HomeMy WebLinkAbout953 Brink (2)In re: Leroy Brink
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
File Docket:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
91- 042 -C;
94- 013 -C2
12/16/94
12/27/94
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Dennis C. Harrington
Roy W. Wilt
Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Kluger
John R. Showers
The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission
conducted an investigation regarding possible violations of the
State Ethics Law, Act 170 of 1978, P.L. 883, and Act 9 of 1989,
P.L. 26. Written notice of the specific allegation(s) 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. A consent agreement was submitted by the parties to the
Commission for consideration which was reviewed. This Order Nisi
of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual
Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and
Order.
This Order Nisi is not final but will become final, and will
be made available as a public document, fifteen days after issuance
unless reconsideration is requested.
A request for reconsideration will defer public release of
this adjudication pending action on the request by the Commission.
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 §2.38 and /or 51 Pa. Code
§21.29(b).
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). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law
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).
Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an
attorney at law.
I. ALLEGATION:
That Leroy Brink, as a public official /public employee, in his
position as a Supervisor for Chest Township, Clearfield County,
violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 170 of 1978, P.L.
883 and Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26) when he participated in decisions
to award contracts to Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company,
firms with which he or members of his immediate family are
associated, without an open and public process; when he used the
authority of his office for the receipt of private pecuniary
benefit and financial gains other than compensation provided for by
law for himself and businesses with which he or members of his
immediate family are associated; when he participated in approving
the payment of Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company invoices;
when he participated in approving payments to himself; when he
signed checks payable to himself, Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking
Company; when he received compensation for performing services in
relation to a township water project; when he participated in
compensating himself and a business with which he and members of
his immediate family are associated in relation to the water
project with Township funds; and when he signed checks payable to
himself and a business with which he and members of his immediate
family are associated in relation to a township water project.
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.
(c) No public official or public employee
or a member of his immediate family or any
business in which the person or a member of
the person's immediate family is a director,
officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding 5%
of the equity at fair market value of the
business shall enter into any contract valued
at $500 or more with a governmental body
unless the contract has been awarded through
an open and public process, including prior
public notice and subsequent public disclosure
of all proposals considered and contracts
awarded. Any contract made in violation of
this subsection shall be voidable by a court
of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of making of the
contract. Act 170 of 1978, P.L. 883, Sections
3 (a) , 3 (c) .
Section 3. Restricted Activities
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 3
(a) No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that
constitutes a conflict of interest.
(f) No public official or public
employee or his spouse or child or any
business in which the person or his spouse or
child is associated shall enter into any
contract valued at $500 or more with the
governmental body with which the public
official or public employee is associated or
any subcontract valued at $500 or more with
any person who has been awarded a contract
with the governmental body with which the
public official or public employee is
associated, unless the contract has been
awarded through an open and public process,
including prior public notice and subsequent
public disclosure of all proposals considered
and contracts awarded. In such a case, the
public official or public employee shall not
have any supervisory or overall responsibility
for the implementation or administration of
the contract. Any contract or subcontract
made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction
if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the
making of the contract or subcontract. 65
P.S. 55403(a),(f).
II. FINDINGS:
1. A signed, sworn Complaint was received by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission on July 11, 1991,
alleging that Respondent, Leroy Brink, violated the provisions
of the Ethics Law.
2. Upon review of the Complaint by the Director of Investigations
of the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission,
a recommendation was made to the Executive Director of the
State Ethics Commission to commence an investigation.
3. At the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics
Commission, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission instituted an investigation under Act 170 of 1978.
4. On September 10, 1991, a letter was forwarded to Respondent by
the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission
informing Respondent of the fact that a Complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission and that an investigation was being commenced.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 4
5. The full investigation was commenced at the direction of the
Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission.
6. Further, upon review of additional information received by the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission, on
February 9, 1994, the Executive Director directed the
commencement of a full investigation regarding activities of
the Respondent in violation of the Ethics Law under Act 9 of
1989.
7. On August 4, 1994, the Investigative Division of the State
Ethics Commission issued the Investigative Complaint and
Findings Report against Respondent and forwarded same to
Respondent and /or Respondent's attorney.
8. Leroy Brink (Brink) has served as an elected Supervisor for
Chest Township, Clearfield County, since January, 1984.
a. Chest Township is a second class township with a
population of approximately 450 people.
b. It has an annual general budget of approximately $65,000.
9. Since January, 1984, Brink has served as an employee of Chest
Township, on a part time basis, and as an appointed roadmaster
since 1986.
10. Ethel Brink is the wife of Leroy Brink.
11. The following individuals are children of Leroy and Ethel
Brink:
a.
b.
c .
d..
e.
f.
Samuel Brink
Kenneth Brink
James Brink
Ronald Brink
Larry Brink
Nickolas Brink
12. Carol Brink is the,wife of Samuel Brink.
13. John Brink is the nephew of Leroy Brink.
14. Brink operated a trucking business under the name Leroy Brink
Trucking until at least 1991.
15. Ethel Brink operates a trucking business under the name Ethel
Brink Trucking.
16. Documents filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State
indicate that a fictitious name registration was filed on or
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 5
about May 29, 1982, for Brink Trucking.
a. Persons interested in the business were Samuel and
Kenneth Brink.
b. On May 21, 1985, the fictitious name was withdrawn.
c. On November 6, 1989, Brink Trucking Co. was incorporated
by Samuel Brink.
17. Documents filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission indicate that Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Co.
were certified as common carriers.
18. Brink Trucking Company also is registered under the following
numbers:
a. Interstate Commerce Commission: ICC# MC207080
b. U.S. Department of Transportation: U.S. DOT# 309456
19. Chest Township historically used outside contractors to haul
materials such as paving materials, road materials and stone
aggregates.
a. The Township has had no full time employees nor did it
own the requisite equipment to haul said paving
materials, road materials and stone aggregates during the
time period in question.
b. Telephone solicitations for said services were usually
obtained by the township secretary or the chairman of the
board of supervisors.
20. The minutes of the meetings of the Chest Township Supervisors
do not include any action authorizing Brink Trucking or Brink
Trucking Company (collectively referred to as Brink Trucking)
to haul materials for Chest Township.
21. The records of Chest Township do not indicate that any bids
were sought by the township for hauling materials prior to the
middle of 1993.
22. The hauling of road and aggregate materials was performed by
Brink Trucking.
23. Payments for the hauling of road and aggregate materials were
disbursed from the State Fund Account and the General Fund
Account of Chest Township.
24. Bills and invoices for hauling materials by Brink Trucking and
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 6
Leroy Brink were included in the bills list at each regular
monthly meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Chest Township.
25. The bills lists are voted upon in their entirety by the Board
of Supervisors of Chest Township.
26. Since January, 1984, Brink Trucking and Leroy Brink were
utilized by Chest Township to haul materials at least 43
times.
27. Brink voted to approve bills lists which included bills and
invoices from Brink Trucking and members of the Brink family.
28. Brink took official action to approve at least 41 checks for
payments to Brink Trucking, Ronald Brink and Leroy Brink from
the State Fund and the General Fund of Chest Township by
signing checks, making motions to approve payments, seconding
motions to approve payments and voting in favor of motions to
approve such payments. Check numbers, dates, amounts, payee
information, signature information, endorsement information,
action by Brink and commentary as to all payments are included
in Chart A (General Fund Payments) and Chart B (State Fund
Payments) attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
29. Checks from the General Fund and
Township payable to Leroy Brink and
by Brink.
30. Statements of Financial Interests
Trucking as a source of income in
and 1988.
31. Brink Trucking leased at least two trucks
during the years 1989 and 1990.
a. This resulted in the income noted on
Financial Interests.
the State Fund of Chest
Brink Trucking were signed
for Brink indicate Brink
calendar years 1990, 1989
from Leroy Brink
the Statement of
32. The trucks belonging to Leroy Brink which were leased to Brink
Trucking during the period of the lease were operated under
the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Authority issued to
Samuel Brink t /d /b /a Brink Trucking or Brink Trucking Company.
33. Brink Trucking made weekly lease payments to Brink for the use
of Brink's trucks.
34. The lease payments have been made since at least January,
1988.
35. The corporate checking account for Brink Brokerage Company,
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 7
account
Brink:
Date
12/5/89
12/5/89
12/12/89
12/19/89
12/26/89
1/2/90
1/4/90
#20- 02229, include the following payments to Leroy
Check #
4965
4966
4986
5034
5064
5087
5126
Amount
$ 3,501.20
2,542.83
3,549.01
1,429.84
1,277.40
3,936.17
1,456.76
$17,693.21
Memo
Contract truck
Contract truck
Contract truck
Contract truck
Contract truck
Contract truck
Contract truck
36. Brink received lease payments based upon a percentage of loads
hauled by his trucks.
37. In July, 1987, Chest Township began a project to renovate and
upgrade an existing water reservoir near Thompsontown, a small
village area within Chest Township.
38. On July 3, 1987, a Grant Agreement was entered into between
Chest Township and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acting
through the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce for the grant
amount of $14,000.00 to be given to Chest Township for the
reservoir project.
39. On June 20, 1988, an Amendment to the Grant Agreement was
executed by Chest Township and the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania acting through the Pennsylvania Department of
Commerce.
40. The reservoir project consisted of removing brush and debris,
excavating, relocation of a spillway and replacement of
deteriorated sections of existing distribution lines.
41. The Grant Agreement Amendment was signed by Leroy Brink on
June 30, 1988 as Chairman of the Chest Township Board of
Supervisors.
42. The Grant Agreement provided that all Grant proceeds received
from the Grantor (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) by the Grantee
(Chest Township) are to be deposited in a separate "Project
Account" which is maintained by the Grantee to withdraw and
disburse all funds related to the project.
43. Financing for the reservoir project was as follows:
Grant Funds from Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Township Funds
$14,000.00
3,529.32
$17,529.32
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 8
44. Brink was designated by the township supervisor to oversee the
Thompsontown water project.
45. The following individuals or entities were hired to work on
the Thompsontown water project while Brink oversaw such
project.
a. Michael Brink.
b. Samuel Brink.
c. Brink Trucking Co.
46. No outside bids were sought for the Thompsontown water
project.
47. Chest Township opened a Project Account for the Thompsontown
water project at the Curwensville State Bank, Curwensville,
Pennsylvania 16833 -0029, account number 28- 0026 -3.
48. The records of the Project Account for the Thompsontown water
project at the Curwensville State Bank, account number 28-
0026-3, state as follows:
Check #
104
108
116
118
120
128
134
Date
12/06/88
12/10/88
12/10/88
12/10/88
01/03/89
01/03/89
01/03/89
Amount
$ 423.19
$ 328.13
$ 600.00
$1380.00
$ 171.44
$ 160.00
$ 45.20
Payee
Leroy Brink
Mike Brink
Leroy Brink
Brink Trucking
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
Signature
Unsigned
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
Daniel Hutton
Amos Holes
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
49. During the Thompsontown water project, Samuel Brink billed 23
hours at $60.00 per hour for backhoe operation for a total of
$1,380.
50. All checks set forth in Finding 56, above, were approved at
the meetings of Chest Township Supervisors on December 10,
1988 or January 3, 1989. On both occasions, Brink made the
motion to make the payments and voted in favor of making such
payments.
51. No part of the Thompsontown water project was put out for bid
since Chest Township labor was to be used for the entire
project.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 9
GENERAL FUND PAYMENTS - CHART A
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART B
11ASM
11811!2
pAta
SI ®tom:
BWB�!
iC1Z0i
COa ®L
:. IW.
..
358
12/1/84
409.98
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Brink Trucking
Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township, invoices from the
Warner Company to Brink Trucking
dated 11/17/84. Driver: Larry R.
Brink.
160
1/7/85
•
379.90
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Vote
Invoice from Brink Tucking to
Cheat Township dated 12/22/04.
Invoices from the garner Company
to'Brink Trucking dated 12/13/84
and 12/14/84 signed by Larry R.
Brink and Sam Brink.
363
3/9/85
484.25
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Brink Trucking
Second/Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township dated 1/25/85 in
the amount of $80.00 for four
hours of snow plowing, Brink
Trucking invoice to Chest Township
dated 1/14/85 in the mount of
$404.25 for anti -skid material,
invoices from Warner Company to
Brink Trucking signed by Sam
Brink.
366
2/9/85
. 319.00
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink/ Ethel Brink
Wotion/Vote
368
3/9/85
'257.59
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Brink Trucking
Motion /Vote
Invoice from Brink Tracking to
Chest Township dated 2/23/85 for
anti -skid material, invoice from
the garner Company to Brink
Trucking dated 2/23/85 signed by
Ron Brink.
371
4/13/85
751.79
Brink
Tusking
Leroy Brink
San Brink
Notion/Vats
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 3/31/85:
invoices from the garner Coapany
to Brink Tracking dated 3/9/85
signed by Larry Brink.
375
7/13/85
437.37
Brink
Tracking
Leroy Brink
Sam Drink
Motion /vote
invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dat d 6/30/85,
invoices from the garner Company
to Brink Tucking dated 6/19/85
and 6/20/85 signed by Sam Brink.
382 .
12/14/85
231.29
Brink
Tracking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Motion/Vote
384
1/6/86
510.86
Brink
Tacking
Leroy Brink
Sam D. Brink/ Carol A.
Brink
None
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 12/31/89,
invoices from garner Company to
Brink Trucking dated 12/31/85
signed by Larry Brink and Sam
Brink.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 9
GENERAL FUND PAYMENTS - CHART A
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART B
MIK
SI6II29a
®m1�I
ALZ1Q
�S
]Ml
O
1386
1/3/84
442.20
Brink
Trucking
Leroy IIrink
San Brink
Second /Vote
1307
1/3/84
96.43
Leroy Brink
Leroy Brink
terry Brink
Second /Vote
1494
9/0/04
70.00
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
lithe! K. Brink Treasurer
of the r.irvi.w Baptist
Church 6 Brink Trucking
Vote
2085
11/12/88
67.85
Leroy Brink
2009
11/11/88
580.29
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Brink Trucking
Motion/Vote
3243
12/10/89
391.22
Brink
Trucking
2295
4/14/90
173.19
Leroy Brink
Leroy 8riak
Leroy Brink
Sacond/Vote
2399
1/7/91
221.96
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Brink Trucking
Motion/Vote
Brink Trucking invoice to Chest
Township dated 12/5/90. Invoice
from New Enterprise Stand to Brink
Trucking dated 12/5/90 containing
the signature of Nick Brink.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 9
GENERAL FUND PAYMENTS - CHART A
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART B
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 10
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART B
®ot
>A.
'. Da7t
nom,
BBEY
SI -N
mafBama
'B¢3nr
388
3/8/86
506.16
Brink
Trucking
cT�rr
390
4/13/86
360.39
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink/ Brink Trucking
Second/Vote
Trucking Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 4/3/86 in the
...punt of 392.20, 4/3/86 in the
amount of 8233.19, and 4/3/86 in
the amount
392
5/6/86
1118.99
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Second /Vote
of $35.00.
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 4/30/86,
invoices from Narekood Limestone
to Sam Brink and Brink Trucking
dated 4/22/86 and 4/33/86 signed
by Sam Br invoices
from Warner
Company to Brink Trucking dated
4/23/86
396 11/8/B6 199.32
Brink
Leroy Brink
signed by Larry Brink.
Samuel D. Brink None Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township
397 12/13/86 415.96
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
dated 10/7/86.
Brink Trucking Sam Brink S /Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township dated 11/25/86,
invoice from Warner Company Brink
Trucking dated
400 1/5/27 477.94
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
11/24/86.
Brink Trucking Sam Brink Second /Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 12/29/86,
invoices from Warner Company to
9m Brink Trucking dated 12/29/66
signed by
402 2/14/87 438.36
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
L. Brink.
Brink Trucking Sam Brink Second/Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township
403 3/14/87 417.92
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
dated 2/7/87.
Samuel D. Brink Brink Vote In -,nice Tram Brink Trucking 60
Trucking Chest Township dated 3/5/87,
invoices Tram Narehood Limestone
to Brink Trucking dated 3/5/87
signed by Larry
404 4/11/87 207.91
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Brink
Samuel D. Brink Brink Sec vd /Vote Involee
Brink Trucking to
Trucking Cheat Township ip
405 5/9/87 767.82
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
dated 4/8/87.
Samuel 0. Brink Brinks vote
truckiv Invoice from Brink Trucking to
g Cheat Township
406 6 /13/87 184.40
Trick
trucking
Leroy Brink
dated 3/4/07.
Samuel D. Brink Brink Second/Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Trucking Chest Township dated 6/5/87 for
one load 20
408 9/12/87 360.43
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
- stone.
Sam Brink Motion/Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking Co
Brink Trucking Chest Township dated 8/31/89,
invoices from New Enterprise Stone
6 Lime Co., Inc., dated 8/17/87
signed by
430 11/1{/9] 800.00
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Larry E. Brink.
Sam Brink Notion /Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Brink Trucking Cheat Township dated 11/11/87 for
twenty loads
507 1 /4 /6e 844.68
Brink
Tmtiaa
Trucking
Leroy Brink
- slate.
Sam Brink /vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Bries T ki
Trucking Cheat Township dated 12/31/07r
invoice from Warner Con,any to
Brink Trucking dated
508 2/13/38 407.49
Bruck
Trucking
Leroy Brink
12/28/87.
Sam Brink Notion /Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Brink Trucking Chit Township dated 2/11/88 for
two loads - anti -skid, invoices
from New Enterprise Stone 6 Lime
Co., Inc.. to Brink Trucking dated
2/8/88 signed by
512 3/12/88 436.77
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Ron Drink.
Samuel Brink Brink Notion /Vats invoice from Brink Trucking to
Trucking Chest Township dated 3/12/88 for
anti -skid 26C
513 4/9/88 201.15
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Brink
and stone.
Samuel D. Brink Brink Notion /Vote Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Trucking Chest Township dated 4/4/88 one
load 20 stone, invoice from New
Enterprise Stone 6 Lima Co., Inc.,
to Brink Trucking dated 3/14/88
signed by Larry
Brink.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 10
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART B
•
aim=
"P
DICatBS --
1�B8OYL
1CCta
�
0... _.HH9L
523
2/11/89
BIBBRT
391.70
►➢Hi
Brink
.
Leroy Brink
Sam Brink
Brink Trucking
Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
invoices from m New Enterprise Stone dated
A Lime Co., Inc., to Brick
Trucking dated 1/11/89 and
1/18/89.
533
5/13/89
188.93
D Tr r v ik imo
Leroy wick
Brink Trucking
N otion /Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Cheat Township dated 4/26/89;
invoices from New Enterprise Stone
a Lime Co.. Inc., to Brink
Trucking dated 4/5/89 and 4/14/19
signed by Brink.
530
8 {13/19
631.40
Brink
Leroy Brink
e Brink
Second /Vat.
Iovoic. from Brink Tracking to
Chest Township dated 7/20/89;
invoices from New Enterprise Stone
a Lin. Co., Inc.. to Brink
Trucking dated 7 /3/89, 7/7/89 and
7/19/89.
534
10/14/89
194.11
Brink
Trucking
Leroy Drink
Sam Brink
Brink Trucking
Motion /Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest ice from New
i Lime Co., Inc., to Brink
Trucking dated 8/10/89.
536
1/2/90
826.10
Briny
Trucking
Leroy Brink
Samuel D. Drink Brink
.
Notion /Vote
Ina6ice from dated Tr l� 6/69
invoices from New Enterprise Stone
4 Lime Co., Inc., to Drink
Trucking dated 12/12/89 and
12/23/89 signed by Larry Brink.
537
2/30/90
434.94
Brick
Trucking
Leroy Drink
Brink Tracking
Notion /Vote
Chest Township from hip Brink
invoices from New Enterprise Stone
a Lim. Co., Inc., to Brink
Trucking dated 11/7/89 and 1/5/90
signed by Larry Brink.
561
2/11/90
453.70
Trunk
truekipg
Leroy Brink
wiTTracking
Drink
Motion /Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township dated 8/8/90;
invoices from New Enterprise Scan
a Lim. Co.. Inc., to Brink
Trucking dated 7/14/90 signed by
Larry Brink.
545
2/9/91
1057.84
Trunk
Trucking
Larry Brink
Samuel
.
Motion/Vote
Invoice from Brink Trucking to
Chest Township dated 2/5/91 in the
amount of $406.90 and 1/22/91 in
the amount of $650.74, invoices
Pram New Enterprise Stone i Lime a3
Co., Inc.. to Brink Trucking
1/3/91, 1/12/91, 1/18/91, 2/1/91
and 2/9/91 signed by Ron Brink.
Nick Brink and Larry Brink.
950
6/13/91
1059.00
Brink
Lacy Brink
B uckiing
Motion/Vote
Chest Invoice Township dated Trucking /27 / to
1 in
the amount of $416.63 and 3/15/91
in the amount of $411.17; invoices
from New Enterprise Stone i Lime
Co.. Inc., to Brink Trucking dated
3/8/91, 3/9/91 and 3/27/91 signed
by Nick Brink, Ron Brink and Sam
Drink.
574
2/13/91
403.64
Drink
Trucking
Sam Brink
Brink Trucking
Nose
Leroy Brink
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 11
STATE FUND PAYMENTS - CHART 8
III. 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
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 12
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 Supervisor
for Chest Township, Clearfield County, Leroy Brink, hereinafter
Brink, is a public official /employee 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 "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989
as follows:
65 P.S. 5402.
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 or his immediate family or
a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
In addition, Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 specifically
provides in part that no public official /employee or spouse or
child or business with which he or the spouse or child is
associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 13
five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded
a contract with the governmental body with which the public
official /employee is associated unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice
and subsequent public disclosure.
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
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).
In addition, Section 3(c) of Act 170 of 1978 specifically
provides in part that no public official or member of his immediate
family or business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding
five percent of the equity at fair market value may enter into a
contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars
or more unless the contract is awarded through an open and public
process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure.
The numerous issues before us are whether Brink violated
Section 3(a) of Act 170 or Act 9, the conflict provisions, or
Section 3(c) or 3(f) of Act 170 or Act 9, the contracting
provisions, as to the following allegations:
1. participation in decisions to award contracts
to Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company,
firms with which Brink or immediate members
are associated;
2. use of office for financial gain or private
pecuniary benefit for himself or businesses
with which he or members of his immediate
family are associated;
3. participation in approving payments as to
Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company
invoices;
4. participation in approving payments to
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 14
himself;
5. signing checks payable to himself, Brink
Trucking or Brink Trucking Company;
6. the receipt of compensation for performing
services as to a township water project;
7. participation in compensating himself and a
business with which he and or members of his
immediate family are associated as to a
township water project;
8. and a signatory on checks payable to himself
or a business with which he or members of his
immediate family are associated in relation to
a township water project.
The Stipulation of Findings filed by the parties reflects that
Brink served as an elected Supervisor for Chest Township in
Clearfield County since 1984; Brink also served as Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors although the Stipulation of Findings does not
set forth the time frame of such service. Further, Brink served as
a Township employee on a part -time basis and as an appointed
roadmaster since 1986. Ethel Brink is the spouse of Brink; the
Brink's have six children, three of whom are Samuel, Ronald and
Kenneth Brink. The relationship between Michael Brink and Brink is
not delineated.
Brink has operated a trucking business known as "Leroy Brink
Trucking" until at least 1991. Ethel Brink also operates a
trucking business known as "Ethel Brink Trucking ". On May 29, 1982
Samuel and Kenneth Brink registered "Brink Trucking" under a
fictitious name which was withdrawn on May 21, 1985. Thereafter,
on November 6, 1989 "Brink Trucking Company" was incorporated by
Samuel Brink.
For road projects such as paving, road materials and stone
aggregates, Chest Township used telephone solicitation for such
services through the Township secretary or Chairman of the Board
because the Township had no full -time employees or equipment to
haul such materials. The Township has approximately 450 people and
an approximate annual general budget of $65,000.00. The minutes of
the Chest Township Board of Supervisors do not contain any action
authorizing Brink Trucking or Brink Trucking Company to haul
materials for Chest Township. Prior to mid 1993, the Township
sought no bids for hauling materials. The hauling of road and
aggregate materials was performed by Brink Trucking. Bills and
invoices for hauling were included and voted upon as part of bill
lists at each monthly meeting of the Township Board. Since
January, 1984 Brink Trucking or Brink Trucking Company and Brink
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 15
were utilized by the Township to haul materials at least forty -
three (43) times. Brink voted to approve bill lists which included
bills and invoices from Brink Trucking and members of the Brink
family Brink took official action to approve at least forty -one
(41) checks for payments to Brink Trucking or Brink Trucking
Company, himself and Ronald Brink, by signing checks, making
motions to approve payments, seconding motions to approve payments
and voting in favor of motions to approve payments See Charts A
and B, supra. Checks from both the general fund and state fund of
the Township were payable to Brink, Brink Trucking or Brink
Trucking Company with Brink as signatory.
The Financial Interests Statements (FIS) of Brink for the
calendar years 1988 through 1990 reflect Brink Trucking (Company)
as a source of income for Brink. Brink Trucking (Company) leased
at least two trucks from Brink during the years 1989 and 1990 which
resulted in income as reported on his FIS's. Brink Trucking
(Company) made weekly lease payments to Brink for the use of
Brink's trucks since January 1988. Lastly, Brink also received
payments from the corporate checking account of "Brink Brokerage
Company ".
In July 1987 the Township began a renovation project as to an
existing water reservoir near Thompsontown. The Township and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania entered into a grant agreement whereby
the Township received $14,000.00 from the Commonwealth and added
$3,529.32 of its own funds. The project entailed the removal of
brush and debris, excavation, relocation of a spillway and the
replacement of deteriorated sections of exiting distribution lines.
The agreement was signed by Brink on June 30, 1988 as Chairman of
the Board of Supervisors. The agreement specified that all grant
proceeds were to be deposited in a separate project account with
withdrawals and disbursements limited to the project. Michael and
Samuel Brink and Brink Trucking Company were hired to work on the
project as to which Brink had oversight. No outside bids were
sought for the water reservoir project. Various disbursements were
made from the'project account to Brink himself, Michael Brink or
Brink Trucking (Company), with many of the checks issued under the
signature of Brink. The checks were approved at meetings of the
Chest Township Board of Supervisors with Brink making and voting in
favor of the motion for payments.
In applying the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of
1989 to the above facts in the context of the eight allegations in
this case, we will preliminarily note the following parameters.
First, we will address the allegations in the order in which they
appear above. Second, although we note that the parties have
stipulated that Brink Trucking may mean either Brink Trucking or
Brink Trucking Company (Fact Finding 20), we will specify in our
discussion whether a matter relates to Brink Trucking, the business
of Samuel and Kenneth Brink from May, 1982 through May, 1985, or
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 16
Brink Trucking Company, the business which was incorporated on
November, 1989 by Samuel Brink. Third, since we will resolve each
conflict and contracting allegation under both Act 170 and Act 9 of
1989, we will here note that there are major differences in the
applications of the conflict and contracting provisions under these
two acts. In particular, the conflict provision under Act 170
prohibits the financial gain to the public official /employee, a
member of his immediate family or business with which he /she is
associated. In this regard, immediate family under Act 170 of 1978
is defined as follows.
65 P.S. §402.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Immediate family." A spouse residing in the
person's household and minor dependent
children.
Further, the Act 170 contracting section restricts contracting
involving the public official /employee, member of his immediate
family or business with which a member of his immediate family is
a director, officer, owner or holder of stock exceeding five
percent of the equity and fair market value of the business.
However, under Act 9, the conflict provision is broadened to
encompass a use of authority of office for a private pecuniary
benefit for the public official /employee, member of his immediate
family or business with which he /she or a member of his immediate
family is associated. Under Act 9, the term "immediate family" was
expanded:
Section 2. Definitions
"Immediate family." A parent, spouse,
child, brother or sister.
65 P.S. §402.
Lastly, under Act 9, contracting is modified to restrict the public
official /employee, spouse, child or business in which the public
official /employee or spouse or child is associated.
As to the first allegation concerning participation by Brink
as the award of contracts to Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking
Company without an open and public process, we find no violations
under either Act 170 or Act 9. Although we do not have dates as to
the award of the contracts, it appears from the stipulated findings
that most of the payments on the contract occurred under Act 170;
in addition, we are unable to discern whether there are multiple
contracts for these two groups of projects or whether there is a
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 17
continuous course of conduct as to each contract group. From the
record before us, we must conclude that the awards of the contracts
are governed by Act 170. Hence, there can be no Act 9 violations
since the activity in question regarding the award of these
contracts occurred prior to the date of enactment of Act 9 of 1989.
As to the award of these contracts, which must be viewed under Act
170, the two groups of contracts consist of the hauling contracts
and the contracts regarding the water reservoir project. As to the
hauling projects, the record reflects that such solicitations were
done by the Township's Secretary or Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors. We only know from the record that Brink was Chairman
on June 30, 1988. Fact Finding 41. Since there is nothing of
record to establish that Brink used public office to award such
hauling contracts, we find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170.
Further, as noted below, these two trucking firms are not
businesses with which Brink or a member of his immediate family are
associated under Act 170. As to the contracting under Act 170, we
similarly find no violation because Brink Trucking or Brink
Trucking Company are not contracts between a public
official /employee, member of his immediate family or business with
which he or a member of his immediate family is director, officer,
owner or holder of stock exceeding five percent of the equity at
fair market value. In particular, Brink Trucking was owned by
Samuel and Kenneth Brink as to whom there is nothing of record to
show that they are minor dependent children. In this regard, since
Samuel is married, it appears that at least he is an adult. Thus,
since the individuals owning Brink Trucking do not fall within the
definition of immediate family under Section 3(c) of Act 170 of
1978, no violation occurred. Similarly, as to Brink Trucking
Company, the record only reflects that Samuel Brink has an interest
in that corporation. Since there is nothing of record to show that
Samuel was a minor dependent child of Brink, Section 3(c) would not
apply and hence we find no violation of that provision of the
Ethics Law.
As to the award of a contract to Michael Brink, Samuel Brink
and Brink Trucking Company as to the water reservoir project, we
must also find no violations of Section 3(a) and 3(c) of Act 170
for the exact same reasons as noted above. Parenthetically, as
noted above, there is no designation of any familial relationship
in the Stipulation of Findings as to Michael Brink.
The second allegation before us charges a use of office for
financial gain /private pecuniary benefit for Brink himself and the
businesses with which he or members of his immediate family are.
associated. Since this allegation is very generalized and since
the seven other allegations relate to specific activities, we will
sua sponte dismiss this allegation for the reason that the
activities in question are covered by the other seven allegations.
The third allegation charges a violation for participation and
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 18
approving payments to Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company
invoices. Preliminarily, we note that this allegation is
inherently limited to a conflict but not a contracting issue
because it relates to participation in approving invoices. As to
the aspect of the allegation controlled by Section 3(a) of Act 170
of 1978, we find no violation because participation in approving
invoices related to businesses with which Brink was not associated;
in this regard, Samuel and Kenneth Brink as to Brink Trucking and
Samuel Brink as to Brink Trucking Company were not dependent
children and hence not even members of Brink's immediate family.
As to Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, there can be no violation as
to Brink Trucking because that company with its fictitious name
registration was withdrawn as of May, 1985. As to Brink Trucking
Company, which was incorporated by Brink's son Samuel, said
business would be one in which a member of Brink's immediate family
was associated under Act 9 of 1989. As to Brink Trucking Company,
Charts A and B do reflect eight instances of actions by Brink
relative to payments for Brink Trucking (Company). Since Brink
took such action which was a use of authority of office which
resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to Brink Trucking Company,
a business with which a member of his immediate family is
associated, we find eight technical violations of Section 3(a) of
Act 9 of 1989.
The fourth allegation charges conduct by Brink of
participation in approving payments to himself. The allegation
once again inherently is limited to the conflict provision of
Section 3(a) of Act 170 and Act 9. In reviewing Charts A and B,
supra, three checks were issued to Brink dated January 3, 1984,
November 12, 1988 and February 9, 1985. As to the first check,
both the signature and endorsement were by Brink; the check was
issued as a result of action where Brink seconded and voted in
favor of a motion. As to the second check, the record does not
reflect any action taken by Brink. As to a third check, Brink was
a signatory and co- endorser of the check issued as a result of a
motion by Brink and his voting in favor of the motion. Thus, we
find two technical violations as to the checks issued on January 3,
1984 and February 9, 1985 under Section 3(a) of Act 170 when Brink
used office to obtain a financial gain for himself consisting of
those two payments; we find no violation as to the check of
November 12, 1988 in that the record does not reflect any action
taken by Brink. Turning to Act 9 of 1989, one check dated April
14, 1990 was issued to Brink as payee with Brink as signatory and
endorser after the check issuance was authorized by a motion
seconded by Brink followed by his vote in favor of that motion.
Accordingly, we find a technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act
9 of 1989 as to the issuance of the check of April 14, 1990.
The fifth allegation concerns the charge that Brink signed
checks payable to himself, Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking
Company. As for the reason noted in our analysis of the prior two
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 19
allegations, our scope must be limited to the conflict provisions
of Section 3(a) of Act 170 and Act 9. As to the portion of the
allegation regarding Brink as signatory for checks to himself, that
issue has been addressed in the prior allegation regarding his
participation in approving payments to himself. Therefore the only
remaining issues involve the issue of signing checks payable to
Brink Trucking and Brink Trucking Company. Regarding signing
checks to Brink Trucking or Brink Trucking Company under Act 170,
we find no violation of Section 3(a) for the reason that neither of
those two companies under Act 170 are businesses with which Brink
is associated. Turning to Act 9 of 1989, our view must be limited
to Brink Trucking Company in that the fictitious name for Brink
Trucking was withdrawn in 1985. As to Brink Trucking Company, it
is a business with which a member of Brink's immediate family is
associated. Checks dated January 7, 1991, August 12, 1989, October
14, 1989, January 2, 1990, February 10, 1990, February 11, 1990,
February 9, 1991, April 13, 1991 and February 13, 1993 were all
issued to Brink Trucking (Company) under the signature of Brink.
As to those nine checks, we find technical violations of Section
3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when Leroy Brink was signatory for checks
payable to Brink Trucking Company, a business with which a member
of Brink's immediate family was associated.
The three remaining allegations relate to the township water
reservoir project. The sixth allegation charges the receipt of
compensation for performing services as to that project by Brink.
As to that project, the record reflects the hiring of Michael and
Samuel Brink as well as Brink Trucking Company for the project.
However, payments out of the account for the water project also
reflect payments to Brink individually by five separate checks.
(Fact Finding 48). To the extent that Brink had oversight on this
project and therefore hired himself, as is evidenced by payments to
himself, it is clear that there was a use of office to obtain a
financial gain under Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and
accordingly, we find five technical violations of that provision of
the Ethics Law regarding compensation (consisting of five payments
listed in Fact Finding 48) that Brink received as to the water
reservoir project. We find no violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9
of 1989 in that the activity in question predated Act 9. Lastly,
we need not address the contracting provisions which are inherently
beyond the scope of this particular allegation.
The seventh allegation charges a violation based upon Brink's
participation in compensating himself and a business with which he
and members of his immediate family are associated in relation to
the water reservoir project. As above, the gravamen of this
allegation must be limited to only a charge of conflict under
Section 3(a) of Act 170 and Act 9. The first part of the specific
allegation regarding Brink's participation in compensating himself
has already been addressed in the sixth allegation. Therefore, the
only issues that need to be addressed are whether there is a
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 20
violation of Section 3(a) of Act 170 or Act 9 by Brink as to
participation in compensating the business with which he or members
of his immediate family are associated as to the water project.
Since all such activity predated Act 9 of 1989, there can be no
violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 and we so find as to
that particular part of the allegation. Regarding Section 3(a) of
Act 170 of 1978, there is one payment to Brink Trucking but we find
no violation based upon our analysis above where we found that
Brink Trucking was not a business with which Brink was associated.
As to the eighth and final allegation, the charge is that
Brink violated the Ethics Law by signing checks payable to himself
and the business with which he or members of his immediate family
are associated in relation to the township water project.
Confining our analysis to only the conflict provisions, given the
nature of this particular allegation, we find three instances where
Brink acted as signatory for checks made payable to himself. These
three checks were issued on December 10, 1988 and on January 3,
1989 (two checks issued on the latter date). This activity
occurred under Act 170 of 1978 and accordingly, we find three
technical violations of Act 170 of 1978 as to such conduct. There
was a use of office by Brink as signatory on the checks which were
made payable to himself which resulted in a financial gain to Brink
thereby constituting technical violations to those three instances
of conduct. As to checks payable to the trucking firms under
Section 3(a) of Act 170, we find no violations because the trucking
firms are not businesses with which associated under Act 170. As
to Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989, we find no violation in that the
conduct in question predated Act 9.
The parties in this case have submitted a consent agreement
wherein they stipulate to technical violations as to certain
conduct, no violations as to various other conduct, a restitution
amount of $1,380 as per Fact Finding 49, and the invalidity of the
consent agreement if not accepted by this Commission.
Although we accept the restitution figure and the resolution
of the case via technical violations as to some actions and no
violations as to others, we find a lesser number of technical
violations. Since we believe that the disposition of this case
procedurally should be by consent agreement, we have attempted
through the above analysis to resolve the allegations under the
Ethics Law, Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989, as we must, but at
the same time give overall effect to the consent agreement.
We do note that the parties have the reconsideration mechanism
available to them if they choose not to accept the above resolution
of the case which we believe is a fair and appropriate disposition
of the case as contemplated by the parties and as reviewed by this
Commission.
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 21
If reconsideration is not requested within fifteen days of
issuance of this Order, this Order shall become final and shall
become available as a public document.
Considering the totality of facts and circumstances in this
case, the technical violations, and the lack of any specific intent
to violate the Ethics Law, we will take no further action in this
case provided Brink makes timely restitution. Failure to make the
agreed restitution in a timely manner, payable through this
Commission to the order of Chest Township, will result in the
initiation of an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Leroy Brink as a Chest Township Supervisor is a public
official subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act
9 of 1989.
2. Eight technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Brink used the authority of office as to
payments to Brink Trucking Company, a business with which a
member of Brink's immediate family is associated.
3. a. Two technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of
1978 occurred when Brink used public office as to the
issuance of two checks payable to himself which was a
financial gain other than compensation provided by law.
b. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Brink used the authority of office as to
the issuance of a check to himself which was a private
pecuniary benefit.
4. Nine technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Brink signed checks payable to Brink Trucking
Company, a business with which a member of Brink's immediate
family was associated.
5. Five technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
occurred when Brink, as supervisor with oversight
responsibility as to a township water reservoir project, used
office for a financial gain consisting of five payments he
received for services performed as to the project.
6. Three technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
occurred when Brink used office for a financial gain to act as
signatory for three checks payable to himself for services
performed as to the water reservoir project.
7. There are no violations of Act 170 or Act 9 as to all
Brink, 91- 042 -C; 94- 013 -C2
Page 22
remaining allegations.
8. Brink shall be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of
$1,380.00, through this Commission to Chest Township.
In re: Leroy Brink File Docket:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
ORDER NISI NO. 953
JAMES M. HO
91- 042 -C;
94- 013 -C2
12/16/94
12/27/94
1. Eight technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Leroy Brink as a Chest Township Supervisor used
the authority of office as to payments to Brink Trucking
Company, a business with which a member of Brink's immediate
family is associated.
2. a. Two technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of
1978 occurred when Brink used public office as to the
issuance of two checks payable to himself which was .a
financial gain other than compensation provided by law.
b. A technical violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Brink used the authority of office as to
the issuance of a check to himself which was a private
pecuniary benefit.
3. Nine technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
occurred when Brink signed checks payable to Brink Trucking
Company, a business with which a member of Brink's immediate
family was associated.
4. Five technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
occurred when Brink, as supervisor with oversight
responsibility as to a township water reservoir project, used
office for a financial gain consisting of five payments he
received for services performed as to the project.
5. Three technical violations of Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978
occurred when Brink used office for a financial gain to act as
signatory for three checks payable to himself for services
performed as to the water reservoir project.
6. There are no violations of Act 170 or Act 9 as to all
remaining allegations.
7. Brink is ordered to make restitution of $1,380.00 in a timely
manner through this Commission to Chest Township.
a. No further action will be taken by this Commission if the
restitution is made in a timely manner.
b. Failure to make restitution in a timely manner will
result in the initiation of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
IR