Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout351-R RittenbaughMr. Gerard F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. Township Supervisor R.D. #1 Douglassville, PA 19518 Re: 83- 129 -C, Order 351 Dear Mr. Rittenbaugh: This refers to the Petition for RecorL i yr, lsented on December 5, 1985, with respect to the above captured Or -, e; isued .)n No°scmher 28, 1984, pursuant to 51 Pa. Code 2.38. The State . hics Commission, halving reviewed same, order that reconsideration is 3RAhlED. The Commission having granted reconsid,rat on may, pursuant to regulations, 51 Pa. Code L38(c) take any of th;. following actions: (1) Order crew hear°irgs, pursuant to Section 2.34. (:.) (:.or! duct oral argument to dispose of this clatter or to determine how. -to proceed further. ( ) Require `urher investigation as needed. (4) Take ot� wr action— r.d issue orders necessary to c'isoose of the case, Pursuaht tc t';ese regulations, the Commission in this rase, issue Order No. 351 -•R. Pursuant to Stc't.a Erhecs Commission regulations, 51 Pa.. Code 2..33(a), the Order and this dec~sioi grantR o, reconsideration are final anri will ' e made available as a public document 15 d':ys after service (defined as railing). EMS /na STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA t7120 RECONSIDERATION ORDER OF THE COMMISSION April 18, 1985 Order No. 351 -R Sincerely, Herbert B. Conner Chairman Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. Township Supervisor R.D. #1 Douglassville, PA 19518 Re: No. 83 -129 -C STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HA ORDFR OF G T`HE E COM S MI It 17120 April 18, 1985 Order No. 351 -R Dear Mr. Rittenbaugh: The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding you and a possible violation of Act 170 of 1978. The Commission has now completed its investigation. The individual allegations, conclusions and findings on which those conclusions are based are as follows: I. Allegation: That as a Supervisor in Union Township, you were emp1yec by or contracted with Genesco Construction Company or acted as a sub to perform work in the Gramacy Gardens Development located in Union Towuiship and participated in or conducted inspections for the Township of such work or allowed this work to be done without inspection by the Township engineer, and also you are participating in discussions, negotiations, and decisions of and with the Township regarding acceptability of your work. These ;actions allegedly violate Section 1 and Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 401 and 403(a). A. Findings: 1. You served as a Supervisor in Union Township, hereinafter, the Township, from September 15, 1980 until December 31, 1983 and as such, at all tins pertinent to this proceeding, you were a "public official" subject to the Ethics Act. 2. Genesco Construction Company, hereinafter, GCC, accquired a tract of land in the Township in September, 1980. a. This land was acquired from the Kissell Company. b. The Kissell Company had planned to subdivide and develop this tract of land, but due to economic conditions, abandoned this project. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. April 18, 1985 Page 2 c. Kissell Company, had, prior to when GCC acquired this land, sought and obtained Township approvals necessary to subdivide this tract. d. This tract, known as Gramacy Gardens, upon transfer to GCC, received all necessary Township approvals for completion of the subdivision and development, including an agreement between GCC and the Township to construct 300 feet of road as Phase I of Gramacy Gardens Section II. 3. The construction listed in (d) above involved the following: a. Sanitary sewer installation by GCC. b. Storm sewer installation by R & K Excavating, Perkiomenville, PA, owned by Ronald Spiece. c. Road : excavation and grading by R & K, with the blacktopping to be done by another firm. 4. The owner /developer, GCC, established a bond or an escrow account in accordance with Township requirements to insure the satisfactory completion of the work described in No. 3, above. 5. The minutes of the Township were reviewed through January 6, 1984, but are kept in such a manner that it is difficult to be certain about the actions taken or the extent or manner in which you participated as a Supervisor with respect to Gramacy Gardens, GCC, or the construction in this development, in general. a. Minutes of May 24, 1982 indicated the President of GCC provided a letter of credit for $43,140.93 to the Township and the supervisors and solicitor for the Township executed an "improvements agreement." b. However, the minutes of June 21, 1982 indicate that plans of GCC for lots 39, 40, 41, 62, and 63 were "accepted" by the Township. c. Minutes of June 20, 1983 reported that Gramacy Gardens. was "completed." d. On December 19, 1983, the minutes indicate that everything is "in place" at Gramacy Gardens except one manhole (No. 724). e. On January 16, 1984, the minutes record that an escrow account in lieu of a bond agreement (see No. 4, above) was presented by GCC and forwarded to the Township engineer for review. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. Page 3 f. The March 28, 1984 minutes state this escrow account was approved by the Township engineer and supervisors. There is no recordation in any of these minutes that you abstained.' from the Township decisions on these items. g . 6. You perform mechanical repair work as a "self- employed" businessman and, on occasion, you undertake road building and road repair projects. a. b. c. d. e. f. g . a. b. April 18, 1985 You were hired by GCC to do blacktopping work in the Gramacy Garden subdivision. You were hired to do this work when the firm, GCC, had or intended to contract with for this work could not undertake this work because of a prior commitment or contract. You aid this work on a cost -plus basis and were paid by GCC for these services. There is no or that you There is no GCC. evidence that you had worked for GCC prior to this job have done work for GCC since this job. evidence that you solicited or sought this work from There is no evidence that when GCC sought or secured Township approval for the Gramacy Garden subdivision that you knew or should have known you would be asked to undertake the paving work described above. There is no evidence that the paving work you obtained from and did for GCC was sought, secured, offered or accepted on the understanding that your official conduct was intended to be or was influenced thereby. 7. Some controversy has arisen as to the proper installation of the roadway in Gramacy Gardens. The minutes of the Township, as of January 6, 1984, do not indicate the Township had accepted these roads as public streets. The escrow accounts, as offered by GCC, reviewed by the Township engineer, and accepted by the supervisors are designed to protect against failure or improper completion of required items, such as roadways. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. April 18, 1985 Page 4 c. You had no role in seeking or securing the inspection or, any lack thereof, of the roadways in Gramacy Gardens by the Township or other engineer(s). 8. You had sought and secured the (oral) opinion and approval of the Township solicitor that you could ethically and legally undertake this blacktopping work for GCC. B. Discussion: As a "public official" you were required to observe Section 3(b) of the State Ethics Act as follows: Section 3. Restricted activities. (b) No person shall offer or give to a public official or public employee or candidate for public office or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated, and no public official or public employee or candidate for public office shall solicit or accept, anything of value, including a gift, loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future employment based on any understanding that the vote, official action, or judgment of the public official or public employee or candidate for public office would be influenced thereby. 65 P.S. 403(b). There is no evidence upon the facts set forth above that Section 3(b) of the Ethics Act has been implicated or violated. We must also review your conduct in light of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act which states that: Section 3. Restricted activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office or any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. 403(a). In its opinions, the State Ethics Commission has stated that where an official is the recipient of a contract or a sub - contract from a developer whose plans the official reviewed for approval, the official must: (1) not use his official position to obtain such employment; (2) not utilize confidential information gained in his official capacity to secure such employment; Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. April 18, 1985 Page 5 (3) refrain from voting on a developer's plans where he will seek, has been asked or can reasonably and legitimately anticipate being asked to perform work for the developer; (4) refrain from voting on matters related to a developer from whom he obtains work where he, as supervisor, may be asked to vote on matters which arise after he has obtained such work; (5) make public his relationship with developer or acquired with the developer and the reasons for his abstention as required by (3) and (4) immediately above. The public disclosure requirement would be met by an announcement at the Supervisors' public meeting. Sowers, 80 -050. As outlined and found above, you had no prior or continuing relationship with GCC other with respect to this one paving job. There was no expectation yogi would seek or be asked to undertake this job. Thus, even under the standards set forth in Sowers, there would be no reason to require you to observe Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act by abstaining on GCC requests for Township approval prior to your undertaking this work for GCC. With respect to your actions after you performed this work for GCC, we have no evidence that you did not appropriately abstain. Given the fact you left office in December, 1983, it is unlikely such opportunities could arise in the future. Should you re- assume public office and be faced with official - township decisions regarding Gramacy Gardens, you should observe the limitations outlined above. If you are in doubt as to your future duties and obligations under the Ethics Act, you should seek our advice or opinion. C. Conclusion: There is no evidence that you should have or did not appropriately refrain from participating in Township decisions regarding Gramacy Gardens. We find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act and will take no further action in this matter. II. Allegation: That as a Supervisor in Union Township, you are zovered by Blue Cross /Blue Shield policies which are paid for by the Township in violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 403(a). A. Findings: In addition to the findings set forth above, we make the following. 9. As a Supervisor, you were included on the Blue Cross /Blue Shield insurance plan, hereinafter BC /BS or the "plan," purchased and paid for by the Township. 10. You were included on this plan from May 1, 1982 through October 1, 1983. 11 a. You were added to this plan by order of the Chairman of the Township Supervisor;., Ronald Kretzman. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. Page 6 17. On December 5, 1984, you appealed that Order. April 18, 1985 b. There are no facts to show you were appointed as roadmaster, superintendent, laborer, or secretary- treasurer of the Township or that the auditors of the Township approved your inclusion on these plans, at Township expense, as part of your compensation for service in such a position. 12. You were the only Supervisor to be included on these plans. 13. The cost to the Township of your inclusion on these plans for this period was $954.00. 14. There is no evidence that you utilized the coverage provided by these plans during the period of your inclusion thereon. 15. You were removed from these plans as a result of an auditor's report indicating that because you were not a full -time employee of the Township you were not eligible for enrollment on these plans. 16. On November 28, 1984, the Commission issued Order No. 351 finding that you had violated Section 3(a) of the law and requiring repayment of the $954 premium which had been paid for by the township for your hospitalization. 18. On January 11, 1985, you provided documentation for your appeal. 19. On February 6, 1985, the Commission granted reconsideration and allowed you 15 days to provide evidence supporting the following statements made in your January-11, 1985 letter. 1. That the former township solicitor advised Chairman Ronald Kretzman that it was legal for you to have the township pay for your hospitalization insurance. 2. That Donna Savidge, Trustees Insurance Fund Manager, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, Camp Hill, told Chairman Kretzman that it was legal for the township to have the township pay the premiums for your hospitalization insurance. 3. That you removed yourself from this plan in September, 1983 after discussing the matter with your solicitor, Ronald Seynier. 4. You may also submit other evidence that will support your belief that you acted in good faith and should not be subject to a penalty. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. April 18, 1985 Page 7 20. On February 11, 1985, we received a letter from Ronald J. Kretzman, former Chairman of the Board of Supervisors (Chairman during the time you received payment for your hospitalization plan). He stated the following: a. On two different occasions, he contacted Donna Savidge, Trustees Inusrance Fund Manager, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, Camp Hill, asking her advice on coverage for supervisors such as you and was advised that it was legal for a supervisor to be covered by the Trustees Insurance. b. He also contacted the Solicitor at that time, who also advised him that it would be legal to have you covered by this insurance. 21. On February 15, 1985, the Commission received a letter from Ronald H. Reynier, current Solicitor for Union Township, in which he said: a. His office became Solicitor for Union Township, Berks County,in January, 1983. b. He was present at a township meeting on September of 1983, when the issue of hospitalization insurance for township supervisors was raised. c. He advised you that the issue had not yet been judicially determined but that he felt the law did not support the Association's position that it was legal for the township to pay for your hospitalization plan. 22. Upon his advice, you voluntarily removed yourself from the township hospitalization plan. B. Discussion: The facts here indicate you were not appointed as and /or serving the Township in the capacity of roadmaster, superintendent, etc. or that you were to receive the coverage of the BC /BS plans as part of the compensation approved and fixed by the Township auditors for supervisors serving in such capacities. As such, you should not have been eligible for inclusion, at Township expense, on these plans. See Krane, 84 -001. While the Ethics Act specifies certain penalties for such a violation, a review of this situation in light of the evidence that you have presented leads us to the conclusion that we should take no further action. You participated in this program after the advice and assurances that such participation was authorized under the law. After being informed otherwise by your township solicitor, you removed yourself from the program. This is evidence that you were acting in good faith and we will, therefore, take no further action. Mr. Gerald F. Rittenbaugh, Sr. April 18, 1985 Page 8 Our files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 P.S. 408(a). However, this Order is final and will be made available as a public document 15 days after service (defined as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justifies •' reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. Code 2.38. During this 15-day period, no one, including the Respondent unless he waives his right to challenge this Order, may violate this confidentiality by releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. Any person who violates the confidentiality of a Commission proceeding is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). SSC /na y the C m��,�'sio Herb t Chairman nner