Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1204 CagnoIn Re: Charles Cagno File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair John J. Bolger Frank M. Brown Susan Mosites Bicket Donald M. McCurdy 00- 054 -C2 Order No. 1204 8/22/01 8/24/01 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not timely filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Charles Cagno, a public employee in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Reynolds School District and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Valley Grove School District, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit for himself and members of his immediate family by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his residence and /or the residence of his mother; when he used school district vehicles for his personal use; when he removed school district property from the district for personal use; when he provided school district property to his daughter for personal use; and when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests his ownership of and income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a). 65 Pa.C.S. §1102. Section 1103. Restricted activities (a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. Section 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public 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. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1105. Statement of financial interests (b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (3) Any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions or purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions or which was the subject of any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions. (8) Any office, directorship or employment of any nature whatsoever in any business entity. (9) Any financial interest in any legal entity Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 3 engaged in business for profit. 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b). II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that Charles Cagno violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998). 2. Upon review of the information, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on August 15, 2000. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On October 12, 2000, a letter was forwarded to Charles Cagno by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7099 3400 0012 4638 2431. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Jane Cagno, with a delivery date of October 16, 2000. 5. On February 12, 2001, the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission filed an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 6. The Commission issued an order on February 26, 23001 [sic], granting the ninety day extension. 7. On June 6, 2001, a letter was forwarded to Charles Cagno, through his attorney Jack Cline, Esquire, by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission advising him that allegations outlined in the notice dated October 12, 2000, were being modified to include additional allegations. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7099 3400 0012 4637 9455. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Brenda Brown. 8. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Charles Cagno in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation. 9. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on June 27, 2001. 10. Charles M. Cagno is currently employed as the Superintendent for Reynolds Area School District, Greenville, PA. a. Cagno's employment contract began on July 1, 1999, and is effective through June 30, 2003. b. Cagno was associated with the district as an unpaid consultant from May 10, 1999, through June 30, 1999. 1. Cagno's position as an unpaid consultant was approved at the May 10, 1999, Reynolds School Board public meeting. 11. Charles Cagno previously served as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 4 District, Franklin, PA, from September 1, 1993, to June 30, 1999. 12. Cagno's job description as superintendent of Reynolds School District delineates job responsibilities which include, in part, the following: a. Guidance and direction of the school board of directors in the establishment of district -wide policies and operations that are consistent with the School Code, Department of Education rules and regulations, and good educational practice. b. Examination and interpretation of policy statements and recommendation of the study and subsequent change in various policy matters that relate to the primary missions of the school system. c. Assistance in the interviewing, selection, supervision, and rating of all those professional employees under his direct or indirect supervision. 13. Cagno's job description as superintendent of Reynolds School District outlines supervision responsibilities as follows: a. Direct Supervision. 1. Junior - Senior High School Principals. 2. Elementary School Principal(s). 3. Supporting Services Supervisors. b. Indirect Supervision. 1. All school district employees, both professional and classified. 14. Cagno reports to the Reynolds School District Board of Education in his position as superintendent. a. The Board of Education is composed of nine directors. 15. Within two months of his official employment date as superintendent in August 1999, Cagno began utilizing Reynolds School District materials, personnel, vehicles, and equipment for his own personal benefit or that of an immediate family member. a. This included acquiring aluminum bleachers for personal use, using school district computers, vehicles and personnel for himself and /or his family. 16. In August 1999 the school district had stored in the maintenance garage, three extra 15 foot pieces of aluminum bleacher planks. a. The extra bleacher planks were the result of a 1996 project where wooden bleachers were replaced. b. The district has utilized at least one of the extra planks for repair, replacement, and /or improvement since the new bleachers were installed. 17. Stephen M. Spanitz is the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds at Reynolds School District. a. Spanitz's office is located in the district maintenance garage. b. The maintenance garage is located on the same property as the district high school and is in close proximity to the district administrative offices. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 5 18. In late July /early August 1999, Cagno and Spanitz discussed the extra aluminum planks while in the district garage. a. Others present included Joe Torok, Ron Bradley, school district administrators, and John Simon. b. Cagno questioned for what purpose the aluminum planks in the rafters were being used. c. Spanitz informed Cagno that there were extra bleacher planks that he was holding in case they were needed. d. Cagno advised Spanitz that he could use the planks. 19. On August 4, 1999, Spanitz cleaned out the maintenance garage and removed both the wooden and aluminum planks from the rafters as part of that cleaning. a. Spanitz cut the wooden planks and discarded them in the district dumpster. 20. Spanitz did not discard the aluminum planks as he planned on keeping them in the event they were needed as replacements. 21. On August 4, 1999, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Cagno entered the maintenance garage and instructed Spanitz to load the two remaining aluminum planks into the district one -ton dump truck. a. Cagno informed Spanitz that he and Spanitz were going to take the planks to the residence of Cagno's mother, located at 3326 Morefield Rd., Hermitage, Pa. b. Cagno's Statement of Financial Interests dated on January 28, 2000, documents Cagno's address as 3326 Morefield Rd., Hermitage, Pa. 1. Cagno resides with his mother at 3326 Moorefield Road, Hermitage, PA. 22. Spanitz did not believe it was safe to transport the planks in the district one -ton truck due to the fact that the planks extended too far out of the truck bed. a. Spanitz voluntarily transported the planks for Cagno in his personal vehicle after normal district working hours. b. Cagno did not compensate Spanitz in any fashion for the transportation of the planks. 23. Spanitz moved the planks from the district to Cagno's residence as a result of Cagno's instruction. a. Spanitz did not question Cagno's instruction because Cagno is Spanitz's direct supervisor. 24. Each of the 15 foot aluminum planks was valued at approximately $100.00. 25. On August 4, 1999, the same date he directed Spanitz to take the planks to his mothers residence, Cagno instructed Spanitz to get into the district one -ton truck. a. Cagno informed Spanitz that they were going for a ride. b. Cagno did not initially tell Spanitz where they were going. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 6 c. Spanitz operated the truck while Cagno traveled as a passenger. 26. Cagno did not need to utilize Spanitz as the driver of the truck. a. Operation of a one -ton truck requires only a valid driver's license, not a Commercial Driver's License (CDL). b. Cagno had a valid Pennsylvania Driver's License (Pa DL# 11 77 1133) at that time. 27. Cagno and Spanitz proceeded to R.W. Sidley's, Inc, a Sand and Gravel company located in West Middlesex, Pa. a. R.W. Sidley's is approximately 12% miles from the district garage. 28. Cagno purchased two tons of 2B gravel from R.W. Sidley's (reference invoice # 550983 dated 08/04/99) and transported the gravel in the district truck to his mother's residence. a. Cagno paid for the gravel with personal check #238. b. Cagno's mother's residence is approximately three miles from R.W. Sidley's. 29. Cagno dumped the gravel at his mother's residence, returned to R.W. Sidley's, and purchased an additional two tons of 2B gravel (invoice# 550990 dated 08/04/99). a. Cagno paid for the gravel with personal check #239. b. Cagno transported and dumped the second load of gravel at his mother's residence. 30. Cagno and Spanitz returned to the district offices at approximately 12:OOp.m. a. The Reynolds School District offices are approximately 9 1/2 miles from Cagno's mother's residence. 31. Cagno made no reimbursement to the school district for the fuel or use of the district vehicle which he had used for personal purposes. a. The distance associated with Cagno's use of the district truck for personal use totaled approximately 31 miles. 32. No leasing businesses in the Greenville /Hermitage area rent one -ton dump trucks. a. Cagno would not have been able to secure a rental truck without going to a facility out of the area. 33. Nations Rent, located in Peninsula, Oh, rents one -ton dump trucks on a per diem basis. a. The rental rate is $135.00 per day, plus $0.29 per mile. b. Peninsula, Oh, is approximately 54 miles from Hermitage, Pa. 34. Spanitz is a salaried administrator of Reynolds School District. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 7 a. Spanitz's salary was equivalent to $19.08 per hour in 1999. 35. Cagno utilized Spanitz for approximately 2 hours of personal /non - school related activities on August 4, 1999, while Spanitz was on district time. a. August 4, 1999, was a regular workday for Spanitz. 36. Joseph Torok and Ronald Bradley are Co- Principals at Reynolds High School. a. Torok and Bradley work year round as salaried administrators of the district. b. Torok and Bradley have offices located in the Reynolds High School building. c. Both offices are in close proximity to the district administrative offices. 37. On August 11, 1999, at approximately 1:45 p.m., Cagno approached Torok and Bradley in the high school parking lot and instructed them to get into the district one -ton truck. a. Torok and Bradley were returning to the district from lunch. b. Torok and Bradley did not question Cagno's instructions because Cagno is their immediate supervisor. 38. After leaving school grounds, Cagno informed Torok and Bradley that they were going to pick up a load of gravel and deliver it to his mother's residence. 39. Cagno drove the district truck to R.W. Sidley's and purchased two tons of 2B gravel (invoice # 551217 dated 08/11/99). a. Cagno purchased the gravel with cash. 40. Cagno transported the gravel to his mother's residence and dumped it into a rectangular area surrounded by footers. a. Torok observed that two sides of the footer rectangle had been constructed from the same type of aluminum planking that had been in the district garage. 1. Torok was present at the maintenance garage on August 4, 1999, when Cagno questioned Spanitz about the planks. b. Cagno, Torok, and Bradley hand spread the gravel to a level surface in the footer form. 41. Cagno, Torok, and Bradley returned to the district administrative offices at approximately 3:15 p.m. 42. Torok and Bradley are salaried administrators of Reynolds School District. a. Torok's salary was equivalent to $31.72 per hour in 1999. b. Bradley's salary was equivalent to $29.83 per hour in 1999. 43. Cagno utilized Torok and Bradley for approximately 11/2 hours of personal/ non - school related activities on August 11, 1999. a. August 11, 1999, was a regular workday for Torok and Bradley. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 8 44. Torok and Bradley did not submit leave slips to the district for the time spent assisting Cagno spread and level gravel. a. Torok and Bradley assisted Cagno while on district time. b. Torok and Bradley assumed the activity was permitted because Cagno had enlisted their assistance. c. Torok and Bradley assisted Cagno as a result of his specific direction. 45. In the fall of 1999, Cagno approached and questioned Spanitz if the district had anything that he could use for unclogging drains and /or cleaning septic systems. a. Spanitz indicated that the district keeps cleaning enzymes on hand to clean grease traps at the district cafeterias. b. The cleaning enzymes are valued at approximately $10.00 per bottle. 46. Cagno instructed Spanitz to provide him with two bottles of the cleaning enzymes. a. Spanitz placed two bottles of the cleaning enzymes on the desk in Cagno's office later that same day. b. Spanitz provided the enzymes to Cagno because Cagno is Spanitz's direct supervisor. 47. Cagno utilized one bottle of the enzyme to clean /clear a drain at his residence, then located at 103 MacRae Drive, Grove City, Pa. a. One bottle of enzyme is located in Cagno's office at the Reynolds School District. b. Cagno did not reimburse the district for the cost of the bottle of cleaning enzyme. 48. Cagno confirmed in a sworn statement on June 7, 2001, to investigators for the State Ethics Commission that Spanitz provided him with two bottles of enzyme. a. Cagno claimed that Spanitz volunteered to provide cleaner to him. 49. Karen Sherwood is employed as an Administrative Assistant at Reynolds School District. a. Sherwood is also the Director of Transportation for the district. 50. Sherwood is responsible for the scheduling of all district vehicles, which includes 35 contract vehicles and five district owned vans. a. District vans are to be utilized in conjunction with school - related functions (i.e. sporting events, extracurricular activities, field trips, etc.). b. Sherwood maintains mileage logs on the district vans. 51. The procedure for utilizing a district vehicle is as follows: Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 9 a. Make application to the Director of Transportation for vehicle use three school days in advance of the day of use. 1. Exceptions to the three day rule may be granted by the Superintendent. 2. Cagno delegated exception authority to Sherwood as the Director of Transportation. b. Sign the vehicle out and in through the Director of Transportation. c. Record mileage as shown at the beginning and end of each trip on the form provided by the Director of Transportation and submit said form to the Director of Transportation . 1. Said form also records the name of the operator, the date, and time frame of use. 52. Cagno approached Sherwood in or about mid - August 1999 with questions about the district vans. a. Cagno questioned where the keys were maintained and what the sign out procedure was for use of the district vans. 53. Cagno questioned Sherwood where keys for the district vehicles were maintained for the specific purpose of utilizing a district owned van to relocate his daughter from the Pittsburgh area. 54. During or about the week of September 19, 1999, Cagno directed Spanitz to remove the cargo seats from a 1995 blue van owned by the district. a. Cagno informed Torok in general conversation that he had instructed Spanitz to remove the van's seats so that he could utilize the van that weekend. b. Cagno and Torok physically verified that the seats had been removed. 55. Cagno utilized the district's 1995 blue van (eight passenger) on the weekend of September 25 and 26, 1999, to relocate his daughter from her apartment in the Squirrel Hill area of Pittsburgh to Hermitage, PA. a. Cagno did not sign the vehicle out through the Director of Transportation as required by district policy. b. Cagno did not complete or submit to the Director of Transportation the record of mileage as required by district policy. 56. Mileage logs maintained by Sherwood document a 173 mile discrepancy for the weekend of September 25 and 26, 1999. a. Total round trip mileage from the district garage to Pittsburgh and back is approximately 150 miles. b. Cagno utilized the district's 1995 blue van that same weekend to pick up and deliver two sheets of lattice from Lowe's in Heritage [sic], Pennsylvania to the district for a community project. 57. Budget Rent -A -Car, located at 2900 East State Street, Hermitage, Pa, rents eight passenger vans on a per diem basis. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 10 a. The rental rate is $115.54 per day (tax included) with 500 free miles. 58. Cagno utilized a school district van to move his daughter and a school district truck to move gravel to avoid paying rental fees in excess of $250.00. 59. Robert Gregg, the Administrative Assistant Responsible for Technology at Reynolds School District, is responsible for advising the school board and district staff on technology needs. 60. On August 12, 1999, Gregg requisitioned the purchase of four laptop computers with various accessories. a. Gregg requisitioned this purchase as part of the technology revamping process at the district. b. Computers ordered were Jetbook Travelers, Model 7620. c. Each computer with accessories totaled $2,334.54. d. Cagno's signature appears in the "Administrator's Approval" section of the requisition form. 61. Four computers with accessories totaling $9,338.16 were purchased from Stargate Technologies, Inc., on August 13, 1999, by way of Reynolds School District Purchase Order R25289. a. Stargate Technologies, Inc., invoiced the district $9,338.16 with invoice #104029 dated August 24, 1999. b. The district submitted payment to Stargate Technologies by General Fund Check # 004389 dated September 15, 1999, in the amount of $35,725.32 in association with invoice # 104029 and additional invoices. 1. Additional invoices received by the district throughout the billing period were also included in this amount. 62. In late August /early September 1999, Gregg supplied Cagno with one of the initial four laptops purchased. 63. Cagno did not utilize the laptop for district /school related business. 64. In September /October 1999, Cagno provided the district laptop computer to Sara Cagno for use while in graduate school. a. Sara Cagno is Cagno's daughter. b. Sara Cagno was attending New York University at that time. 65. Sara Cagno maintained primary possession of the district laptop from September 1999 until approximately October 2000. a. Sara Cagno returned the laptop to Cagno at Cagno's request. 66. While Sara Cagno maintained possession of the laptop, the school district was deprived of the opportunity to use the computer for school district purposes. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 11 67. At the time, Cagno requested his daughter return the laptop, he was aware he was the subject of investigations by the Auditor General's Office of Special Investigations and/or the State Ethics Commission for use of school district property for his personal use. 68. Reynolds School District maintains a Policy Manual which addresses, among other subjects, the use of district property. a. Cagno was issued Policy Manual #1 as of April 1999, according to the policy manual distribution log. b. Policy #007 indicates that the superintendent, among others, is to be provided with a copy of the Policy Manual. 69. Relevant policies regarding use of district property contained in Policy Manual No. 1 are as follows: a. Policy #706 addresses district property records and states, in part, that no equipment shall be removed for personal or non - school use except in accordance with board policy. b. Policy #708 addresses the lending of school owned equipment and books and states, in part, that items of district owned equipment shall not be loaned for non - school use off school property, except in the following exceptions: 1. Use of specific items of equipment may be granted on the written request of the intended user and approval of the Superintendent and Building Administrator and only when such equipment is unobtainable elsewhere. 2. School equipment may be removed from school property by students or staff members only when such equipment is necessary to accomplish tasks arising from their school or job responsibilities. 3. Prior approval of the principal and /or superintendent is required for such removal. c. Policy #710 addresses the use of facilities by staff and district vehicle usage and states, in part, that school equipment and facilities (specifically district telephones, materials, tools, supplies and equipment, and vehicles) may not be used by district staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property, without explicit authorization or administrative permission in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Such use is clearly within the authorization granted in a policy of the board. 2. Temporary approval has been granted by the Superintendent and reported to the board. 3. A personal emergency exists in which life or property is endangered. 70. Cagno did not inform or seek approval from the school board to utilize district owned equipment and /or personnel at any time during his employment with the district. a. Cagno's use of district equipment and /or vehicles did not meet any of the exception requirements documented in the district policy manual. Activity Value (Financial Gain) $ 200.00 2 .tanks • $100.00 each 1. Removal of aluminum planking 2. Use of 1 -Ton District dump truck ', 337.86 2 da s rental •lus mileage 3. Salary of Steve Spanitz 38.16 $19.08 /hour for 2.0 hours 4. Salary of Joe Torok 47.58 $31.72 /hour for 1.5 hours 5. Salary of Ron Bradley 44.75 $29.83 /hour for 1.5 hours 6. Use of cleaning enzymes 10.00 7. Use of District 8- .assen•er van $ 115.54 1 da 's rental 8. Daughter's use of District Laptop '.2,334.54 (over one year's use) Total $3,138.43 Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 12 b. School district personnel assisted Cagno with his personal matters while on district time due to Cagno's position [as] Superintendent of Schools. 71. Cagno realized a financial gain of $3138.43 through his use of Reynolds School District equipment, vehicles and personnel as shown below: 72. In 2000, the Department of the Auditor General's Office of Special Investigations (051) conducted an investigation of allegations concerning the misuse of Reynolds School District property by Cagno. a. This investigation was done in conjunction with the Department of the Auditor General's audit of Reynolds School District for calendar years ended June 30, 1997 and 1998. 73. 051 found during its investigation that Cagno had misappropriated and /or misused district equipment and vehicles and had filed inaccurate Statements of Financial Interests. a. Cagno admitted to the misuse of district property, unauthorized use of district vehicles and the filing of inaccurate Statements of Financial Interests. 74. Cagno was first informed of these findings, among other audit findings, at the July 28, 2000, Audit Exit Conference conducted by Auditors Suzanne A. Vessella and John L. Domenick. a. School board members were informed of these findings, among others, at Audit Conference Reviews conducted on August 10 and 25, 2000. 75. On August 9, 2000, subsequent to the Audit Exit Conference, Cagno reimbursed Reynolds School District $48.43 in mileage for use of the district van and returned the two aluminum planks to the district. a. Cagno reimbursed the district for 149 miles at a rate of $0.325 per mile by way of personal check # 2027. 1. Cagno actually utilized the district van for 173 miles. b. One of the aluminum planks returned by Cagno had been cut into two pieces and is no longer usable as a repair /replacement piece. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 13 c. Cagno made no attempt to reimburse the district for mileage or return the aluminum planks until after the Audit Exit Conference. d. Cagno made no reimbursement for use of the district truck, computer or employee salaries. 76. On October 5, 2000, the school board held a special meeting to consider possible disciplinary action regarding Cagno's actions at Reynolds School District. a. The school board found Cagno to be in violation of district policy. b. A letter of reprimand was adopted on October 5, 2000, by a vote of 7 -2 and called for Cagno to be suspended for five days without pay in response to the Department of the Auditor General's OSI investigation of Cagno's actions. The following relates to Cagno's actions while employed as the Superintendent of Valley Grove School District. 77. Cagno was employed as the superintendent of Valley Grove School District from September 1, 1993, through June 30, 1999. a. Cagno was granted a leave of absence by the school board effective April 19, 1999, which extended until his effective resignation date of June 30, 1999. 78. Cagno reported to the Valley Grove Board of Education in his position as superintendent. a. The Valley Grove School Board is composed of nine directors. 79. Cagno utilized materials, personnel, and equipment of Valley Grove School district for his own personal use or that of an immediate family member while employed as that district's superintendent. 80. In approximately April 1998, Cagno approached Ray Brown and inquired if Brown needed a laptop computer in association with his duties as the District's Assistant Superintendent/Technology Coordinator. a. The district had only one laptop computer at that time. 1. This laptop was maintained in the elementary school. b. Brown informed Cagno that a laptop computer would be convenient; however, he did not need one to fulfill his responsibilities. c. Cagno subsequently directed Brown to research the cost to the district for the purchase of one Winbook Computer with available accessories. d. Brown contacted Winbook Computer Corp., located in Columbus, OH, regarding the purchase. 81. After receiving price quotes from Winbook Computer Corp., Brown presented the information to Cagno. a. The quotes for each computer with accessories totaled $3,954.90 (including Postage and Handling). b. Cagno subsequently directed Brown to order two laptop computers with various Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 14 accessories. c. The second laptop was to be used by Cagno. 82. Two Epic Kingdom laptop computers with accessories totaling $7909.80 were ordered from Winbook Computer Corp. on April 22, 1998, by way of Valley Grove School District Purchase Order 10089. a. Cagno's signature appears in the "Superintendent's Approval" section of the Purchase Order. 83. Winbook Computer Corp. invoiced the district $7909.80 with invoice #876956 dated May 1, 1998. a. The district submitted payment to Winbook Computer Corp. with General Account Check # 021894 dated May 22, 1998, in the amount of $7909.80. 84. In the fall of 1998, Cagno supplied his district laptop (Valley Grove Property Tag #04758) to Sara Cagno for her use while attending college at the University of Pittsburgh. a. Sara Cagno had primary possession of the laptop until April 1999. b. This was the same laptop that Cagno directed Brown to purchase. 85. Sara Cagno returned the laptop to Cagno on or about April 15, 1999. a. Sara Cagno returned the laptop to Cagno at Cagno's request. 86. During the time period that Sara Cagno had possession of the Valley Grove District laptop, the school district was deprived of its use for school district business. a. Sara Cagno would not have had the computer without intervention of her father, Charles Cagno. 87. Valley Grove School District owned two Panasonic 13" TVNCR combination units as part of its AudioNisual inventory while Cagno was superintendent. a. Both units were originally maintained in the high school guidance office. 88. During Cagno's tenure, Cagno instructed Brown to bring one of the units to the administrative office building. a. The typical location of the unit was in Cagno's office. 89. Cagno eventually removed the TVNCR combination unit (Valley Grove Property Tag # 00881) from his superintendent's office and transported the equipment to his personal residence. a. Cagno utilized the unit in the laundry room area of his residence. b. Cagno did not previously have a television and /or VCR in that area. c. Cagno had access to at least two other televisions and VCRs in his residence. 90. Cagno maintained possession of the TVNCR combination unit for at least one year at his residence. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 15 a. The unit was not returned until April 14, 1999. b. The average price of a 13" Panasonic TVNCR combination unit is $179.99. 91. On May 19,1998, Brown purchased a GPS2000XL Global Positioning System unit (GPS) and battery for the district in the amount of $162.59 (tax included). a. A GPS is a hand held electronic device utilized for determining an object's latitude and longitude coordinates. b. Valley Grove School District and a consortium of other districts utilized the GPS to accurately locate the coordinate positions of the school buildings and local antennas for bidding of the Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN). 92. Brown submitted a purchase receipt and correspondence to Cagno dated May 21, 1998, requesting reimbursement in the amount of $162.59. a. Brown was reimbursed by way of Valley Grove General Account Check #021831, dated May 22, 1998, in the amount of $162.59. 93. In or about late October 1998, Cagno approached Brown and requested that Brown supply him with the GPS unit and instruct him on its use. a. Brown gave Cagno the GPS unit. b. Cagno removed the GPS unit from the district and maintained possession of the equipment for approximately six months. c. Cagno returned the unit on April 14, 1999. 94. In late 1998 /early 1999, the board became increasingly concerned with Cagno's performance and attendance as superintendent. a. The board decided to replace Cagno as Superintendent. 95. David Brandt, Valley Grove School District Solicitor, sent correspondence to Stinson Stroup, Cagno's legal representative, dated April 9, 1999, regarding the board's decision in relation to Cagno. a. Brandt informed Stroup that the school board desired that Cagno terminate his services immediately by submitting a letter of resignation to be effective June 30, 1999. b. Cagno was also to surrender four items of district property in his possession at that time. 96. Cagno responded to Brandt's correspondence by letter to Brown dated April 14, 1999, which stated: "I am holding in my hand a letter dated April 9, 1999 from David P. Brandt to Stinson Stroup, PASA attorney. At this point the contents of the letter are not important except for the following. I have four (4) items in my possession to be returned to the district. They are as follows: 1. One (1) Epic Kingdom laptop computer RJB 4/21/99 Valley Grove School Property Tag #04758 Initials Date Returned Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 16 2. One (1) Panasonic TVNCR Valley Grove School District Property Tag #00881 3. One (1) Radio Shack Electronic Rolodex No Valley Grove School District property Tag 4. One (1) GPS2000XI Global Positioning System No Valley [G]rove School District Property Tag RJB 4/14/99 Initials Date Returned RJB 4/14/99 Initials Date Returned RJB 4/14/99 Initials Date Returned I am returning to you the above items and require on this letter your verification that they have been returned on this date with the exception of the Epic Kingdom laptop computer, which will be returned as soon as possible. The original of this memorandum is to be placed in my personnel file with a copy for you and one for myself. 5. Key ring with 13 keys RJB 4/14/99" 97. Valley Grove School District maintains a Policy Manual which addresses, among other subjects, the use of district property. a. As superintendent, Cagno was issued or had access to a policy manual. 98. The manual contains the following provisions regarding the use of school district property: a. Policy #129, Section: Programs, Title Computer use policy, states, in part, that users of the district's network(s) and or computing resources may not use any network resources, including hardware, peripherals, and software for personal entertainment and /or private activities. b. Policy #708, Section: Property, Title: School Owned Equipment and Books: states, in part, that district owned equipment shall not be loaned for non - school use off school property except in the following instances: 1. Removal of school equipment from school property for personal use is prohibited by staff or students, without the written consent of the building principal or district superintendent. 2. Educational use by students may be granted with administrative permission. 3. Staff development usage may be granted with administrative recommendation. 4. Selected community public relations requests may be approved when conducted in an educational fashion. c. Policy #710, Section: Property, Title: Use of Facilities by Staff: school equipment and facilities may not be used by district staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property, without the explicit authorization or administrative permission in accordance with the following guideline: 1. The facilities and equipment of the district are only available for staff use if such use is clearly within the authorization granted in a policy of the board. Activity Value (Financial Gain) 1. Dau.hter's use of District Las o. $3,915.90 one school ear's use 2. Use of District TVNCR Combo 179.99 3. Use of District GPS Unit $ 162.59 Total $4,258.48 Date Filed Calendar Year 02/02/00 1999 03/02/99 1998 02/06/98 1997 02/24/97 1996 Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 17 99. Policy #710 specifically prohibits, among other actions the personal use of materials, tools, supplies, and equipment and the personal use of district vehicles. 100. Cagno did not inform or seek approval from the school board to utilize district owned equipment /vehicles at any time during his employment with the district. a. Cagno's use of district equipment and /or vehicles did not meet any of the exception requirements documented in the district policy manual. 101. Cagno realized a financial gain of $4,258.48 through his use of Valley Grove School District equipment, vehicles, and personnel as shown below: The following findings relate to the allegation that Charles Cagno failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests his ownership and income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium. 102. Cagno is the sole owner of a firearms business known as Dr. Charlie's Emporium. a. Cagno primarily operates Dr. Charlie's Emporium as a hobby. b. Dr. Charlie's Emporium has not had income in excess of $1,300 since 1996. 103. Cagno filed a Statement of Financial Interests in his position as Superintendent for Reynolds School District on January 28, 2000, for calendar year 1999. a. Cagno disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1999 calendar year SFI. b. Cagno did not disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his 1999 calendar year SFI filed with the Reynolds School District. 104. Cagno filed Statements of Financial Interests in his position as superintendent of Valley Grove School District as shown below: a. Cagno disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1999 and 1997 calendar year SFI's. b. Cagno did not disclose his ownership interest in Dr. Charlie's Emporium on any SFI's filed for calendar years 1996 through 1999. 105. Cagno filed an amended Statement of Financial Interests on August 7, 2000, for calendar year 1999 at both Reynolds School District and Valley Grove School district. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 18 a. Cagno disclosed his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on amended SFI's filed at both districts. b. Cagno did not disclose any direct or indirect sources of income on his amended SFI's. c. Cagno did not amend SFI's filed for calendar years 1996, 1997 or 1998 regarding his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium. d. Cagno amended his 1999 calendar year SFI after the Audit Exit Conference held on July 28, 2000. 106. Cagno realized a total financial gain of $7,348.47 [sic] as a result of the use of his public position for the benefit of himself and his immediate family including using district equipment, personnel and vehicles at both Reynolds School District and Valley Grove School District as shown below: Reynolds School District Valley Grove School District Mileage Reimbursement Total Financial Gain $3,138.43 $4,333.28[sic] $ -48.43 $7,348.47[sic] III. DISCUSSION: Initially, we must consider a procedural issue that has arisen regarding the receipt of an Answer to the Investigative Complaint. Procedurally, the pleading stage in this case began with the issuance of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report on June 27, 2001. On its face, the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report stated that an Answer and any request for a hearing had to be received at this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Findings Report . The face sheet specifically designated the issuance date as June 27, 2001. The Investigative Complaint /Findings Report was issued to Respondent through his Counsel at his Counsel's address. Respondent subsequently filed an Answer to the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. Per the cover letter and postmark, Respondent's Answer to the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report was deposited in the United Stat mail in New Castle, Pennsylvania, as ordinary first class mail on July 26, 2001, the 29 day following the mailing of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. The Answer, which did not include any request for a hearing, was not received by this Commission until July 30, 2001, thirty -three (33) days after the date the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report had been mailed to the Respondent /Respondent's Counsel. By letter dated July 30, 2001, Respondent's Counsel was notified that the Answer was untimely, that Respondent was deemed to have agreed to the averments (Findings) in the Complaint and to have waived a hearing, and that this matter was to be submitted to this Commission for disposition. On August 1, 2001, the Investigative Division filed a 3 -page letter as its Position Statement. By letter dated August 1, 2001, Respondent's Counsel was provided an opportunity to file a response to the Investigative Division's Position Statement. On August 6, 2001, a letter dated August 2, 2001, was received from Respondent's Counsel. Respondent's Counsel argued that the Answer was timely and should be considered. Respondent's Counsel acknowledged that the Answer was deposited in the mail on July 26, 2001, but cited the definition of "service" in this Commission's Regulations at 51 Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 19 Pa. Code § 11.1 for his proposition that the date of the United States postmark determines the filing date at this Commission, rather than the date of this Commission's receipt of the filing. Respondent's Counsel further argued that Respondent /Respondent's Counsel had not received the Investigative Complaint until June 29, 2001, and that if the date of receipt controls, the Answer should not have been due until July 30, 2001. Finally, Respondent's Counsel stated, "Given that we have consented to extensions of time for your Commission to complete its investigation, and given that we have cooperated in all respects with this investigation, it is disturbing that the Commission would take this position in handling our answer to the complaint, particularly when this position is contrary to law. (Letter of Cline dated August 2, 2001). We note that we find the latter statement particularly curious, because: (1) extensions for completion of an investigation do not require the input or consent of a Respondent; (2) this Commission typically does not hear from a Respondent as to such extensions; (3) in this particular case only one such extension, not multiple "extensions," was granted; and (4) although we are not privy to the files of the Investigative Division, the records of the Legal Division to which this Commission is privy make no mention of any such "consents" by the Respondent or his Counsel in this case. In any event, by letter dated August 6, 2001, Chief Counsel apprised Respondent's Counsel that based upon the Ethics Act, this Commission's Regulations, and judicial precedent under administrative law, the 30 -day period for filing an Answer with this Commission is computed from the date of issuance of the Investigative Complaint to the date of receipt of the Answer. On August 8, 2001, the due date for Respondent's response to the Position Statement of the Investigative Division, a one -page letter with attachments was received by Federal Express from Respondent's Counsel. The letter was directed to this Commission's Chief Counsel. The substance of the letter was limited to the following: Dear Mr. Dopko: On August 3, 2001, we received the Position Statement of the Investigative Division, with an indication that our response must be received on or before Wednesday, August 8, 2001. The position of Dr. Cagno is sufficiently outlined in his answers to the findings of the commission. We enclose herewith and incorporate herein a copy of the findings and the responses of Dr. Cagno. By way of further response, we incorporate herein our letter to you dated August 2, 2001, requesting reconsideration with regard to the position that our answers were untimely. A copy of this letter is also enclosed for your file and is self explanatory. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Yours truly, [signature] Jack W. Cline (Cline Letter of August 7, 2001). Attached to the letter were Respondent's Counsel's prior correspondence dated August 2, 2001, the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report and Respondent's Answer to the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 20 On August 13, 2001, the Investigative Division filed a letter reply, citing standard administrative agency practice, the Rules of Administrative Procedure (1 Pa. Code §§ 31.11 and 31.13(a)), this Commission's own regulatory definition of the term, 'filed" (51 Pa. Code § 11.1), as well as various case law, in support of its position that in order to be timely, the Respondent's Answer would have had to have been received at this Commission within 30 days of the issuance (mailing date) of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. By letter dated August 15, 2001, received August 20, 2001, Respondent's Counsel argued a lack of prejudice "by any alleged delay by the receipt of the answer" and again cited the definition of "service" in this Commission's Regulations at 51 Pa. Code § 11.1 as stating that official papers are deemed served on the date of the United States postmark. Having considered the various arguments of the parties on the timeliness issue, we conclude that the Respondent's Answer was untimely and may not be considered by this Commission. It is clear under the Ethics Act and Regulations of this Commission that in order to be timely, a response to an Investigative Complaint /Findings Report must be received at this Commission within 30 days of the issuance (mailing) of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report. Pursuant to the Ethics Act, "The response must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the findings report unless the time period is extended by the commission for good cause shown." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e) (Emphasis added). Pursuant to this Commission's Regulations, official papers are not deemed filed until the date they are physically received at the Commission Office: "Filed Official papers are filed on the date they are physically received at the Commission Office whether delivered by United States mail, express carrier, hand delivery or by Facsimile Service (FAX)...." 51 Pa. Code § 11.1 (definition of "filed "). Respondent's Counsel has apparently confused the terms "service" and "filed," because he has cited the definition of 'service' when the applicable term is "filed." In legal jargon, the term "filed" when used in the context of delivery of legal documents during a proceeding refers to the delivery of such documents to the court or proper official for preservation within the official record of the adjudicative body as to the proceeding, while the term "service" when used in the context of the delivery of legal documents during a proceeding refers to delivery to a person or entity affected by the proceeding, such as a party to th e proceeding, rather than the adjudicative body. See, Black's Law Dictionary at 566, 1227 (5 ed. 1979) (definitions of "file" and "service of process "). This Commission is an adjudicative body. The parties to this proceeding are the Respondent and the Investigative Division. The key factor in determining whether Respondent's Answer was timely filed is not when the Answer was served, but rather, when it was filed with this Commission. As noted above, per this Commission's Regulations, official papers are not deemed filed until the date they are physically received at the Commission Office. 51 Pa. Code § 11.1 (definition of "filed "). An agency's regulations that are properly promulgated pursuant to its statutory authority have the force and effect of law. City of Pittsburgh v. PH RC, 630 A.2d 919 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993), alloc. r., 537 Pa. 653, 644 A.2d 738 (1994), appeal dismissed, 538 Pa. 318, 648 A.2d 326 (1994). Indeed, a properly promulgated regulation is as valid and binding as the statute under which it was promulgated. Tubner v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Ca, 496 Pa. 215, 436 A.2d 621, 623 ote 10)(1981); Jones v. Travelers Ins. Co., 356 Pa.Super. 213, 514 A.2d 576 (1986); Girard School Districtv. Pittenger, 481 Pa. 91, 392 A.2d 261 (1978). Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 21 This Commission's Regulations were properly promulgated pursuant to its express statutory authority in Section 7(1), now Section 1107(1), of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. § 407(1)/ 65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(1). The Regulations therefore have the force and effect of law, and this Commission is bound to follow them. Com. v. State Conference of Police, 513 Pa. 285, 520 A.2d 25 (1987); Teledyne Columbia - Summerill Carnegie v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 634 A.2d 665 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1993); College Manor Ltd. v. Dep't. of Public Welfare, 498 A.2d 996 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1985). Therefore, in accordance with the Ethics Act and the Regulations of this Commission, and in conformity with prior precedent of this Commission, we conclude that Respondent's Answer was untimely because it was not filed (received at this Commission) within 30 days of issuance (mailing) of the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report, that is, on or before July 27, 2001. See, e.q., Gulnac, Order 1135; Cook, Order 1203. The above conclusions are consistent with standard administrative agency practice and Pennsylvania case law. See, 1 Pa. Code §§ 31.11, 31.13; Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 475 A.2d 1369, 1370 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984). Moreover, the due date was obvious from a simple reading of the face sheet of the Investigative Complaint. The face sheet specifically stated that an Answer had to be received by the Commission within 30 days of the issuance of the Findings Report. The face sheet specifically designated the issuance date as June 27, 2001. We note that our Re ulations allow for the filing of an application for an extension to file an Answer. 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k), 21.21 (a)(1) -(2). No such request was made in this case prior to the filing deadline. The bottom line is that the Answer in this case was received three (3) days late. In order for a late answer to be deemed timely filed, we apply the same standard as is applied by the courts to untimely appeals (see, Getz, supra, applying that standard in administrative proceedings to an untimely request for a hearing). The standard is that to accept the untimely filing as if it were timely, there must either have been fraud or a breakdown in the administrative process, see, West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 460 Pa. 551, 333 A.2d 909 (1975); Bianco v. Robinson Twp., 556 A.2d 993 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989), which includes the postal process (Getz, supra), or there must have been unique and compelling factual circumstances establishing non - negligent failure to file timely, Grimaud v. Dep't of Env. Resources, 638 A.2d 299 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994). None of the conditions for allowing the filing of a late Answer is present in this case. We must therefore decide this case based upon the averments of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report, which averments are deemed to have been admitted by the Respondent. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e); 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k)(1). As for the attempt by Respondent's Counsel to force a review of the untimely Answer by enclosing and incorporating it into his "Position Statement," as we noted, the Answer was late and the averments of the Investigative Complaint /Findings Report are deemed admitted. Having disposed of the procedural issue, we shall proceed to review the allegation, the applicable law, the facts, and the merits of this case. In his current capacity as a Superintendent of Schools for the Reynolds School District and in his former capacity as a Superintendent of Schools for the Valley Grove School District, Respondent Charles Cagno (also referred to herein as "Respondent" or "Cagno ") has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which Acts are collectively referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 22 The allegation before us is that Cagno, a public employee in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Reynolds School District and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Valley Grove School District, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a) and 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit for himself and members of his immediate family by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his residence and /or the residence of his mother; when he used school district vehicles for his personal use; when he removed school district property from the district for personal use; when he provided school district p roperty to his daughter for personal use; and when he failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests his ownership of and income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium. Sections 3(a)/1103(a) and 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act, as well as the statutory definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest," are quoted at pages 2 -3 infra. Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a "conflict of interest." The statutory elements of a conflict of interest are the use of the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, ora business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101. Key terms pertaining to Section 3(a)/1103(a) are defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Authority of office or employment." The actual power provided by law, the exercise of which is necessary to the performance of duties and responsibilities unique to a particular public office or position of public employment. sister. "Immediate family." A parent, spouse, child, brother or 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Pursuant to Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act, each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act details information that must be disclosed on the Statement of Financial Interests form. It requires, inter alia, that the filer disclose the name and address of any direct or indirect sources of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more as well as any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. The terms "financial interest" and "business" are defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Financial interest." Any financial interest in a legal entity engaged in business for profit which comprises more than 5% of the equity of the business or more than 5% of the assets of the economic interest in indebtedness. "Business." Any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association, organization, self - employed individual, holding company, joint stock company, receivership, trust or any legal entity organized for profit. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 23 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Having noted the allegation and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Respondent Charles M. Cagno is currently employed as the Superintendent of the Reynolds School District, Greenville, Pennsylvania. Cagno's employment contract with the Reynolds School District began on July 1, 1999, and is effective through June 30, 2003. Cagno was associated with the district as an unpaid consultant from May 10, 1999, through June 30, 1999. Cagno previously served as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District, Franklin, Pennsylvania, from September 1, 1993, to June 30, 1999. Per the Findings of the Investigative Complaint, which, as discussed above, Cagno is deemed to have admitted, Cagno realized a total financial gain of $7,348.48 as a result of the use of his public positions at the Reynolds School District and Valley Grove School District for the private benefit of himself and /or members of his immediate family. The following facts relate to Cagno's actions in his current position as the Superintendent of the Reynolds School District. As noted above, Cagno has served as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District from July 1, 1999, to the present. Cagno's duties as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District include, inter alia, examining and interpreting school district policy statements and providing guidance and direction to the school board in the establishment of district -wide policies and operations consistent with the School Code, Department of Education rules and regulations, and good educational practice. The Reynolds School District maintains a Policy Manual which addresses, among other subjects, the improper use of school district property. Cagno was provided with a copy of the Policy Manual. Relevant policies are set forth in Finding 69. Such policies state, in part, that no equipment shall be removed for personal or non - school use except in accordance with board policy; that items of district owned equipment shall not be loaned for non - school use off school property, subject to certain enumerated exceptions; and that school equipment and facilities (specifically district telephones, materials, tools, supplies and equipment, and vehicles) may not be used by district staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property, without explicit authorization or administrative permission in accordance with the following guidelines: that (1) such use is clearly within the authorization granted in a policy of the board; 2 temporary approval has been granted by the Superintendent and reported to the board; or (3) a personal emergency exists in which life or property is endangered. In August 1999, shortly after commencing employment with the Reynolds School District, Cagno began utilizing Reynolds School District materials, personnel, vehicles, and equipment for private purposes. In each such instance, Cagno's actions inured to his own personal benefit or to the benefit of one of his immediate family members. On August 4, 1999, Cagno utilized a subordinate school district employee, Stephen M. Spanitz ( "Spanitz "), the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds at Reynolds School District, and a school district vehicle and fuel for personal purposes. At Cagno's instruction and on school district time, Spanitz drove Cagno in the district's one -ton truck to purchase and deliver two loads of gravel to Cagno's mothers residence, where Cagno also resides. Also on August 4, 1999, Cagno instructed Spanitz to load two aluminum bleacher planks owned by the school Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 24 district into the district's one -ton dump truck. Cagno informed Spanitz that he and Spanitz were going to take the planks to his mother's residence. In accordance with Cagno's instructions, Spanitz removed the school district's aluminum planks from the district's facility and took them to Cagno's/Cagno's mother's residence. However, Spanitz used his personal vehicle rather than the school district's vehicle, and he transported the planks after normal district working hours. Each of the 15 foot aluminum planks was valued at approximately $100.00. August 4, 1999, was a regular workday for Spanitz. On that day, Cagno utilized Spanitz for approximately 2 hours of personal /non - school related activities while Spanitz was on district time. Spanitz's salary at the time was equivalent to $19.08 per hour. Additionally, the school district's truck was driven at Cagno's instruction for Cagno's personal purposes for approximately 31 miles. Cagno made no reimbursement to the school district for such personal use of the school district's vehicle or fuel. One week later, on August 11, 1999, Cagno again used school district personnel and a school district vehicle and fuel for personal purposes. At approximately 1:45 p.m., Cagno approached two subordinates, Joseph Torok and Ronald Bradley, who are Co- Principals at Reynolds High School, and instructed them to get into the districts one -ton truck. Torok and Bradley complied. Using the school district truck, Cagno purchased and transported gravel to his mother's residence, where he dumped the gravel into a rectangular area surrounded by footers. Torok observed that two sides of the footer rectangle had been constructed from the same type of aluminum planking that had been in the district garage. Cagno, Torok, and Bradley hand spread the gravel to a level surface in the footer form. Cagno, Torok, and Bradley returned to the district administrative offices at approximately 3:15 p.m. August 11, 1999, was a regular workday for Torok and Bradley. On that day, Cagno utilized Torok and Bradley for approximately 11/2 hours each of personal /non - school related activities while Torok and Bradley were on district time. Torok and Bradley assisted Cagno as a result of Cagno's specific direction. At the time, Torok's salary was equivalent to $31.72 per hour, and Bradley's salary was equivalent to $29.83 per hour. In the fall of 1999, Cagno asked Spanitz if the district had anything that he could use for unclogging drains and /or cleaning septic systems. Spanitz indicated that the district keeps cleaning enzymes on hand to clean grease traps at the district cafeterias. Cagno instructed Spanitz to provide him with two bottles of the cleaning enzymes, which are valued at approximately $10.00 per bottle. Spanitz provided the enzymes to Cagno because Cagno is Spanitz's direct supervisor. Cagno used one bottle of the enzymes to clean /clear a drain at his residence. The other bottle is located in Cagno's office at the Reynolds School District. Cagno did not reimburse the district for the cost of the bottle which he used for personal purposes. During or about the week of September 19, 1999, Cagno directed Spanitz to remove the cargo seats from a 1995 blue van owned by the district. Cagno then utilized the van on the weekend of September 25 and 26, 1999, to relocate his daughter from her apartment in the Squirrel Hill area of Pittsburgh to Hermitage, Pennsylvania. Cagno did not sign the vehicle out through the Director of Transportation as required by district policy. Cagno did not complete or submit to the Director of Transportation the record of mileage as required by district policy. Total round trip mileage from the district garage to Pittsburgh and back is approximately 150 miles. In late August /early September 1999, Cagno was provided with one of four laptops purchased by the school district. Cagno's signature appears in the "Administrator'sApproval" section of the requisition form by which the computers were purchased. The cost of the computer with accessories totaled $2,334.54. However, Cagno did not utilize the school district laptop for district /school related Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 25 business. In September /October 1999, Cagno provided the district laptop computer to his daughter, Sara Cagno, for her use in graduate school. Sara Cagno maintained primary possession of the district laptop from September 1999 until approximately October2000. Sara Cagno ultimately returned the laptop to Cagno at Cagno's request. While Sara Cagno maintained possession of the laptop, the school district was deprived of the opportunity to use the computer for school district purposes. At the time Cagno asked his daughter to return the laptop, he was aware that he was the subject of investigations by the Auditor General's Office of Special Investigations and /or the State Ethics Commission for using school district property for personal purposes. Cagno did not inform or seek approval from the school board to utilize district owned equipment and /or personnel at any time during his employment with the district. Cagno's use of district equipment and /or vehicles did not meet any of the exception requirements documented in the district Policy Manual. In 2000, after the Department of the Auditor General's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) had conducted an investigation of allegations concerning the misuse of Reynolds School District property by Cagno, Cagno admitted to the misuse of district property, unauthorized use of district vehicles and the filing of inaccurate Statements of Financial Interests. On August 9, 2000, subsequent to the Audit Exit Conference, Cagno under - reimbursed Reynolds School District $48.43 in mileage for use of the district van. Cagno also returned the two aluminum planks to the district, one of which had been cut into two pieces and was no longer usable as a repair /replacement piece. Cagno made no reimbursement for use of the district truck, computer or employee salaries. Per the admitted Findings, Cagno realized a financial gain of $3,090 ($3138.43 less a $48.43 mileage reimbursement) through his use of Reynolds School District equipment, vehicles and personnel for private purposes as set forth in Findings 71 and 75. On October 5, 2000, the school board held a special meeting to consider possible disciplinary action regarding Cagno's actions at the Reynolds School District. The school board found Cagno to be in violation of district policy. A letter of reprimand was adopted on October 5, 2000, by a vote of 7 -2 and called for Cagno to be suspended for five days without pay in response to the Department of the Auditor General's OSI investigation of Cagno's actions. The following facts relate to Cagno's actions in his former position as the Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District. As noted above, Cagno served as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District, Franklin, Pennsylvania, from September 1, 1993, to June 30, 1999. Valley Grove School District maintains a Policy Manual which addresses, among other subjects, the improper use of school district property. As Superintendent, Cagno was issued or had access to the Policy Manual. Relevant provisions of the Policy Manual are set forth in Finding 98. Personal use of materials, tools, supplies, and equipment and the personal use of district vehicles is specifically prohibited. Per the manual, users of the district's network(s) and or computing resources may not use any network resources, including hardware, peripherals, and software, for personal entertainment and /or private activities. District owned equipment may not be loaned for non - school use off school property subject to certain enumerated exceptions, specifically, (1) removal of school equipment from school property for personal use is prohibited by staff or students, without the written consent of the building principal or district superintendent; (2) educational use by students may be granted with administrative permission; (3) staff development usage may be granted with administrative recommendation; and (4) selected community public relations requests may be approved when conducted in an Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 26 educational fashion. School equipment and facilities may not be used by district staff for personal reasons, either on or off school property, without the explicit authorization or administrative permission in accordance with the guideline that the facilities and equipment of the district are only available for staff use if such use is clearly within the authorization granted in a policy of the board. While employed as the Superintendent of Valley Grove School District, Cagno used the authority of his public position to remove school district property from the school district for private use by himself and /or member(s) of his immediate family. In April 1998 Cagno directed Ray Brown, the District's Assistant Superintendent /Technology Coordinator, to order two laptop computers with various accessories. Each computer with accessories totaled $3,954.90, including postage and handling. One of the laptops was to be used by Brown and the other laptop was to be used by Cagno. Cagno's signature appears in the "Superintendent's Approval" section of the Purchase Order. The school district paid for these laptop computers. In the fall of 1998, Cagno supplied his district laptop (Valley Grove Property Tag #04758) to his daughter, Sara Cagno, for her use while attending college at the University of Pittsburgh. This was the same laptop that Cagno had directed Brown to purchase. Sara Cagno had primary possession of the laptop until April 1999. During the time period that Sara Cagno had possession of the Valley Grove School District laptop, the school district was deprived of its use for school district business. Sara Cagno returned the laptop to Cagno on or about April 15, 1999, at Cagno's request. Also while Cagno was Superintendent, Valley Grove School District owned two Panasonic 13" TVNCR combination units as part of its AudioNisual inventory. Both units were originally maintained in the high school guidance office. During Cagno's tenure, Cagno instructed Brown to bring one of the units to the administrative office building. Cagno eventually removed the TVNCR combination unit (Valley Grove Property Tag # 00881) from his superintendent's office and transported the equipment to his personal residence. Cagno utilized the unit in the laundry room area of his residence. Cagno did not previously have a television and /or VCR in that area. Cagno had access to at least two other televisions and VCRs in his residence. Cagno maintained possession of the TVNCR combination unit for at least one year at his residence. The unit was not returned until April 14, 1999. The average price of a 13" Panasonic TVNCR combination unit is $179.99. In May 1998 the Valley Grove School District purchased a GPS2000XL Global Positioning System unit (GPS) and battery for $162.59 (tax included). Valley Grove School District and a consortium of other districts utilized the GPS to accurately locate the coordinate positions of the school buildings and local antennas for bidding of the Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN). In or about late October 1998 Cagno approached Brown and requested that Brown supply him with the GPS unit and instruct him on its use. Brown gave Cagno the GPS unit. Cagno removed the GPS unit from the district and maintained possession of the equipment for approximately six months. Cagno returned the unit on April 14, 1999. In late 1998 /early 1999, the Valley Grove School Board became increasingly concerned with Cagno's performance and attendance as Superintendent. The board decided to replace Cagno as Superintendent. By letter dated April 9, 1999, from the Valley Grove School District Solicitor to Cagno's legal representative, Cagno was asked to terminate his services immediately by submitting a letter of resignation to be effective June 30, 1999. Cagno was also to surrender certain items of district property in his possession at that time. Per a letter from Cagno to Brown quoted at Finding 96, Cagno returned to the Valley Grove School District the following items on or about the dates indicated: Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 27 Item Date Returned 1. One (1) Epic Kingdom laptop computer 4/21/99 Valley Grove School District Property Tag #04758 2. One (1) Panasonic TVNCR 4/14/99 Valley Grove School District Property Tag #00881 3. One (1) Radio Shack Electronic Rolodex 4/14/99 No Valley Grove School District property Tag 4. One (1) GPS2000XI Global Positioning System 4/14/99 No Valley Grove School District Property Tag 5. Key ring with 13 keys 4/14/99 During his employment with the Valley Grove School District, Cagno did not at any time inform or seek approval from the school board to utilize district owned equipment. Cagno's use of the district's equipment did not meet any of the exception requirements documented in the district's Policy Manual. Per the admitted Findings, Cagno realized a financial gain of $4,258.48 through his use of Valley Grove School District equipment and personnel for private purposes as set forth in Finding 101. We would note that there may be an error in the amount reflected in Finding 101 for the laptop computer, but we resolve the possible disparity in favor of the Respondent by using the lower figure as set forth in Finding 101. The following facts relate to the allegation that Charles Cagno failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests his ownership and income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium. Cagno is the sole owner of a firearms business known as "Dr. Charlie's Emporium." Cagno primarily operates Dr. Charlie's Emporium as a hobby. Dr. Charlie's Emporium has not had income in excess of $1,300 since 1996. Cagno filed a Statement of Financial Interests in his position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District on January 28, 2000, for calendar year 1999. Cagno disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1999 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests. Cagno did not disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his 1999 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Reynolds School District. In his position as Superintendent of Valley Grove School District, Cagno filed Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996 -1999 as set forth in Finding 104. Cagno disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1997 and 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests. Cagno did not disclose his ownership interest in Dr. Charlie's Emporium on any Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 1996 through 1999. Cagno filed an amended Statement of Financial Interests on August 7, 2000, for calendar y ear 1999 at both Reynolds School District and Valley Grove School District. Cagno disclosed ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on amended Statements of Financial Interests filed at both districts. Cagno did not disclose any direct or indirect sources of income on his amended Statements of Financial Interests. Cagno did not amend Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 1996, 1997 or 1998 regarding his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium. Cagno amended his 1999 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests after the Audit Exit Conference held on July 28, 2000. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 28 Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Cagno, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Reynolds School District and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Valley Grove School District, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a) or 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act. Since the investigation in this matter was initiated October 12, 2000, we may only review incidents which occurred from October 12, 1995 forward. 65 Pa.C.S. §1108(m). All of the conduct which is before us for review occurred within that timeframe. In applying the first and second portions of the allegation to the facts before us, it is clear that during the time period under review, Respondent did on numerous occasions use the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his mother or daughter, members of his immediate family, by using school district vehicles for personal use and by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his /his mother's residence. On August 4, 1999, Cagno directed Spanitz, the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds for the Reynolds School District, to take two aluminum bleacher planks owned by the school district to Cagno's mother's residence. In accordance with Cagno's instructions, Spanitz did remove the aluminum planks from a school district facility and delivered them to Cagno's/Cagno's mother's residence. Each of the 15 foot aluminum planks was valued at approximately $100.00. Also on August 4, 1999, Cagno utilized Spanitz' working time for the school district as well as a school district vehicle and fuel to purchase and deliver two loads of gravel to Cagno's /Cagno's mother's residence. On August 11, 1999, Cagno used school district personnel (Torok and Bradley) and a school district vehicle and fuel to purchase, transport, and spread gravel for his mother's residence on school district time. Torok and Bradley assisted Cagno as a result of Cagno's specific direction. Accordingly, we find that there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act on August 4, 1999, and on August 11, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and his mother, a member of his immediate family, by using school district vehicles for his personal use and by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his /his mother's residence. See, e.q., Dovidio, Order 1202; Johnston, Order 1200; Lucchino, Order 1031; Zanqrilli, Order 946; Brunton, Order 884; Rakowsky, Order 744. Likewise, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act on the weekend of September 25 -26, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent for the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by using a school district van to relocate his daughter from her apartment in the Squirrel Hill area of Pittsburgh to Hermitage, Pennsylvania. See, Rakowsky, Order 744 (use of school district vehicle for personal purposes). In applying the third portion of the allegation to the facts before us, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his mother, a member of his immediate family, by removing and using for personal purposes a Panasonic 13" TVNCR combination unit and a GPS2000XL Global Positioning System unit (GPS) belonging to the Valley Grove School District and one bottle of cleaning enzymes belonging to the Reynolds School District. See, Taylor, Order 1201. Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 29 In applying the fourth portion of the allegation to the facts before us, there is clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in both 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by providing school district laptop computers to his daughter for her personal use in college and graduate school. See, Rakowsky, Order 943 (use of school district office equipment for personal purposes). At both school districts, Cagno played an official role in ordering the very laptops he subsequently provided to his daughter. While Cagno's daughter maintained possession of each of the two laptops, the respective school districts were deprived of the opportunity to use such computers for school district purposes. Cagno did not return the Valley Grove School District laptop until after he had been asked to resign and to surrender district property in his possession. Cagno did not return the Reynolds School District laptop until after he became aware that he was the subject of investigations by the Auditor General's Office of Special Investigations and /or the State Ethics Commission for using school district property for personal purposes. In considering the totality of the facts in this case, there are no mitigating circumstances that would lessen the severity of the above violations. Cagno was a highly educated school administrator who knew or should have known that his private use of school district property and personnel was, at the very least, contrary to school district policy. Finally, we shall consider the fifth portion of the allegation pertaining to the alleged deficiency of Cagno's Statements of Financial Interests. Based upon the facts before us, we find that Cagno violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his ownership of "Dr. Charlie's Emporium" on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996, 1997, and 1998 filed with the Valley Grove School District, and when he failed to timely disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar year 1999 filed with the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District. As the sole owner of the business, Cagno was required to disclose such ownership under Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act as a financial interest in a legal entity engaged in business for profit. Although Cagno ultimately amended his 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests at both school districts to disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium, Cagno has not filed amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996, 1997 or 1998 to disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium. He is hereby directed to do so. We find no violation as to Cagno's alleged failure to disclose income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996 -1999. The disclosure threshold for sources of income was $1,000 in the aggregate for calendar year 1996 and $1,300 in the aggregate for calendar years 1997 -1999. Based upon the facts before us, it is not clear whether Cagno's income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium would have been sufficient to require disclosure of the business as a source of income for any of those calendar years. We would note that per the admitted Findings, Cagno disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1997 and 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests or his amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar year 1999. Since Cagno's income from the respective school districts would certainly have exceeded the disclosure threshold, the Valley Grove School District should have been listed as a source of income on the 1997 Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 30 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Valley Grove School District, and both the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District should have been listed as sources of income on the 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests filed with both school districts. Cagno is directed to amend his 1997 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests at the Valley Grove School District and his 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests at the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District to disclose the school districts as sources of income as set forth above. We shall now consider the matter of restitution to the school districts. Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to impose restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. Restitution is warranted in this case. Per the admitted Findings, Cagno realized a financial gain of $4,258.48 through his use of Valley Grove School District equipment and personnel for private purposes as set forth in Finding 101. Cagno realized a financial gain of $3,090 $3138.43 less a $48.43 mileage reimbursement) through his use of Reynolds School District equipment, vehicles and personnel for private purposes as set forth in Findings 71 and 75. Accordingly, Cagno is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make payment of restitution through this Commission to the Valley Grove School District in the amount of $4,258.48, and to the Reynolds School District in the amount of $3,090.00, such that the total restitution to be paid is in the amount of $7,348.48. Non - compliance with the directives of this Commission as set forth in this adjudication and Order will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. In his current capacity as a Superintendent of Schools for the Reynolds School District and in his former capacity as a Superintendent of Schools for the Valley Grove School District, Respondent Charles Cagno ( "Cagno ") has at all times relevant to these proceedings been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which Acts are collectively referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." 2. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act on August 4, 1999, and on August 11, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and his mother, a member of his immediate family, by using school district vehicles for his personal use and by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his /his mother's residence. 3. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act on the weekend of September 25 -26, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by using a school district van to relocate his daughter from her apartment in the Squirrel Hill area of Pittsburgh to Hermitage, Pennsylvania. 4. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his mother, a member of his immediate family, by removing and using for personal purposes a Panasonic 13" TVNCR combination unit and a GPS2000XL Global Positioning System unit (GPS) belonging to the Valley Grove Cagno 00- 054 -C2 Page 31 School District and one bottle of cleaning enzymes belonging to the Reynolds School District. 5. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in both 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by providing school district laptop computers to his daughter for her personal use in college and graduate school. 6. Cagno violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his ownership of "Dr. Charlie's Emporium," a firearms business, on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996, 1997, and 1998 filed with the Valley Grove School District, and when he failed to timely disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar year 1999 filed with the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District. 7. Based upon an insufficiency of evidence, Cagno did not violate Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act as to the alleged failure to disclose income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996 -1999. 8. Cagno failed to disclose the Valley Grove School District as a source of income on his 1997 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Valley Grove School District. 9. Cagno failed to disclose the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District as sources of income on his 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District. 10. Restitution is warranted in this case. In Re: Charles Cagno ORDER NO. 1204 File Docket: 00- 054 -C2 Date Decided: 8/22/01 Date Mailed: 8/24/01 1. Respondent Charles Cagno ( "Cagno ") violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which Acts are collectively referred to herein as the "Ethics Act," on August 4, 1999, and on August 11, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and his mother, a member of his immediate family, by using school district vehicles for his personal use and by directing school district employees to transport school district property to his /his mother's residence. 2. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act on the weekend of September 25 -26, 1999, when he used the authority of his public position as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by using a school district van to relocate his daughter from her apartment in the Squirrel Hill area of Pittsburgh to Hermitage, Pennsylvania. 3. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his mother, a member of his immediate family, by removing and using for personal purposes a Panasonic 13" TVNCR combination unit and a GPS2000XL Global Positioning System unit (GPS) belonging to the Valley Grove School District and one bottle of cleaning enzymes belonging to the Reynolds School District. 4. Cagno violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in both 1998 and 1999 when he used the authority of his public positions as Superintendent of the Valley Grove School District and as Superintendent of the Reynolds School District for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or his daughter, a member of his immediate family, by providing school district laptop computers to his daughter for her personal use in college and graduate school. 5. Cagno violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose his ownership of "Dr. Charlie's Emporium," a firearms business, on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996, 1997, and 1998 filed with the Valley Grove School District, and when he failed to timely disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar year 1999 filed with the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District. 6. Based upon an insufficiency of evidence, Cagno did not violate Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act as to the alleged failure to disclose income from Dr. Charlie's Emporium on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996 -1999. 7. Cagno failed to disclose the Valley Grove School District as a source of income on his 1997 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests filed with the Valley Grove School District. 8. Cagno failed to disclose the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District as sources of income on his 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests filed with the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District. 9. Cagno is ordered to pay restitution through this Commission to the Valley Grove School District in the amount of $4,258.48 by forwarding to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order a check in the amount of $4,258.48 payable to the Valley Grove School District. 10. Cagno is ordered to pay restitution through this Commission to the Reynolds School District in the amount of $3,090.00 by forwarding to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order a check in the amount of $3,090.00 payable to the Reynolds School District. 11. Cagno is directed to amend his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1996, 1997 and 1998 with the Valley Grove School District to disclose his ownership of Dr. Charlie's Emporium. 12. Cagno is directed to amend his 1997 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests at the Valley Grove School District to disclose the Valley Grove School District as a source of income. 13. Cagno is directed to amend his 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests at the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District to disclose both the Valley Grove School District and the Reynolds School District as sources of income. 14. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR