Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout851 Olasz (2)in re: Richard Olasz STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 Before: James M. Daneen E. Dennis C. Austin M. Allan M. File Docket: 92- 013 -C2; 91 -011 -C . Date Decided: June 23, 1992 . Date Mailed: July 7, 1992 Howley, Chair Reese, Vice Chair Harrington Lee Rluger The State Ethics Commission received complaints regarding possible violations of the State Ethics Law, Act No. 170 of 1978 and Act No. 9 of 1989. Written notice, of the specific allegations was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Consent Order was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance However, reconsideration may be requested which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission. A request for reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code 52.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. 5408(h), during the fifteen day period and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. 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 P.S. 5409(e). Richard Olasz Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: 1. That Richard Olasz, a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 38th District, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989), when he extended an automobile lease by executing a new lease, utilized Commonwealth funds to pay the monthly lease payments which resulted in a substantial reduction of the outstanding balance owed on the vehicle and arranged for the sale of the leased vehicle to his son -in -law. The purchase price paid for the automobile was paid by a check drawn upon the joint account of his daughter and son -in -law and the price paid for the vehicle was $2,300.00 less than the fair market value of that vehicle: Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Section- 2. 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 or his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. 6403(a); 5402. 2. That Richard Olasz, a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, violated the following provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law of 1978, Act 170 -1978, when he used his position as a House Member to secure Commonwealth funds from the House of Representatives during the period May 1982 through 1986 for the purported purpose of leasing a vehicle for official use when in fact he utilized Richard Olasz Page 3 such funds to purchase said vehicle. Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978. II. FINDINGS: The following findings relate to Allegation A: 1. Richard Olasz has served as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives since January 1981. a. Olasz was re- elected in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1990. 2. Members of the House of Representatives are permitted to receive reimbursement for expenses incurred for legislative purposes or functions. a. Said reimbursements are made from Commonwealth funds. b. Members submit Expense Vouchers documenting expenditures and requesting reimbursements. 3. Rule 14 of the House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, provides that allowable expenses of members may be used for any legislative purpose or function, including but not limited to the following: a. (1) Travel Expense on Legislative Business (d) Car rental; voucher and receipt from rental agency but reimbursement not to exceed in any month an amount as may be approved from time to time by the Committee on Rules. Any amount in excess of the said amount shall be paid by the person renting the car. In no event shall other than American manufactured cars be rented. b. The House Rules contain no other restrictions applicable to the leasing of vehicles other than set forth above. Richard Olasz Page 4 4. Expense account guidelines for members of the House of Representatives promulgated and amended as of April 11, 1989 provide that "all expenditures of funds appropriated to the House or to a member or nonmember officer shall be subject to the expenditure guidelines established by the Rules Committee." 5. Section IV(g) of the House of Representatives, Expense Account Guidelines, promulgated and amended as of April 11, 1989, provide as follows: Members are permitted to be reimbursed by the chief clerk from the Incidental Expense Account (001- 042 -070), or similar accounts under his exclusive control, for car rental payments. Payments under the authority of this section to be paid by the chief clerk shall not exceed in the aggregate $650 per month per member (American manufactured cars only). In the event the rental amount exceeds $650 per month, any excess amount must be paid by the member and cannot be reimbursed from any other account under his or her control. 6. Prior to April 11, 1989, House of Representatives, Expense Account Guidelines provided that members were permitted to be reimbursed for car rental payments as follows: January 1982 - November 1986 $350 /Month November 1986 - November 1988 $550 /Month November 1988 - Present $650 /Month 7. On July 24, 1986, Richard D. Olasz (Olasz) executed an automobile lease application with Bud Behling Leasing (BBL), Bridgeville, Pennsylvania to lease a 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis LS. a. Olasz listed his employer as the Pennsylvania State Government, P.O. Box 137, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120. b. His position or title was listed as Pennsylvania State Legislator. 8. On August 1, 1986, Olasz executed a vehicle lease agreement with Bud Behling Leasing. a. The lease number was BA -3105. Richard Olasz Page 5 b. The Lessee was Richard D. Olasz, 105 Fifth Avenue, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania 15122. c. The Lessor was Bud Behling Leasing. d. The lease is signed by Richard D. Olasz. e. In 1986, Richard Olasz submitted the automobile lease agreement to the Comptroller of the House of Representatives as required by House Rules in order to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred as a result of leasing a vehicle. The lease was approved by the Comptroller in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the House Rules Committee. 9. BBL obtained the vehicle from Benson Lincoln Mercury. a. David Tomko made the initial contacts with Benson Lincoln Mercury and a representative of BBL in order to arrange for BBL's acquisition of the vehicle. 10. Schedule A of the Lease No. BA -3105 indicated: a. Lease Type: Finance Lease Agreement b. Customer: Richard D. Olasz c. Vehicle Description: 1986 Mercury, Grand Marquis LS, Manufacturer's Serial No. 2MEBP95F4GX703181 d. Terms and Conditions: 36 Months; Delivery Date - August 1, 1986; Payment Date - 8th e. Lease Structure and Payments: Total Rental - 14,717.16 f. Rental Payments: 36 Months at $408.81 Per Month Lease -End Value Finance Lease - $5,825 (As estimated by lessor at the issuance of the lease). h. Deposit - $425 (Paid by Olasz from his personal funds). i. Modifications: Insurance - $ 87.38 g. Manufacturer's Retail Price - Lease Capitalized Cost Lease Charges - Use Tax - $16,920.00 - 15,232.20 3,474.54 833.04 Richard Olasz Page 6 Adm. Fee - 15.00 Sales Tax - 833.04 $935.42 11. The monthly rental fee of $408.81 was less than the amount allowed by the House of Representatives ($550) for the lease of a vehicle. 12. The lease between BBL and Richard Olasz provided four options at the expiration of the lease term: a. The vehicle could be returned to BBL for the purpose of selling said vehicle. b. The vehicle could be purchased by Richard Olasz for the lease end value amount as set by the lessor ($5,825). c. The lessee could arrange for the sale of the vehicle to a third party. d. The lessee could extend the lease by executing a new lease on the vehicle. 13. The lease end value figure of $5,825 was an estimated value fixed by the lessor at the time the lease was issued, subject to the actual condition of the vehicle at termination of the lease: a. The lessee, Richard Olasz, could purchase the vehicle at lease end for this amount. b. If the vehicle was sold by either BBL or Richard Olasz for more than this amount, BBL would receive $5,825 and the difference would remain with the lessee ( Olasz). c. If the vehicle was sold either by BBL or the Lessee to a third party for less than $5,825, the lease contained a limit to the liability of lessee, Richard Olasz in the amount of $1,148.49. Law limits the Lessee's liability to three (3) times the monthly payment if the vehicle's value is less than the estimated value. d. Pursuant to this liability limit, if the vehicle was sold for less than $5,825, Mr. Olasz would be responsible to pay BBL the difference between the sale price and the lease end value figure ($5,825) up to a maximum of $1,148.49. The State had no liability under the lease. 14. A Finance Vehicle Lease Disclosure Statement dated August 1, 1986 was signed by Richard Olasz as Lessee: Richard Olasz Page 7 a. The vehicle leased was the 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis, LS, Serial No. 2MEBP95F4GX703181. b. Amount due at inception was: Initial Payment: $408.81 Security Deposit: 425.00 $833.81 c. Monthly payments were noted as: Basic Payment: $382.83 Other Fees: 25.98 $408.81 d. The term and total payments were: - 36 Months at $408.81 or $14,717.16. 15. On July 30, 1986, Richard D. Olasz signed delivery receipt for a 1986 Grand Marquis LS - 66 -1529, Serial No. 2MEBP95F4GX703181. The delivery acknowledged receipt of the vehicle in satisfactory condition with the equipment specified. 16. A deposit of $425 for the vehicle was made by Personal Check No. 523 of Richard D. Olasz on July 30, 1986. a. The initial monthly payment of $408.81 was made by Richard D. Olasz, Personal Check No. 521, on July 30, 1986. b. All monthly lease payments were made to Bank One which was the bank through which BBL financed the purchase of the leased automobile. 17. On July 19, 1989, the Auto Lease Department of Bank One, NA, Steubenville, Ohio advised Olasz that the lease on the 1986 Mercury Marquis would be completed on August 8, 1989. a. The letter suggests that Olasz make new arrangements regarding his transportation needs. 18. BBL subsequently contacted Olasz and advised of various options regarding the lease termination including: a. Renewal of the lease for an additional number of months. b. Lease of a new vehicle. c. Sale of vehicle by BBL or Olasz and use of the sale price Richard Olasz Page 8 to satisfy the residual amount due under the lease. (Lease end value amount). 19. On August 8, 1989, the lease for the vehicle was extended through the execution of new a lease. a. The new lease related to the same 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis that Olasz originally leased. b. The agreement was signed by Richard D. Olasz. c. The terms of the lease provided: (1) Retail Value - $5,825 Lease Capitalized Cost - $6,100 Lease Charges - $376.90 Use Tax - $352.60 Total Rental - $6,229.50 Lease End Value - $600 d. The $5,825 represented the lease end value of the original lease. 20. The new lease entered into between BBL and Olasz provided for several options upon expiration of the term thereof:. a. B.B.L. could sell the vehicle and apply to sale price to satisfy the residual payment due ($600) at lease end. b. Olasz could pay the lease end value figure of $600 upon which payment he would become owner of the vehicle. c. Olasz could arrange for the sale of the vehicle to a third party and the proceeds thereof utilized to satisfy the residual value obligation. 21. The lease end value of $600 was fixed by the lessor based upon a BBL policy that the amount of a lease end value on a re- leased vehicle must be set at 10% of the estimated value of the vehicle at the initiation of the new lease. a. If the vehicle was sold either by BBL or Richard Olasz for more than this amount BBL would receive $600 and the difference would remain with Olasz. b. If the vehicle was sold by either BBL an Richard Olasz for less than $600 the lease contained a limit to the liability of lessee, Richard Olasz in the amount of $1,740.51. Richard Olasz Page 9 c. Pursuant to this liability limit if the vehicle was sold for less than $600 Mr. Olasz would be required to pay BBL the difference between the sale price and the lease end value figure ($600). d. The State was not a party to the lease and had no liability under same. 22. The length of the new lease was established by Richard Olasz. a. The monthly payments and lease end value were fixed by BBL pursuant to the policy noted above. 23. Richard Olasz asserts as follows regarding the reason he elected to re -lease the vehicle for a period of 10 months: a. Olasz anticipated an extremely close primary election race in his district, which would be decided in April, 1990 If successful in the primary election, he felt confident of his re- election in the fall ballot. Rather than commit to a three (3) year lease of a new vehicle before the primary election, he decided to extend the existing lease an additional ten (10) months until May, 1990. The extended lease would then terminate within thirty (30) days of the primary election. If successful, Mr. Olasz was willing to personally commit to a new three (3) year lease of a vehicle. If unsuccessful, the extended lease would be terminated shortly after the primary and he would not require the leasing of a new vehicle since his travel requirements would not include transportation from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg as was required by his position as a legislator. 24. The initial monthly payment for the lease was made by Richard D. Olasz, Personal Check No. 0576, in the amount of $622.95 on September 5, 1989. a. The monthly payments as fixed by BBL were increased over the original lease amount by $214.14 per month. Olasz had no control over the setting of the monthly payments. b. The monthly lease rate was below the amount permitted by the House of Representatives ($650). 25. Legislative expense vouchers were prepared by Olasz, or at his request, for the period July 30, 1986 through April 1990 and submitted to the House Of Representatives to obtain reimbursement for the monthly lease payments made to BBL for the 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis. a. Said expense vouchers reimbursement requests were in the Richard Olasz Page 10 amount of $408.81 from July 30, 1986 through and including June 30, 1989. b. From August 23, 1989 through and including April 25,1990 the amount was $622.95. 26. As a result of the extension of the lease increase in the monthly rental payments and the subsequent submission of reimbursement requests by Richard Olasz to the House of Representatives, Commonwealth funds were used to pay the monthly rental charges which had the net effect of reducing the lease end value of the vehicle to the sum of $600. 27. Upon termination of the lease period the vehicle was not returned by Olasz to BBL to be sold. 28. In June 1990, the 1986 Mercury was transferred from BBL to Park Triangle Auto Sales, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. a. The odometer reading was certified at 68,816. b. The certification was signed by Richard Olasz and dated June 23, 1990. 29. On June 5, 1990, Park Triangle Auto Sales paid $600 to BBL Leasing by Check No. 920 for the 1986 Mercury Marquis. a. The $600 represented the residual balance due for the vehicle. b. The check was signed by Louis Sposato, Jr. c. The memo portion of the check reflects for 1986 Mercury Marquis. 30. Louis Sposato is the owner of Park Triangle Auto Sales. a. He purchased the 1986 Mercury Marquis at the request of and as a favor to David Tomko, an individual with whom he was acquainted. b. He was unaware of the availability of this vehicle prior to the time that David Tomko requested that he purchase the vehicle. 31. BBL was not familiar with Park Triangle Auto Sales or Louis Sposato. a. BBL did not actively attempt to sell the vehicle. b. David Tomko was looking for a vehicle for the daughter Richard Glass Page 11 and son -in -law of Richard Olasz, Mary Ann and Ronald Babjak. c. Mr. Olasz made Tomko aware of the Mercury Grand Marquis and suggested that he look into it. d. Tomko arranged for the transfer of the vehicle to park Triangle Auto Sales. e. Richard Olasz was required to authorize BBL to release or sell the leased vehicle. f. BBL will not release the vehicle or information regarding the lease end value to a third party without authorization of the lessee. 32. BBL had never previously sold a vehicle to Park Triangle Auto Sales. a. BBL has never sold a vehicle to Park Triangle Sales since the sale of the Mercury. 33. The 1986 Mercury was subsequently the subject of an agreement of sale between Park Triangle Auto Sales and Ronald J. Babjak dated June 8, 1990. a. Park Triangle Vehicle Buyers Order form identified the vehicle as a 1986 Mercury Sedan, Serial No. 2MEBP95F4GX703181. b. The sale price was $700, tax of $42 and fees of $88. The total amount was $830. c. The amount was paid by personal Check (of Ronald and Mary Ann Babjak) No. 0678 on June 8, 1990. 34. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation form MV -487 (10 -86), Vehicle Sales and Tax Application for registration confirms the sale of the vehicle to Ronald J. Babjak. a. The condition of the vehicle is listed as poor. b. The Application for Registration Form lists the issued license plate number as WBM 521. 35. Ronald J. Babjak is married to Mary Ann Olasz. a. They were married on October 8, 1983. b. Mary Ann Olasz is the daughter of Richard and Marie Olasz. Richard Olasz Page 12 36. The certificate of title through which the vehicle was transferred from Park Triangle Auto Sales to Ronald Babjak was signed on June 28, 1990. a. The same title had been transferred from BBL to Park Triangle Auto Sales on June 20, 1990. 37. At the time that David Tomko asked Louis Sposato to purchase the auto from BBL, Mr. Tomko advised him that he had a buyer already interested in purchasing the vehicle. a. Mr. Tomko advised Mr. Sposato that he could make a $100 profit on the transaction. 38. The vehicle was on the Park Triangle Auto Sales lot for one day after which Mr. Babjak picked up the auto. 39. After the agreement of sale was executed, Richard Olasz contacted Louis Sposato to determine if Sposato had received the title from BBL. a. Mr. Olasz also offered Mr. Sposato that he worked in Harrisburg and that he could get the title work completed. b. He forwarded a self- addressed envelope to Sposato in which he could forward the material. c. The return address on the envelope was Richard D. Olasz, Member Pennsylvania House of Representatives, 3702 Greensprings Avenue, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania 15122. d. Mr. Sposato subsequently mailed the title papers to Mr. Olasz. 40. Mr. Sposato asserted that he has never asked to perform a transaction similar to the one requested by Mr. Tomko. a. Mr. Tomko asserted that he has conducted similar transactions with Mr. Sposato. 41. The sale of the car that was leased by Richard Olasz to the Babjak's was prearranged by David Tomko and Louis Sposato. 42. BBL could have transferred title of the Mercury directly to Mr. Tomko or Mr. Babjak. 43. The fair market value of the 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis, 2MEBP95F4GX703181 that was the subject of the lease agreements between Richard Olasz and BBL, was greater than $700. Richard Olasz Page 13 44. Automotive market reports for June 13, 1990 for a 1986 Grand Marquis with 68,000 miles indicate that the value of such vehicle could be as high as $5,534 but did not include the lowest possible valuation. 45 There was some indication that the transmission in the vehicle was in need of repairs and the paint on the vehicle had deteriorated a. Such defects could reduce the value of the vehicle. b. The cost to repairs such defects is approximately $2,500. 46 The approximate value of the 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis that was titled to Ronald Babjak was $3,000. a. A check was issued on the joint bank account of Ronald Babjak and Mary Ann Babjak in the sum of $700 which was paid to Park Triangle Auto Sales for the vehicle. b. Mary Ann Babjak was signatory on this check. 47. The difference between the estimated market value and the price paid by the check drawn upon the joint bank account of Ronald Babjak and Mary Ann Babjak as a result of the transfer of the vehicle to Ronald Babjak was $2,300. a. The tax that would have been required to be paid on that amount ($2,300) was $138. b. The total value received was $2,438. III. FINDINGS: The following findings relate to Allegation B: 48. Findings 1 through 6 and No. 35 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. In 1982, Richard Olasz submitted an automobile lease agreement to the comptroller of the House of Representatives as required by House rules in order to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred as a result of leasing a vehicle. a. The lease was affirmed by the comptroller in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the House Rules Committee. 50. The automobile lease agreement is dated May 15, 1982. a. The vehicle that is the subject of the lease is Richard Olasz Page 14 identified as a 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan, dark blue, Vin No. 1G3AX6948CM285653. b. The term of the lease is for 48 months at $350 per month. c. The agreement bears the signature of John Donis as Lessor and Richard D. Olasz as Lessee. d. The General Motors Corporation confirmed that the vin number contained in the lease agreement was incorrect and not an appropriate GM number. The 4 should be a Y. 51. As a result of this lease, Richard D. Olasz submitted Legislative Expense Vouchers on a monthly basis seeking reimbursement in the amount of $350 that was reportedly expended by Mr. Olasz in payment of the lease obligation. a. Each Expense Voucher was dated and bore the signature of Richard D. Olasz under the certification that the "expenses claimed are correct and were incurred in performance of my legislative duties." b. Each Expense Voucher had appended thereto a receipt indicating that the amount of $350 had been paid by Richard D. Olasz for the indicated month car lease payment. c. The receipts bore the signature of John Donis. The individual identified as leaser who was purportedly receiving the $350 monthly payments. d. The House of Representatives did not require the submission of original receipts during 1982 -1986, and copies were submitted. 52. The vehicle that was the subject of the automobile lease agreement between John D. Donis and Richard D. Olasz had been purchased from Bill McCracken Oldsmobile, Jeep Eagle, Pleasant Hills, Pennsylvania in May 1982. 53. Records of Bill McCracken Oldsmobile, Jeep Eagle, Pleasant Hills, Pennsylvania indicate the following regarding the sale of the 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan, dark blue, Vin No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653. a. Buyer: John J. Donis 309 Elm Avenue West Mifflin, Pennsylvania b. Vehicle Prices $12,590 Richard Olasz Page 15 c. Down Payment: $2,055.20 d. License, Registration, Title Fees: $395 e. Finance Charge (Interest): $3,111.24 f. Total Amount Financed: $14,106.24 g. Date of Sales Contract: May 29, 1982 h. The agreement bore the signature of John Donis. 54. An application for credit was completed for John Donis. a. The application bore the signature of John Donis. 55. Financing for the purchase of the 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan, Vin No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653, was secured through General Motors Acceptance Corporation. 56. Records of the General Motors Acceptance Corporation indicate the following information regarding the purchase of a 1982 Oldsmobile, Vin. No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653: Contract Number: 81901 Customer: John J. Donis 309 Elm Street West Mifflin, Pennsylvania 15122 Purchase Date: June 9, 1982 Contract Date: May 29, 1982 APR: 12.8 Down Payment: $2,055.20 Contract Amount: $14,106.24 Term: 48 Months Monthly Payment: $293.88 57. Records of GMAC indicate that monthly payments in the amount of $293.88 were made in order to finance the purchase of the 1982 Oldsmobile identified in Findings 50; 52 -56 from July 12, 1982 through and including June 12, 1986 (48 months) at which time the debt obligation was satisfied. a. The total amount paid to GMAC was $14,106.24. 58. A down payment of $2,055.20 was made by Richard Olasz at the time of the purchase (See Finding 56). a. The funds for the down payment as well as $395 for tags and registration fees (2,450.20) were obtained by Mr. Richard Olasz Page 16 Olasz through a personal loan at Equibank. b. The rate of interest for that loan was 17% per annum. c. The loan was for two years and the interest equaled $833.07 for the term thereof. d. The total obligation on this debt was ($2450.20 + 833.07) $3283.26. e. Amortized over four years the cost per month to satisfy this obligation was $68.42. 59. The House of Representatives permitted $350 per month for the lease of a vehicle. a. Olasz submitted expense vouchers requesting this amount ($350) from July 19, 1982 through and including May 30, 1986. b. $293.88 of this amount was paid by Olasz to GMAC. c. $56.12 was used for the Equibank loan. 60. Although the 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Sedan, Vin No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653, was titled in the name of John Donis, the net effect of the transaction was that the vehicle was actually purchased by Richard Olasz. 61. The Commonwealth funds that were secured by Richard D. Olasz through the submission of Monthly Expense Vouchers were utilized to purchase the vehicle that was titled to John Donis. a. The funds were paid to GMAC and financing of the vehicle. 62. John Donis was not in the business selling automobiles. a. John Donis has never been involved 63. John Donis was a friend of Richard Olasz. Equibank as part of the of leasing, renting or in this business. 64. Richard Olasz approached John Donis in 1982 and asked if he would sign for the purchase of a vehicle and then lease the vehicle to Olasz. a. Richard Olasz advised John Donis that this was the procedure used in the House of Representatives. Richard Olasz Page 17 b. Richard Olasz advised John Donis that all the payments would be made by the State. c. Richard Olasz advised John Donis that he would make all of the arrangements at McCracken Oldsmobile where the transaction would take place. 65. John Donis agreed to Mr. Olasz's proposal. 66. Richard Olasz proceeded to McCracken and selected an Oldsmobile Ninety- Eight. a. Albert P. Urasek, Jr. was the salesperson who sold the vehicle to Mr. Olasz. b. Olasz arranged to have the paperwork prepared in the name of John Donis. 67. Mr. Donis was subsequently contacted and advised that all of the paperwork was ready and a request was made for him to come to McCracken to sign the documents. a. Mr. Donis signed the papers and left the agency. 68. At or about the time that the transaction at McCracken was completed, Richard Olasz approached Mr. Donis and advised him that additional papers pertaining to the lease of the vehicle had to be signed and Mr. Donis signed the papers. 69. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicate that the 1982 Oldsmobile Sedan, Vin No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653, was titled in the name of John J. Donis with a first lien in favor of GMAC. a. A request for registration renewal for the vehicle in the name of John Donis indicates the name of the insurance company as Maryland Casualty Company and the Policy No. A TP 30693485. b. This is the auto insurance policy for Richard Olasz who was required by the terms of the lease to provide insurance. 70. An application for duplicate registration card on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for the 1982 Oldsmobile indicates that the applicant is John Donis, P.O. Box 137, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120. a. The application is filed to change the address from 309 Elm Street, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. Richard Olasz Page 18 b. This application was filed on March 23, 1983. c. The application bears the signature of John Donis. 71. Post Office Box legislative post 72. As a result of Department of Oldsmobile would post office box. 137, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 is the office box of Richard D. Olasz. this change of address, all Pennsylvania Transportation documents for the 1982 be addressed to John Donis at Richard Olasz's a. Lessees generally receive these types of documents at their addresses. 73. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicated that other documents including a Request for Registration Renewal when application not received [Form MV- 140(10 -84)] and an application for Pennsylvania Vehicle Registration [Form MV 105 (9 -85)] were on file for the 1982 Oldsmobile and bore the signature of John Donis. 74. At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the buyer was required to execute an agreement to provide accidental physical damage insurance. a. An agreement of this type was executed on 5/31/82 regarding the 1982 Oldsmobile, Vin No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653. b. The agreement identified the purchaser as, and bore the signature of, John Donis. c. The agreement in effect named GMAC as loss payee in the event that the vehicle was destroyed or stolen. GMAC would in such cases receive all insurance proceeds for such loss. d. The insurance company is identified as Maryland Casualty Company. e. The policy number is identified as 30693485. 75. Records of the Maryland Casualty Company indicate that Policy No. 30693485 (See Finding No.74(e)) is in the name of Richard D. Olasz, 105 5th Avenue, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. a. The policy is a personal auto policy covering protection against uninsured motorist, liability, damages to the auto, collision loss, towing, labor and personal injury. b. Two vehicles are noted on the policy as of June, 15, 1982 Richard Olasz Page 19 including the 1982 Oldsmobile 98. c. Loss payee for the 1982 Oldsmobile is identified as McCracken Oldsmobile. 76. Although McCracken Oldsmobile was listed as the loss payee on the Maryland Casualty Company personal auto insurance policy, McCracken was no longer affiliated with the vehicle. a. GMAC was the finance company required to be named as loss payee. b. Similar policies were issued in 1983 -1986 and identified McCracken as the loss payee and Lessor. 77. Richard Olasz asserts that the naming of McCracken Oldsmobile as loss payee on the insurance policies was a mistake that was made by the insurance agent and that mistake continued with each annual renewal of the insurance policy. 78. Records of the House of Representatives indicate that Expense Vouchers were signed and submitted by Richard D. Olasz seeking reimbursement for expenditures made for the purchase of automobile insurance. a. The insurance was provided by the Maryland Casualty Company. b. The vehicle insured as reported on the invoices attached to the Expense Vouchers was a 1982 Oldsmobile 98, Vin. No. 1G3AX69Y8CM285653. c. The insurance policy number was TP30693485. 79. Richard Olasz took direct possession of the vehicle from McCracken Oldsmobile. a. John Donis had not seen the vehicle before or at the time that he proceeded to McCracken to sign the papers, however, the vehicle was fully described in the purchase documents. 80. John Donis did not personally provide any funds that were used for the down payment on the vehicle. (See Findings 56 -59 regarding the financing of the vehicle). 81. John Donis never received any funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the lease of the 1982 Oldsmobile to Richard D. Olasz. All funds were paid to GMAC or Equibank as set forth previously. (See Findings 56 -59). Richard Olasz Page 20 a. After the purchase of the vehicle from McCracken Oldsmobile, Richard Olasz submitted expense vouchers to the House of Representatives on a monthly basis seeking reimbursement of $350 per month. b. These funds were then paid directly by Olasz to GMAC and Equibank. c. John Donis received no money from Richard Olasz in relation to the purchase or lease of said vehicle and he did not make monthly payments to GMAC for the purchase of the 1982 Oldsmobile. 82. Attached to the expense vouchers that were submitted to the House of Representatives were receipts bearing the signature of John Donis acknowledging the receipt of $350 as payment in relation to the lease of the vehicle. a . John Donis could not identify the signature on some of the receipts as being his. John Donis denies that there was a monthly transaction whereby he received $350 and provided a receipt. Richard Olasz asserts that John Donis either signed or authorized the signing (by someone else) of the receipts. 83. John Donis did sign an installment sales contract, an odometer mileage certification and a power of attorney for the purpose of transferring title. 84. John Donis did not personally sign the documents on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. (See Findings No. 69, 70, and 73). Olasz asserts that John Donis authorized the signature s in order to facilitate the renewal of the license registration and to obtain an additional registration card. b. c. d. John Donis testified that his signature did appear on some of the receipts. 85. Records of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives indicate that Expense Vouchers were submitted and signed by Richard Olasz seeking reimbursement in part for the car lease payments from May 1982 through June 1986 (a total of 49 months) for a total reimbursement as follows: 1982 - $ 2,800 1983 - 4,200 1984 - 4,200 1985 - 4,200 Richard Olasz Page 21 1986 - 1,750 TOTAL - $17,150 86. There were a total of 49 monthly payments of $350 made by the House of Representatives to Richard Olasz. a. The lease was for a term of 48 months. 88. In 1986, Richard Olasz contacted John Donis and asked him to sign certain documents in order to effectuate the transfer of the title to the vehicle. a. Richard Olasz brought papers to Mr. Donis to sign. b. One of the documents signed by John Donis was a power of attorney authorizing David Tomko to assign or transfer title to the 1982 Oldsmobile. c. The document was dated August 27, 1986. 89. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ( PennDOT) indicate that on August 28, 1986, the 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight was transferred from John Donis to David Tomko Auto Sales, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. a. A "Dealer Assignment Covering a Vehicle Acquired and Held for Resale" form on file with PennDOT bears the signature of David Tomko and certifies that the vehicle has been acquired and will be held for resale. 90. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicate that the 1982 Oldsmobile was transferred from David Tomko to Ronald Babjak. a. Ronald Babjak is the son -in -law of Richard Olasz (See Finding No. 35). 91. Records on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicate that the odometer reading of the 1982 Oldsmobile Vin 1G3AX69Y8CM285653 was 81,148. a. The application for registration on file with PennDot lists the vehicle condition as fair. 92. Records on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation indicate that the tax paid on the sale of the vehicle was $210. a. This equaled 6% of the sale price. Richard Olasa Page 22 b. The sale price reported would thus have equaled $3,500. TV. DISCUSSION: Initially, it is noted that the allegations in this case relate to both Act 9 of 1989 and Act 170 of 1978. In this regard, Section 9 of Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, provides, in part, as follows: "This amendatory act shall not apply to violations committed prior to the effective date of this act, and causes of action initiated for such violations shall be governed by the prior law, which is continued in effect for that purpose as if this act were not in force. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violations occurred prior thereto." Under both Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Richard Olasz, hereinafter Olasz, is a public official as that term is defined under both acts. See also 51 Pa. Code. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of both laws and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public official shall not engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "immediate family is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: 65 P.S. §402. Section 2. Definitions "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or sister. Under Section 3(a), of Act 170 of 1978 quoted above, this Commission has determined that use of office by a public official to obtain a financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated which is not provided for in law transgresses the above provision of law. Thus, use of office by a public official to obtain financial gain which is not authorized as part of his compensation is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak(McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v. State Ethics Commission,, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d 536 (1987). Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a public Richard Olasz Page 23 official /employee from using public office to advance his own financial interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540 A.2d 1374 (1988). The two allegations before us are whether Olasz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the use of the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for a member of his immediate family when he arranged to have his legislative leased vehicle sold to his daughter at the end of the lease for an amount which was substantially less than fair market value and secondly whether Olasz violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 by using public office to purchase a vehicle which was financed through the mechanism of reimbursements from Commonwealth funds for a purported legislative vehicle "lease" which resulted in a financial gain to Olasz. Initially, we note that Rule 14 of the House of Representa- tives does authorize an allowance of expenses for a member to enter into an auto lease agreement relative to performing legislative functions. Further, Section IV(g) of the House of Representatives Expense Accounts Guidelines provides that a member may be reimbursed for auto rental payments under his exclusive control by the Chief Clerk which may not exceed $650 per month per member. Prior to the existing monthly cap of $650, the prior caps were $550 between November 1986 and November 1988 and $350 from January 1982 through November 1986. As to the factual circumstances relative to the first allegation, Olasz on July 24, 1986, executed a lease application with Bud Behling Leasing (BBL) for a 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis LS. BBL obtained the vehicle from Benson Lincoln Mercury through a contact made by David Tomko. After a lease agreement was executed on August 1, 1986, it was then subsequently submitted and approved by the House Comptroller as per the rules and regulations established by the House Rules Committee. The retail price of the vehicle was $16,920.00 with a lease capitalized cost of $15,232.20. The term of the lease was for 36 months with monthly payments of $408.81; the estimated lease end value of the financing lease was $5,825.00. The lease agreement which Olasz entered with BBL provided four options at the expiration of the lease term: returning the vehicle to BBL for sale; Olasz (lessee) purchasing the vehicle for $5,825.00, the value set by the lessor (BBL); the lessee arranging for the sale to a third party; and the lessee extending the lease by executing a second lease. Regarding the foregoing options, if the vehicle were sold by BBL for an amount higher than the estimated lease end value, that difference would be paid to Olasz; if the car were sold for a lesser amount, Olasz would have a limited liability only to the extent of paying a maximum of $1,148.49 or the difference between the actual sale price and the lease end value, whichever was less. Richard Olasz Page 24 On July 30, 1986, the 1986 Grand Marquis LS was delivered to Olasz who acknowledged receiving the vehicle in satisfactory condition with the equipment as specified. Subsequently on July 19, 1989, Bank One, which was handling the financing on the leased vehicle, advised of the termination of the lease and suggested that new arrangements be made. BBL then advised Olasz of the various options available to him under the lease and on August 8, 1989, a second lease was entered which extended the prior lease on the same vehicle which now had a retail value of $5,825.00 and a lease capitalized cost of $6,100.00 with a lease end value of $600.00. As to the second leasing arrangement, Olasz had three options available to him at the expiration of the lease: BBL could sell the vehicle and apply the sale price to the lease end value of $600.00; Olasz could pay the $600 and become the owner of the vehicle; or Olasz could arrange for the sale of the vehicle to a third party and use the proceeds to satisfy the lease end value. The $600.00 lease end value was determined by the lessor by applying a rate of 10% to the value of the vehicle at the beginning of the second lease. As to the foregoing options in the second lease, if the vehicle were sold for an amount exceeding $600.00, Olasz would receive the difference; conversely, if the vehicle were sold for less than $600.00, then Olasz would have limited liability up to a cap of $1,740.51, which meant in actuality that if the vehicle were sold for less than $600.00, Olasz would pay the difference. The second lease was limited to a period of ten months by Olasz's own choosing. Olasz submits that he chose a ten month lease at that time due to a challenge against him in the primary election. The monthly payments for the second lease were in the amount of $622.95, which was less than the reimbursement cap which was raised to $650.00 in November, 1988. Olasz set the term for the lease and then BBL fixed the amount of the monthly payments. All of the monthly expense voucher reimbursements for the terms of both leases were approved and paid. These reimbursements from Commonwealth funds had the effect of reducing the lease end value of the vehicle to $600.00. After the termination of the second lease, Olasz did not return the vehicle to BBL; title was transferred from BBL to Park Triangle Auto Sales which paid $600.00 to BBL for the vehicle. Louis Sposato, Jr., the owner of Park Triangle Auto Sales purchased the vehicle at the request of David Tomko who was looking for a vehicle for Mary Ann and Ronald Babjak, the daughter and son -in -law of Olasz. Tomko was made aware of the availability of the vehicle by Olasz who was required to authorize BBL to release or sell the leased vehicle. By an agreement of sale of June 8, 1990 the vehicle was sold to the Babjak's for a sale price of $700.00, tax of $42.00 and fees of $88.00 totaling $830.00. The record reflects that Louis Sposato, Jr., owner of Park Triangle Auto Sales, never had a prior or subsequent purchases from BBL, other than this vehicle. Tomko advised Sposato that he could make a 100.00 profit on the transaction. The vehicle was only on the Park Triangle Auto Richard Olasz Page 25 Sales lot for one day before Babjak picked up the vehicle. The check for the purchase of the vehicle was signed by Olasz's daughter, Mary Ann Babjak. Sposato was also contacted by Olasz after the agreement of sale was executed who offered to get the title work completed in Harrisburg; to that end, Olasz forwarded a self- addressed envelope to Sposato to forward the material to him (Olasz). The foregoing paper transaction was completed as noted even though BBL could have transferred title to the vehicle directly to Tomko or Babjak. The record reflects that the value of the 1986 Grand Marquis at the time of transfer to Babjak was $3,000.00. Since the purchase price was $700.00, the difference in value between the two figures is $2,300.00. When the 6% sales tax is factored, the amount of the pecuniary benefit to Babjak equalled $2,438.00. Turning to the matter of the second allegation, the facts also involve the utilization by Olasz of a vehicle as to which he received reimbursements from Commonwealth funds. The second vehicle was a 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan which was purportedly leased by Olasz for legislative purposes and functions. Olasz submitted an automobile lease agreement in 1982 to the House Comptroller who approved the lease as per the rules and regulations established by the House Rules Committee. The May 15, 1982, lease agreement was for a term of 48 months at a monthly rate of $350.00 with the lessor listed as John Donis and lessee as Olasz. The monthly expense vouchers submitted by Olasz reflect his certification that the expenses claimed were correct and in performance of legislative duties. The expense vouchers included receipts indicating payments by Olasz of $350.00 for the monthly "lease" payments with the receipts bearing the signature of John Donis. The vehicle was acquired by Olasz through outright purchase from Bill McCracken Oldsmobile at a price of $12,590.00 with a down payment of $2,055.20 and financing through GMAC in the amount of $14,106.24 for a period of four years. However, the GMAC records reflect that the customer for the financing was John Donis. As to the monthly $350.00 reimbursements received by Olasz through the submission of expense vouchers, the record reflects that $293.88 was used by Olasz to pay GMAC as to the financing for the vehicle and $56.12 was used for an Equibank loan which Olasz obtained in order to pay for the downpayment, tags and registration fees. Although the vehicle was titled in the name of John Donis, Olasz was the actual purchaser of the vehicle (Fact Finding 60). Thus, Commonwealth funds were used by Olasz, through the submission of the monthly expense vouchers, not to lease but to finance the vehicle that was purchased by Olasz but titled in the name of John Donis (Fact Finding 61). We note that John Donis was not in the Richard Olasz Page 26 business of renting, leasing or selling automobiles (Fact Finding 62) but was a friend of Olasz (Fact Finding 63). The record reflects that Olasz approached John Donis in 1982 in order to sign for the purchase of the vehicle and lease it to Olasz. Donis was told by Olasz that this was procedure used by the House of Representatives which would make all of the payments. After Donis agreed to Olasz's proposal, Olasz proceeded to McCracken and purchased the vehicle but directed that the paperwork be prepared in the name of Donis who came into sign all the documents and then left the dealership. In addition, Olasz requested Donis to sign additional paper work which Donis did, including a request for a duplicate registration card in the name of John Donis, P.O. Box 137, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 which address was the legislative post office box of Olasz. At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the buyer was required to execute an accidental physical damage insurance agreement which was completed identifying John. Donis as the purchaser and GMAC as the loss payee. Maryland Casualty Company subsequently issued a policy which according to the records of that company reflect the name of Richard D. Olasz as to the person to whom the policy was issued with the loss payee as McCracken Oldsmobile. At that point, McCracken was no longer affiliated with the vehicle because GMAC which provided the financing was required to be named as loss payee (Fact Finding 76). The vehicle was in the direct possession of Olasz; John Donis had never seen the vehicle before or at the time he proceeded to McCracken to sign the necessary paperwork (Fact Finding 79). John Donis personally did not provide any funds for the downpayment of the vehicle nor did he receive any funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as to the vehicle since all funds were paid to GMAC or Equibank as noted (Fact Findings 80, 81). As to all of the submitted expense vouchers to the House of Representatives by Olasz for the $350.00 monthly reimbursements, Olasz made payments of these funds to GMAC and Equibank; John Donis did not receive any money. Donis did sign some of the receipts which were attached to the expense vouchers submitted by Olasz for the $350.00 monthly reimbursements but Donis could not identify other signatures on some receipts as being his own. Olasz received reimbursements amounting to $17,150.00 based upon 49 monthly payments of $350.00 from the House of Representatives to him (Fact Finding 85). Thereafter, in 1986, Olasz contacted Donis to sign additional documents to transfer the vehicle which included a power of attorney authorizing David Tomko to assign or transfer title to the vehicle. Title was transferred on August 28, 1986, from the name of John Donis to David Tomko Auto Sales. A PennDOT form was filed under the signature of David Tomko indicating that the vehicle had been acquired for the purpose of Richard Olasz Page 27 resale and that subsequently the vehicle was transferred form David Tomko to Ronald Babjak who is the son -in -law of Olasz. Since the records of PennDOT reflect sales tax in the amount of $210.00 was paid on the vehicle, it follows that the sale price was $3,500.00. In applying the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989 to both of the above allegations, we find violations of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law as to both allegations. In both of these cases, it is clear that Olasz engaged in mechanisms whereby the Commonwealth would be paying for a portion of a value of the vehicles either through the mechanism in the first instance of a leasing arrangement or in the second instance through a contrived leasing arrangement to finance the car which had been purchased by Olasz. In the first instance, a private pecuniary resulted to Olasz's daughter; in the second instance a financial gain resulted to Olasz himself. We are particularly troubled by Olasz's actions as to these lease arrangements. Regarding the first vehicle, Olasz chose not to have the title to the Mercury Grand Marquis conveyed directly to Tomko or to his son -in -law but rather went through the circuitous route of a transfer to and through Park Triangle Auto Sales. Such action was clearly designed to conceal the sale of the vehicle to Olasz's daughter at a price below fair market value through the mechanism of the intermediate transfer. Obviously, through such a paper transfer to Park Triangle Auto Sales, the appearance was given of an innocuous sale to dispose of the vehicle at the termination of the lease; clearly a direct transfer to Tomko or Babjak was not utilized because immediate questions could arise. In addition, we note that the second lease on the Grand Marquis had a short term with high lease payments. Clearly in a normal leasing arrangement, the monthly payments during a second lease should be less because of the reduced value of the vehicle. In this case, the monthly payments during the second lease were higher so as to accelerate the reduction of lease end value well below fair market value. Through this deceptive mechanism, Olasz obtained a private pecuniary benefit for a member of his immediate family, his daughter, by selling the vehicle in an amount ($2,300) less than fair market value, at the expense and to the detriment of the Commonwealth. Similarly, as to the second vehicle, the record is clear that Olasz used Donis as a pawn in order to camouflage the actual purchase of a vehicle as a "lease" arrangement with the goal of having the Commonwealth pay for the vehicle's financing via the sham lease. Thereafter, after the 48(49 reimbursements) month "lease" expired, Olasz then transferred the vehicle he owned to his son -in -law. There is no question that the actions of Olasz in these two instances fall within the purview of Sections 3(a) of Act 170 of Richard Olasz Page 28 1978 and Act 9 of 1989. First, the actions of Olasz by virtue of his position as a member of General Assembly, constituted a use of public office or the authority of public office as to the acquisition or disposition of both of these vehicles. See, Friend, Order No. 800. Further, his actions resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to his daughter in the first instance and to himself in the second instance. Lastly, as to the second transaction, the financial gain was not compensation provided for by law under Act 170 of 1978 since House Rule 14 specifically provides that the allowable expense is for legislative purposes or functions and hence not a personal or private one. The Preamble of the Ethics Law declares that public office is a public trust and that any effort to realize personal financial gain through public office is a violation of that trust; the actions of Olasz in this case certainly do not and will not enhance public confidence in government as to the impartiality and honesty of public officials. We must therefore remind Olasz of his public position and direct him to ensure that in his future conduct he will no longer engage in actions, through the use of public office, for his own personal financial benefit. Finally, we note that this Commission in appropriate circumstances has the power to impose restitution upon a public official /employee as to an improper financial gain or private pecuniary benefit. See, Section 7(13) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. 5407(13). See also, Yacobet v. State Ethics Commission, supra. In the instant matter, we conclude that restitution in the amount of $2,438.00 as to the first allegation and restitution in the amount of $3,850.00 ($3500 plus $350 (49th reimbursement)) for the second allegation is warranted in this case. Accordingly, Olasz is directed within 30 days of the issuance of this Order to forward a check to this Commission payable to the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the amount of $6,288.00. Failure to comply with the foregoing will result in a directive of this Commission to institute an order enforcement action. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Richard Olasz, as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989. 2. Olasz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the lease of a 1896 Mercury Grand Marquis for legislative purposes as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives which was subsequently sold to a member of his immediate family after the expiration of the lease at a price which was lower than the value of the vehicle due to the reimbursements for lease payments from Commonwealth funds. Richard Olasz Page 29 3. Olasz violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he purchased a 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan as to which he entered into a fictitious leasing arrangement with monthly reimbursements from Commonwealth funds financing the purchase, which was a financial gain to Olasz other than compensation provided by law. 4. The private pecuniary benefit received by Olasz as to the violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 is $2,438.00. 5. The financial gain received by Olasz in violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 is $3,850.00. In re: Richard Olasz : File Docket: 90- 013 -C2; 91 -011 -C : Date Decided: June__23._1992 : Date Mailed: July 7, 1992 ORDER NO. 851 1. Richard Olasz, as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the lease of a 1896 Mercury Grand Marquis for legislative purposes as a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives which was subsequently sold to a member of his immediate family after the expiration of the lease at a price which was lower than the value of the vehicle due to the reimbursements for lease payments from Commonwealth funds. 2. Olasz violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 when he purchased a 1982 Oldsmobile Ninety -Eight Regency Sedan as to which he entered into a fictitious leasing arrangement with monthly reimbursements from Commonwealth funds financing the purchase which was a financial gain to Olasz other than compensation provided by law. 3. The private pecuniary benefit received by Olasz as to the violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 is $2,438.00. 4. The financial gain received by Olasz in violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 is $3,850.00. 5. Olasz is directed within thirty (30) days of issuance of this Order to make restitution by forwarding a check to this Commission payable to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in the amount of $6,288.00. 6. Failure of Olasz to comply with the provisions of paragraph 5 numbered above will result in a directive of this Commission to institute an order enforcement action. 7. Olasz is directed as to his future conduct to refrain from using the authority of office for his private pecuniary benefit, or that of his immediate family or for that of any business with which he or a member of his immediate family would be associated. BY THE COMMISSION, JAMES M. HOWLEY,