Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1241 MitcheltreeIn Re: R. Scott Mitcheltree 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- 052 -C2 Order No. 1241 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Mitcheltree 01- 052 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Scott Mitcheltree, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Supervisor for Hickory Township, Lawrence County, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office for a 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 checks and approving payments to him. II. FINDINGS: 1. R. Scott Mitcheltree has served as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, Lawrence County, since June 2000. a. Mitcheltree was appointed to the board of supervisors on June 5, 2000, to fill the un- expired term of Paul McCreary. 1. McCreary died in February 2000. 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 roadmasters. 4. Hickory Township reorganization meeting minutes confirm that motions were approved appointing Mitcheltree and the other supervisors as roadmasters in 2001. a. Mitcheltree also served as a roadmaster from June 2000 through December 2000. 1. There was no vote of the board of supervisors appointing him to this position. 5. As roadmaster, Mitcheltree 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 Board of Auditors reorganization meeting minutes confirm that the following rates were approved for working supervisors for 2000 and 2001: a. 2000: $10.71/hr. b. 2001: $11.05/hr. Mitcheltree 01- 052 -C2 Page 3 9. 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. In 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. 10. One of the supervisors is responsible for logging all of the roadmasters' hours. a. Stewart Michaels, current supervisor, logged the hours from June 2000 until November 2000. b. Mitcheltree has logged the hours since November 2000. c. McCreary logged the hours prior to February 2000. 11. The logs itemize all activities including duties performed in their capacity as supervisor and roadmaster but do not list daily start and stop times or time spent on specific duties. 12. Supervisors, including Mitcheltree, have submitted hours and have been compensated as roadmaster for their duties related to their elected positions of township supervisor. 13. Mitcheltree was compensated, at an hourly rate, as a roadmaster for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor as follows: a. 2000: 17.75 hours b. 2001: 25.0 hours Total 42.75 14. Mitcheltree was compensated $466.35 at the rate established for supervisors working as roadmasters for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor as follows: a. 2001: $276.25 (25.0 Hrs @ $11.05/Hr) 2000: $190.10 (17.75 Hrs @ $10.71/Hr) $466.25 15. Mitcheltree was not aware of the specifics duties that he could be compensated for as a working supervisor /roadmaster. a. Mitcheltree was not aware that there was a difference between his position as a supervisor and his position as roadmaster. b. Mitcheltree 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. Mitcheltree 01- 052 -C2 Page 4 16. 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. 1. Supervisors are not required to sign checks. 17. Between June 16, 2000, and December 28, 2001, Mitcheltree participated in 39 board of supervisor actions approving payments to himself that included, in part, payments for administrative duties. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, R. Scott Mitcheltree, hereinafter Mitcheltree, 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 Mitcheltree 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 Mitcheltree 01- 052 -C2 Page 5 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 June 2000, Mitcheltree has served as a Supervisor for Hickory Township, a second -class township with a three - member board. Mitcheltree was employed by the township as a roadmaster from June through December of 2000. Hickory Township roadmasters work full -time with a minimum 40 -hour workweek. As roadmaster, Mitcheltree 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 for 2000 and 2001 as follows: 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 Mitcheltree, have been compensated as roadmastersforduties related to their elected positions of township supervisors. Mitcheltree received compensation of $466.25 as a roadmaster for performing duties associated with the position of elected supervisor based upon a total of 42.75 hours in 2000 and 2001. Mitcheltree 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. Mitcheltree 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 June 16, 2000, and December28, 2001, Mitcheltree participated in 39 actions 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 Mitcheltree authorized payments to himself for performing administrative duties as a township supervisor and participated in voting to approve such payments. Mitcheltree also agrees to make restitution to Hickory Township in the amount of $466.25. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the above, we find unintentional violations by Mitcheltree for receiving compensation to which he was not entitled. There were uses of authority of office by Mitcheltree in authorizing payments to himself and participating in voting to approve such payments. The administrative duties performed by Mitcheltree were encompassed within the role of a supervisor as an elected official. Hence, Mitcheltree received additional compensation for performing administrative functions of a township supervisor. Mitcheltree 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, Mitcheltree was only entitled to receive compensation for performing labor as a township roadmaster but not for performing Mitcheltree 01- 052 -C2 Page 6 administrative functions which were within the functions of an elected township supervisor. Consequently, Mitcheltree received a private pecuniary benefit which inured to himself. Therefore, Mitcheltree unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in approving payments and receiving compensation for performing 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, Mitcheltree is directed to make payment of $466.25 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. Mitcheltree, 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. Mitcheltree 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: R. Scott Mitcheltree ORDER NO. 1241 File Docket: 01- 052 -C2 Date Decided: 5/2/02 Date Mailed: 5/16/02 1. Mitcheltree, 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, Mitcheltree is directed to make payment of $466.25 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