Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1239 LukasIn Re: Richard Lukas 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- 054 -C2 Order No. 1239 5/2/02 5/16/02 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 investi9ation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investi9ation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." 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 Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Lukas 01- 054 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Richard Lukas, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Supervisor for Hickory Township, Lawrence County, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa. C.S. §1101 et seq. when he used the authority of his office fora private pecuniary benefit when he submitted hours for compensation as township roadmaster for performing administrative duties related to his position as township supervisor and when he subsequently approved payments to himself for these administrative duties at the rate approved by the auditors for him serving as township roadmaster; and when he participated in the signing of checks and approving payments to him. II. FINDINGS: 1. Richard Lukas has served as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, Lawrence County, since January 1990. 2. Hickory Township is a Second -Class Township with a three - member board of supervisors. a. Supervisors are compensated at the rate of $25.00 per regular monthly meeting for serving on the board of supervisors. 3. All three township supervisors are employed by the township as roadmaster. 4. Hickory Township reorganization meeting minutes confirm that motions were approved appointing Lukas and the other supervisors as roadmasters between 1997 and 2000. 5. As roadmaster, Lukas is responsible for maintaining the township roads, including patching and snow plowing; maintaining the township's vehicles, equipment, and buildings; and other labor that may be necessary. a. There is no written job description for this position. 6. Hickory Township roadmasters work full -time, typically from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. a. The roadmasters usually work a minimum 40 -hour workweek. b. The eight hour workday includes a lunch period. 7. The township does not employ any non - supervisor road workers or laborers. 8. Hickory Township reorganization meeting minutes of the board of supervisors confirm that motions were approved requesting the following from the auditors regarding rate of compensation for supervisors employed by the township for the period of 1997 through 2001: a. 1997: The supervisors requested a fifty -cents per hour raise along with three percent cost of living increase. b. 1998: The supervisors did not request any increase in rate of pay or other benefits. c. 1999: The supervisors did not request any increase in rate of pay or other benefits. d. 2000: The supervisors requested a cost of living increase. Lukas 01- 054 -C2 Page 3 e. 2001: The supervisors did not request any increase in rate of pay or other benefits. f. Michaels participated in board actions requesting this compensation and benefits. 9. Hickory Township Board of Auditors reorganization meeting minutes confirm that the following rates were approved for working supervisors from 1997 through 2001: a. 1997: $10.15/hr. b. 1998: $10.40 /hr. c. 1999: $10.40 /hr. d. 2000: $10.71/hr. e. 2001: $11.05/hr. 10. The supervisors working as roadmasters log their hours and submit a copy to the township secretary delineating date, total hours worked, and work completed. a. All of the supervisors' hours are maintained on the same log. 1. From 1997 through 2000, the logs consisted of a yearly calendar/ appointment book. 2. Beginning in 2001, the working supervisors began logging their hours on weekly timesheets developed by the township secretary. b. The secretary uses the time sheets to generate payments to the supervisors. 11. One of the supervisors is responsible for logging all of the roadmasters' hours. a. Paul McCreary, former supervisor, logged the hours from 1997 through February 2000. 1. McCreary died in February 2000. b. Stewart Michaels logged the hours from February 2000 until November 2000. c. Scott Mitcheltree, current supervisor, has logged the hours since November 2000. 1. Mitcheltree was appointed to the board of supervisors on June 5, 2000. 12. The logs itemize all activities, including duties performed in their capacity as supervisor and roadmaster but do not list daily start and quit times or times spent on specific duties. 13. Supervisors, including Lukas, have been compensated as roadmaster for duties related to their elected position of township supervisor. 14. Lukas was compensated, at an hourly rate, as a roadmaster for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor as follows: a. 1997: 9.5 hours Lukas 01- 054 -C2 Page 4 b. 1998: 25.5 hours c. 1999: 1.0 hours d. 2000: 18.75 hours e. 2001: 23.0 hours a. 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 Total 77.75 Hours 15. Lukas was compensated $824.45 at the rate established for supervisors working as roadmasters for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor as follows: $ 254.15 $ 200.81 $ 10.40 $ 265.20 $ 93.89 $ 824.45 23.0 Hrs @ $11.05/Hr) 18.75 Hrs @ $10.71/Hr) 1.0 Hrs @ $10.40/Hr) 25.5 Hrs @ $10.40 /Hr) 9.5 Hrs @ $10.15/Hr) 16. Lukas was not aware of the specifics duties that he could be compensated for as a working supervisor /roadmaster. a. Lukas was not aware that there was a difference between his position as a supervisor and his position as roadmaster. b. Lukas was compensated for performing the same duties as the other working supervisors. c. It had been a past practice for the working supervisor of Hickory Township to be compensated for duties associated with the position of elected supervisor. 17. The board of supervisors typically pass a motion at their regular board meetings approving the payment of all incoming bills for the month. a. The bills include payroll checks. b. The incoming bills consist of bills and payroll received from the date of the meeting until the next regular board meeting. c. Payroll checks only require the signature of the secretary /treasurer. 18. Between January 15, 1997, and December 28, 2001, Lukas participated in 113 votes of the board of supervisor approving payments to him that included, in part, payments for administrative duties. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Richard Lukas, hereinafter Lukas, 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." Lukas 01- 054 -C2 Page 5 The allegation is that Lukas violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted hours, approved payments, and signed checks to himself for compensation as township roadmaster for performing administrative duties related to his position 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/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 f of ce 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. 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. Since January of 1990, Lukas has served as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, a second -class township with a three - member board. All three township supervisors were employed by the township as roadmasters between 1997 and 2000. Hickory Township roadmasters work full -time with a minimum 40 -hour workweek. As roadmaster, Lukas was responsible for maintaining the township roads, the township's vehicles, equipment, and buildings. The Hickory Township Board of Auditors approved compensation for working supervisors from 1997 through 2001 as follows: in 1997, $10.15/hr.; in 1998, $10.40 /hr.; in 1999, $10.40 /hr.; in 2000, $10.71/hr.; and in 2001, $11.05/hr. The supervisors working as roadmasters logged their hours and submitted copies to the township secretary delineating the date, total hours worked, and work completed. The secretary used the time sheets to generate payments to the supervisors. Supervisors, including Lukas, have been compensated as roadmasters for duties related to their elected positions of township supervisors. Lukas received compensation of $824.45 as a roadmaster for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor based upon a total of 77.75 hours from 1997 to 2001. Lukas 01- 054 -C2 Page 6 Lukas was neither aware of the specific duties for which he could be compensated as a working roadmaster nor the difference between his position as a supervisor and roadmaster. Lukas was compensated for performing the same duties as the other working supervisors. It was the practice for the working supervisors of Hickory Township to be compensated for duties associated with the office of elected supervisor. The board of supervisors typically passes a motion at its regular board meetings to approve the payment of all incoming bills for the month. The bills include payroll checks. Between January 15, 1997, and December 28, 2001, Lukas participated in 113 votes of the board of supervisors approving payments to him that included, in part, payments for administrative duties. 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 unintentional violations of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when Lukas authorized payments to himself for performing administrative duties as a township supervisor and participated in voting to approve such payments. Lukas also agrees to make restitution to Hickory Township in the amount of $824.45. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the above, we find unintentional violations by Lukas for receiving compensation to which he was not entitled. There were uses of authority of office by Lukas in authorizing payments to himself and participating in voting to approve such payments. The administrative duties performed by Lukas were encompassed within the role of a supervisor as an elected official. Hence, Lukas received additional compensation for performing administrative functions of a township supervisor. Lukas was not legally entitled to receive such compensation because such duties are encompassed within the functions of elected supervisor for which the compensation is limited by the Second Class Township Code. Thus, Lukas was only entitled to receive compensation for performing labor as a townshi p roadmaster but not for performing administrative functions which were within the functions of an elected township supervisor. Consequently, Lukas received a private pecuniary benefit which inured to himself. Therefore, Lukas unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in approving payments and receiving compensation for erforming administrative functions of an elected township supervisor. See, Johnson, Order No. 1187. 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, Lukas is directed to make payment of $824.45 to Hickory Township through this Commission in a timely manner. 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. Lukas, as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Lukas unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized payments to himself for performing administrative duties as township supervisor and participated in voting to approve such payments. In Re: Richard Lukas ORDER NO. 1239 File Docket: 01- 054 -C2 Date Decided: 5/2/02 Date Mailed: 5/16/02 1. Lukas, as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/ 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized payments to himself for performing administrative duties as township supervisor and participated in voting to approve such payments. 2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Lukas is directed to make payment of $824.45 to Hickory Township through this Commission in a timely manner. 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, LOUIS W. FRYMAN, CHAIR