilson, were present. Auditor Glendora Lindemuth made a motion to approve the Supervisors' Report, which included the Supervisors' wage recommendations. Wilson seconded Lindemuth's motion, which then passed. Auditor Ronald Norman did not participate because he had not yet been sworn in as auditor. Wilson voted because she believed that she was required to set the Supervisors' salaries at the reorganization meeting and the matter was not deferrable to a later date. Wilson did not publicly disclose that she was married to Michael Wilson prior to participating. In February 2000, Lindemuth received correspondence from a Township resident, who questioned the propriety of a supervisor's spouse serving as auditor within the same township. Lindemuth sought legal advice from the Township Solicitor and the Legal Division of the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development ( "DCED "). Both the Township Solicitor and DCED advised Lindemuth that no conflict of interest would exist for the auditor except in matters related to the wages and benefits of Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 8 the working spouse. Lindemuth presented this information to the Board of Supervisors in March 2000. The Board took no official action with regard to this information. Wilson did not participate in approving the Supervisors' wage recommendations at the Auditors' January 3, 2001. The minutes of that meeting specifically note Wilson's abstention because Michael is her spouse. In the year 2000, Michael Wilson received $26,592 in wages from the Township for his work as Roadmaster. Michael Wilson received $24,882 in regular wages (2073.5 regular hours x $12.00 per hour) plus $1,710 in overtime wages (95 overtime hours x $18.00 per hour). In a sworn statement to this Commission, Wilson stated that her relationship with Michael Wilson and her ability to vote were openly discussed among other township auditors at the reorganization meeting. Wilson further stated that she was not comfortable in voting to set the compensation and /or benefits for her spouse. However, Wilson and the other two auditors believed that the reorganization meeting was required to be held the first Tuesday after the Supervisors' reorganization meeting as per the Second Class Township Code, and Wilson was required to participate in the vote to constitute a quorum, given that Auditor Norman was not sworn in at that time. 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 that Wilson technically violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when she voted to approve a salary increase for the Warsaw Township Supervisors, which included her spouse, Michael Wilson; and that Wilson will make a payment of $100 in settlement of this matter within 30 days of the issuance of this Order through this Commission to Warsaw Township. As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, Wilson, as a Township Auditor, participated in Board action on January 5, 2000, to set wages and benefits for the Township Supervisors by seconding a motion to approve the Supervisors' Report and voting to approve a compensation package that included a $.25 /hour increase for each working supervisor and an additional $.50 /hour increase for the township roadmaster. Such actions by Wilson were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office by Wilson resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to her spouse, Michael, as to his wages for his position as Township Roadmaster. Michael Wilson is a member of the immediate family of Wilson as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, we find that Wilson technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in Board action on January 5, 2000, to set wages and benefits for the Township Supervisors by seconding a motion to approve the Supervisors' Report and voting to approve a compensation package that included a $.25 /hour increase for each working supervisor and an additional $.50 /hour increase for the township roadmaster, when her spouse, Michael Wilson, was the Township Roadmaster. 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, Wilson is directed to make a payment of $100 within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order through this Commission to Warsaw Township. 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: Wilson, 01- 006 -C2 Page 9 1. Wilson, as a Warsaw Township Auditor, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 93 of 1998. 2. Wilson technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in actions of the Warsaw Township Board of Auditors on January 5, 2000, to set wages and benefits for the Township Supervisors by seconding a motion to approve the Supervisors' Report and voting to approve a compensation package that included a $.25 /hour increase for each working supervisor and an additional $.50 /hour increase for the township roadmaster, when her spouse, Michael Wilson, was the Township Roadmaster. In Re: Deborah Wilson File Docket: Date Decided: Date Mailed: ORDER NO. 1226 BY THE COMMISSION, 01- 006 -C2 11/15/01 11/30/01 1 Wilson, as a Warsaw Township Auditor, technically violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she participated in actions of the Warsaw Township Board of Auditors on January 5, 2000, to set wages and benefits for the Township Supervisors by seconding a motion to approve the Supervisors' Report and voting to approve a compensation package that included a $.25 /hour increase for each working supervisor and an additional $.50 /hour increase for the township roadmaster, when her spouse, Michael Wilson, was the Township Roadmaster. 2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wilson is directed to make payment to Warsaw Township through this Commission in the amount of $100.00 within 30 days of the mailing date 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. DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR