Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1238 GillIn Re: Stanley Gill File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Daneen E. Reese Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket Donald M. McCurdy Michael Healey 01- 035 -C2 Order No. 1238 5/2/02 5/16/02 The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible wrongful use of act and breach of confidentiality under the Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., by the above -named "Complainant." Written notice of the specific allegation(s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served a Findings Report, which constituted the Investigative Division's Complaint against the "Complainant." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved and the Stipulation of Findings appears as the Findings in this adjudication. This is the determination of the Commission. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was replaced by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which codifies Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under that Act. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under 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, 65 Pa.C.S. §1109(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Stanley Gill, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a complainant in case no. 01- 010 -C2, violated Sections 1108(k) and 1110(a), the confidentiality provisions of the Ethics Act, by disclosing or causing to be publicly disclosed the existence of an investigation in case no. 01- 010 -C2. II. FINDINGS: 1. Stanley Gill has served as a township supervisor for Valley Township, Montour County since January 1998. a. Gill has served as the Chairman of the board of supervisors since July 2000. b. Gill also previously served on the board of supervisors in the 1970's. c. Gill's mailing address is 650 McCraken Road, Danville, Pa, 17821. 2. On March 5, 2001, a sworn complaint was filed with the State Ethics Commission alleging that Valley Township Municipal Authority Board Member Steven Traub may have violated provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law (Act 93 of 1998). a. The complaint was notarized on March 1, 2001. b. The complaint was executed by Stanley Gill, 650 McCraken Road, Danville, Pa, 17821. 3. The complaint form received by the State Ethics Commission from Gill was on Form SEC - 3 Rev. 5/90. a. The form contained instructions that included the following statements: IMPORTANT -Any person filing a complaint with the State Ethics Commission should be aware of the following provisions of the Ethics Law: Section 8 (k) As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the Commission. Section 9 (e) Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding pursuant to Section 8, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1000.00 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or be both fined and imprisoned. b. This is the standard form utilized by the State Ethics Commission for sworn complaints. Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 3 4. Gill's complaint against Traub alleged that Traub was receiving payments (compensation) from the Valley Township Municipal Authority without having been previously approved by the Valley Township Supervisors. a. Accompanying the complaint were Valley Township Municipal Authority (VTMA) bill lists dated August 20, 1998; September 14, 2000; and October 19, 2000. 5. Prior to filing the com p laint against Traub, Gill attended the February 14, 2001, public meeting of the board supervisors and publicly voiced his concern regarding the situation involving Traub. a. Minutes document Gill's presence at the meeting. 6. Officially accepted minutes of the February 14, 2001, supervisors meeting reflect the following: "Stan brought up that the Municipal Authority paid its Chairman and Treasurer money in 1998 and 1999, Stan believes that these payments to him should have been OK'd by the Supervisors, can we make him pay this money back to the Authority." 7. Robert Buehner, Jr., was the solicitor for the Valley Township Supervisors, the VTMA, and other local municipalities. a. Buehner's presence at the February 14, 2001, meeting is documented in the meeting minutes. 8. Buehner advised Gill at the February 14, 2001, meeting that Traub was receiving payment from the VTMA as an independent contractor, not as an authority board member. a. Buehner advised Gill that the VTMA board is responsible for setting and approving payments issued to employees and independent contractors. b. Gill was not satisfied with Buehner's opinion. 9. The situation regarding Traub receiving payment (compensation) from VTMA was again discussed at the February 28, 2001, public meeting of the board of supervisors. a. Meeting minutes document Gill's presence at the meeting. b. Gill was the individual responsible for initiating the discussion. 10. The officially accepted minutes of the February 28, 2001, meeting reflect the following: "Stan brought up that the Municipal Authority Chairman was being paid for secretarial work he did. Stan feels that he should have to pay the money back with interest. Stan would like to hire a lawyer to represent the township in this matter and file a complaint with the State Ethics Commission. Dick agreed to file the complaint." a. Richard "Dick" Snyder is a Valley Township Supervisor. 11. Subsequent to this discussion, a motion was made by Snyder, seconded by Gill, to file a complaint with the State Ethics Commission and hire a lawyer if necessary. a. Snyder agreed to make the motion in order for the situation to be officially reviewed and put to rest. Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 4 b. The motion passed by a vote of 2 -1 with Gill and Snyder voting affirmatively and Supervisor Arthur Laubach voting negatively. c. No additional discussion is noted in the meeting minutes. 12. Carl Boyer and Michael Reich are representatives of The Danville News and The Press Enterprise respectively. a. Minutes document the presence of Boyer and Reich at the February 28, 2001, public meeting. 13. Both newspapers published articles on March 1, 2001, the date after the board meeting, reporting that the supervisors voted to file a complaint with the State Ethics Commission. 14. On March 2, 2001, The Press Enterprise published an additional article regarding the situation. a. The article written by Reich quoted Gill as stating, "If I'm wrong, let them (Ethics Commission) tell me I'm wrong and then I'll back off this." 15. Gill discussed that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission at the March 14, 2001, public meeting of the board of supervisors. a. Minutes confirm Gill's presence at the meeting. b. Also present were Boyer and Reich as representatives for their respective newspapers. 16. The officially accepted minutes of the March 14, 2001 supervisors meeting reveal the following: "Stan brought us up to date on the Ethics Commission complaint that the Supervisors filed about the Municipal Authority Chairman being paid." a. Gill stated that he had filed a complaint with the State Ethics Commission during the discussion. b. Gill's statement occurred during the public session while a confidential preliminary inquiry was ongoing regarding the allegations against Traub. 1. The preliminary inquiry was authorized to commence on March 6, 2001. c. No additional discussion is noted in the meeting minutes. 17. On March 15, 2001, one day after the public meeting, The Press Enterprise published an article regarding Gill's statement at the March 14, 2001, board meeting. a. Documented in the article is, "Gill said he has officially filed a complaint against former Valley Authority member Steve Traub with the state ethics commission." 18. Gill further publicly disclosed information regarding the complaint he filed against Traub at the June 13, 2001, public meeting of the board of supervisors. a. Minutes document Gill's presence at the meeting. 19. The officially accepted minutes of the June 13, 2001, public meeting reveal the following: Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 5 "Stan stated that he has received a letter from the State Ethics Commission. According to the Commission Steve Traub had only a minimal violation of the Ethics code for voting to approve bill lists with his name on it and because it has a minimal economic impact no further action would be taken." a. Gill's statement occurred during the public session and revealed the disposition of a confidential preliminary inquiry which had been conducted regarding the allegation against Traub. 20. The Ethics Commission letter did not find a violation of the Ethics Law. b. The letter advised that travel activity was de minimis in nature and that the Ethics Law provides that action that is de minimis is not a violation of the Ethics Law. 21. Gill presented the actual letter he received from the Commission to those present at the June 13, 2001, public meeting. a. Gill passed the letter among those present to those who wished to read it. III. DISCUSSION: Stanley Gill (hereinafter Gill) is a resident and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As such, he is subject to the confidentiality and wrongful use of act provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, ( "the Ethics Act "), Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11. §1108. Investigations by commission. (k) Confidentiality. As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. However, a person may disclose or acknowledge to another person matters held confidential in accordance with this subsection when the matters pertain to any of the following: (1) final orders of the commission as provided in subsection (h); (2) hearings conducted in public pursuant to subsection (g); (3) for the purpose of seeking advice of legal counsel; (4) filing an appeal from a commission order; (5) communicating with the commission or its staff, in the course of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration by the commission; (6) consulting with a law enforcement official or agency for the purpose of initiating, participating in or responding to an investigation or prosecution by the law enforcement official or agency; (7) testifying under oath before a governmental body or a similar body of the United States of America; (8) any information, records or proceedings relating to a complaint, Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 6 preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which the person is the subject of; or (9) such other exceptions as the commission, by regulation, may direct. 65 Pa.C.S. §1108(k). §1110. Wrongful use of chapter. (a) Liability. A person who signs a complaint alleging a violation of this chapter against another is subject to liability for wrongful use of this chapter if: (1) the complaint was frivolous, as defined by this chapter, or without probable cause and made primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting a violation of this chapter; or (2) he publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint against a person had been filed with the commission. 65 Pa.C.S. §1110(a). Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no person shall disclose or acknowledge any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or reconsideration petition which is before the Commission. Section 1108(k) further provides for nine exceptions which are not relevant to this case. Section 1110(a) provides in part that a wrongful use of act occurs: if a complaint was frivolous, that is, filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact; if a complaint was filed without probable cause and made primarily for a purpose other than reporting an Ethics Act violation; or if a person who filed a complaint publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint against another person was filed with the Commission. Gill, as a Valley Township Supervisor, considered that Steven Traub, a member of the Valley Township Municipal Authority (Authority) Board, received payments from the Authority that had not been approved by the Valley Township Supervisors. Gill raised this issue at a meeting of the Township Board in February of 2001. However, the Solicitor opined that Traub received the payments from the Authority as an independent contractor, not as a member. Gill again raised the issue at a subsequent Board of Supervisors meeting and after a discussion, seconded a motion to file a complaint against Traub with this Commission. The motion passed 2- 1 with Gill in the majority. On March 5, 2001, a sworn complaint was filed by Gill at this Commission alleging that Traub may have violated provisions of the Ethics Act. The complaint was on a standard Commission form which outlined the confidentiality provisions as well as the penalties for violating confidentiality. At a March 2001, public meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Gill stated that he had filed a complaint with this Commission. Gills statement was made at the time when the preliminary inquiry as to Traub was pending. On the following day, a press article appeared which quoted Gill as saying that he had filed a complaint against Traub with this Commission. At a June 2000, Board Meeting, Gill publicly disclosed information regarding the complaint he filed against Traub. In particular, Gill stated that the Commission found a "minimal violation" of the Ethics Act in relation to Traub's activities. In actuality, the Commission sent a letter to Gill Gill, 01- 035 -C2 Page 7 advising that Traub's activity was de minimis in nature which did not constitute a violation under the Ethics Act. The parties have submitted a Consent Agreement together with a Stipulation of Findings wherein it is proposed to resolve the case as follows: Gill violated Section 1108(k) of Act 93 of 1998 when he publicly disclosed information relating to a complaint /investigation in case number 01- 010 -C2; and Gill violated Section 1110(a)(2) when he, as the complainant, publicly disclosed that he filed a complaint in case number 01-010-C2. In addition, Gill agrees to make a payment in the amount of $750.00 within 30 days of the issuance of this Order through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In this case, Gill, the Complainant, publicly disclosed that he filed a Complaint against Steven Traub. Section 1110(a)(2), as to confidentiality, prohibits the public disclosure by a complainant that a complaint had been filed against a person. The foregoing occurred in this case. Since such conduct is within the proscription of Section 1110(a)(2), we find a violation of wrongful use of act as to the disclosure of the filing of the Complaint, the preliminary inquiry and the result thereof. Furthermore, since public disclosure of the filing of the Complaint encompasses the disclosure of any information relating to a Complaint or investigation, Gill also violated Section 1108(k) through the disclosure during public meetings of the Valley Township Board of Supervisors. Therefore, Gill violated Sections 1108(k) and 1110(a)(2) of Act 93 of 1998. See, Yakin, Order 999. Lastly, as noted above, the parties have filed a Stipulation of Findings and Consent Agreement which we believe to be 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, Gill is directed to make the payment of $750.00 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within 30 days of the date of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. Lastly, this Commission will release Gill's identity to Traub on or after the date this Order becomes public. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Stanle y Gill, Jr., is subject to the confidentiality and wrongful use of act provisions of Act 93 of 1998. 2. Gill violated Section 1108(k) of Act 93 of 1998 when he publicly disclosed information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry and the result thereof as to Steven Traub. 3. Gill violated Section 1110(a) of Act 93 of 1998 when he, as the Complainant, publicly disclosed his filing of a complaint and the preliminary inquiry as to Traub. In Re: Stanley Gill ORDER NO. 1238 File Docket: 01- 025 -C2 Date Decided: 5/2/02 Date Mailed: 5/16/02 1. Stanley Gill, violated Section 1108(k ) of Act 93 of 1998 when he publicly disclosed information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry and the result thereof as to Steven Traub. 2. Gill violated Section 1110(a) of Act 93 of 1998 when he, as the Complainant, publicly disclosed his filing of a complaint and the preliminary inquiry as to Traub. 3. As per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Gill is directed to make the payment of $750.00 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within 30 days of the date of this Order. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action. b. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. 4. This Commission will release Gill's identity to Steven Traub on or after the date this Order becomes public. BY THE COMMISSION, LOUIS W. FRYMAN, CHAIR