Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout650 IorfidoMr. Edward Iorfido c/o Joseph M. Stanicnak Attorney at:Law 700 Franklin Avenue Aliquippa, PA 15001 Re: 86- 116 -C, 87 -041 -C Dear Mr. Iorfido: STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 ORDER OF THE COMMISSION -Order 650 Date Decided: June 10, 1988 Date Mailed: June 24, 1988 The State Ethics Commission has received a complaint regarding ynu and &. 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 you, a member of the Board of Directors of the Ambridge Water Authority, - violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act - which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain, in that yoe voted at a meeting of the authority to increase working hours and to grant a 4% wage increase for authority members which includes your son who maintains residence in your home. A. Findings: 1. You serve as an elected member of the Ambridge Borough Council. a. You have served in this position since 1981. 2. You also serve as an appointed member of the Ambridge Water Authority. a. You were appointed to the authority by borough council on January 6, 1986 to fill an unexpired term. 3. Records of the Ambridge Water Authority indicate that James Vincent Iorfido has been employed by the Authority as a summer worker since 1981. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 2 a. James Vincent Iorfido is your son. b. An employment application for James Vincent Iorfido lists his permanent address as 84 16th Street, Ambridge., Pennsylvania. c. The date of birth is indicated as October 2, 1965. 4. You reside at 84 16th Street, Ambridge, Pennsylvania. 5. Minutes of the Ambridge Water Authority meetings provide, in relevant part, as follows: a. June 2, 1984 - Mr. Modrovich moved that James Iorfido and Richard Levato be employed as summer help effective June 8,, 1981, at an hourly rate of $4.25. (You were not a member of the authority at this time). b. May 13, 1982 - 28 applications were considered for positions of summer employment. Mr. Doda ro moved that 11 i ndi viduals including James Iorfido be hired at a rate of $4.25 an hour. The motion was amended to include two other individuals and was defeated. The original motion was then put to a roll call vote and passed. (You were not a member of the authority at this time). c. June 9; 1983 - Mr. Casello moved, second by Mr. Dodaro, that eight individuals including James Iorfido be hired as summer help at $4 per hour starting June 13, 1983. The motion passed with Mr. Smetanka voting no because he believed that the money could be spent better elsewhere. Mr. Dodaro stated that the personnel are hired for approximately 50 days but the board can decide to terminate the program. (You were not a member of the hoard at this time). d. May 10, 1984 - Mr. Dodaro moved, second by Mr. Sangermano, that Joseph James Dodaro and James V. Iorfido be hired beginning June 4, 1984 to August 17, 1984 at a rate of $4 per hour being within the limits of the budget. The motion passed. (You were not a member of the board at this time). e. May 31, 1985 - The chairman stated that the budget will allow for five summer employees for fifty days at $4 per hour. Mr. Stubbins moved, second by Mr. Modrovich, to hire four individuals including James Vincent Iorfido. The motion passed. (You were not a member of the board at this time). Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 3 f. August 29, 1585 - A special meeting was conducted for the purpose o� hiring James Iorfido as a permanent employee to fill a vacancy in the work force. Mr. Stubbins stated that he had never been aware of a special meeting being held to hire a specific individual. Mr. Modrovich moved, second by Mr. Dodaro to hire James Iorfido. The motion passed. (You were not a member of the board at this time). October 10, 1985 - The board defeated a motion by Mr. Dodaro to delay taking any actions regarding layoffs until the board meets with the union. g. The board defeated a motion by Mr. Sangermano to place all employees on a four day work week. (You were not a member of the board at this time). h. October 17, 1985 - Discussion was held on actions regarding the personnel of the water authority. Mr. Dodaro reported on his meting with the union. i. Manua ry 9, 1986 - Mr. Modrovich moved, seconded by Mr. Iorfido, that all other employees of the Ambridge Water Authority remain in their respective positions. The motion passed; Ayes: Dodaro, Iorfido, Modrovich and Stubbins. Nays: Smetanka. (Your son was one of the affected empl oyees). January 8, 1986 - The board received several grievances from authority employees regarding the reduction of employee hours. Mr. Stubbins moved, second by Mr. Smetanka, to reconsider the four day week (which had been passed in December, 1985). The motion was defeated; Ayes: Smetanka, Stubbins. Nays: Dodaro, Modrovich, Iorfido. Mr. Dodaro was assigned to conduct all union negotiations and he was to report back to the board. k. January 16, 1986 - The chair stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and take action on the work schedule and wages for employees. Mr. Stubbins moved, second by Smetanka, to lay -off two members of the bargaining unit or the ones with least seniority. The motion was defeated. Ayes: Smetanka, Stubbins. Nays: Dodaro Modrovich, Iorfido. (Your son was one of the employees with least seniority). 1) At this meeting, the hoard voted to adopt a proposal submitted by . the union. The motion passed unanimously and you voted. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 4 ii) The proposal provided as follows: (a) All employees *•oll d return to a 5 day, 40 hour week. (b) The wages for 1936 will be frozen at 1985 rates, and a 4% increase for the 7eriod January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1987. 6. Frank Dodaro, a member of the. Ambridge Water Authority stated that they hired James Iorfido because they had already invested $10,000 in him over the years. a. They trained him as a slimier employee and he was therefore employed based upon his years of experience. 7. You provided the following i,nrsrmation in relation to this situation. a. Your son, James, resides with you. b. Your son was hired by the authority prior to your service as a member. c. You admit voting agains : the motion to lay off two employees with least seniority, one of wi was your son. d. You, thereafter, voted favor of the motion on the contract. e. There was no arrangemer: 5etween you and any board member to hire your son. f. Your vote on the union :ntract affected all employees, not just your son. B. Discussion: As a member of Lye Board of Directors of the Ambridge Water Authority, you are a "public official" as that term is defined in the Ethics Act. 65. P.S. §402; 51 Pa. Code S1.1. As such, your conduct is subject to the provision of the Ethics Act. Section 3(a) of the Ethics �_t provides: Section 3. Restricted a:tivities. (a) No public officia:i r public employee shall use his public office or any : ifidential information received Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 5 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). Section 3(a) specifically provides, in part, that a public official nay not use public office to obtain a financial gain for a member of his immediate family other than compensation provided for by law. The term "immediate family" is defined in the Ethics Act as folios: Section 2. Definitions. "Immediate family." A spouse residing in the person's household and minor dependent children. 65 P.S. 402. The term minor dependent child, although not defined in the Ethics Act, is defined in Section 1.1 in the Regulations of this Commission as follows' Section 1.1. Definitions. Minor dependent child - -- A person under 18 years of age who lived in the household of the person - filer - required` to file a financial interest statement during the reporting period and whom the filer claimed as a dependent on the filer's Federal income tax return for the equivalent reporting period. 51 Pa. Code 1.1. In determining whether your actions have violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act, it is necessary to determine whether your course of conduct in this situation has implicated all of the applicable requirements within that Section. In particular, Section 3(a) contains the five key elements: public official, use of office, financial gain, immediate family and not part of the compensation provided by law for the official. Since you are a public official, the next inquiry is whether you have used public office. In this regard, it is noted at the January 9, 1986 meeting of the authority, you seconded a motion made by Mr. Modrovich that all employees of the authority remain in their respective positions. At that time your son was employed by the authority and, hence, was affected by your action. Further, in a January 16, 1986 meeting, when a motion was made to layoff two members of the Authority with the least seniority, you voted against that motion which would have directly affected your on in that he had the least seniority. At that same meeting you voted in favor of a motion Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 6 which returned employees from reduced hours to a five -day -forty hour week as well as retaining the 1985 wage rate for 1986 arid increasing said wages by 4% for the calendar year 1987. Thus, there has been a use of your public office. Further, such action resulted in a financial gain: you voted against a layoff which would affect your son; you voted for an increase in working hours and compensation which would also affect your son. However, it is noted that your son was born on October 2, 1965 and, hence, was of majority when you took these actions. Since your son was not a minor dependent child at the times that you used public office regarding voting on matters -which would financially affect your son as an employee of the authority, there is no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act as to this allegation. II. Al legation: That you, a member of the Ambridge Borough Council, violated Section 3(a) of the State Ethics Act which prohibits a public employee's or public official's use of office or confidential information gained through that office to obtain financial gain, when you voted to appoint yourself to a paying position as a Director on the Ambridge Water Authority. A. Findings: 8. Findings No. 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference. 9. The minutes of the Ambridge Borough Council meetings reflect the following rega rdi ng the matter.. a. December, 1979 - On consideration by council to take over the water authority, Mr. Iorfido stated that the vote of borough•councilmember Towcimak was a conflict of interest because he was a director of the authority. The solicitor opined that the two positions were incompatible. Mr. Iorfido then suggested that Mr. Towcimak resign from the authority. A motion was made by Mr. Iorfido to replace Mr. Towcimak. Mrs. Mansell moved to table this motion; Mrs. Smetanka second. The motion to table failed as follows: Ayes: Mansell, Smetanka, Towcimak Nays: Flannery, Iorfido, Sangermano, Knafel After further discussion, Mr. Irofido withdrew his prior motion and then moved, second by Mr. Flannery, that the seat on the water authority of Mr. Towcimak be declared vacant and the appointment of Mr. Joseph Hockevar be made. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 7 Ayes: Flannery, Iorfido, Sangermano, Knafel. Nays: Mansell, Smetahka, Towcimak. Mr. Sangermano moved, second by Mr. Flannery that Mr. Iorfido be appointed temporary chairman of the Sanitary Disposal System Committee. Ayes: Mansell, Smetanka, Iorfido, Sangermano, Towcimak, Knafel. Nays: None. b. January 7, 1980 - Mr. Modrovich was nominated by Mr. Sangermano to a five -year term on the water authority. Second by Mr. Iorfido. Ayes: Flannery, Iorfido, Sangermano, Knafel. Nays: Mansell, Smetanka, Towcimak. c. May 19, 1980 - Mr. Sangermano moved, second by Mr. Flannery that Mr. Iorfido be appointed to the water authority for the term to begin on January 1, 1981. Mr. Towcimak commented that some councilmen went on record opposing a councilperson serving in two positions. Mr. Iorfido stated that he would not serve in both positions. Ayes: Flannery, Iorfido, Sangermano, Knafel Nays: Mansell, Towcimak Absent: Smetanka d„ June 23, 1980 - Mrs. Smetanka commented on the appointment of Mr. xrofido to the water authority. Such appointments cannot be made until a reorganization meeting. She asked that the motion be rescinded. Mr. Irofido stated that she could not rescind a motion when she was not present at the prior meeting. The oolicitor was asked to prepare an opinion on the legality of the appoi ntment. e. August 23, 1980 - Mr. Iorfido moved to give two borough trucks over to the water authority upon the solicitor's approval. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 8 9. f. September 22, 1980 - The solicitor reported his opinion that the appointment to the water authority cannot be made until the vacancy occurs. (This related to the appointment of May 19, 1980 to the position to begin January, 1981). Mr. Iorfido stated that he did not accept the solicitor's opinion. Mr. Towcimak moved, second by Smetanka, that the appointment be set aside in light of the solicitor's opinion. Ayes: Mansell, Smetanka, Towcimak Nays: Iorfido, Sangermano, Knafel. The mayor refused to break the tie. January 19, 1981 - Council discussed paying the bills for a three month period at the sewage treatment plant. Mr. Iorfido recommended payment and that, in the future, expenditures be checked with the secretary of the municipal authority. Payment of the bills was approved. J •. Ayes: Flannery, Iorfido, Snagermano, Towcimak, Knafel. Nays: Mansell, Semtanka. Mr. Iorfido resigned as chairman of the municipal authority and recommended that the municipal authority be given power to run the plant. Mr. Iorfido was asked to stay on until council could meet with the authority. He agreed. h. February 16, 1981 - Mr. Dolyoh asked why councilmembers served on the authority. Mr. Sangermano noted that councilmembers: do not get paid for service on the authority. 1. April 20, 1981 - Mr. Iorfido asked the solicitor in a letter if an appointment could be made to an authority prior to the expiration of the current office holder. The solicitor responded that it could not. January 6, 1986 - Mr. Rodakovich moved, second by Mrs. Hochevar, that Mr. Iorfido be appointed as director on the water authority to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Dodaro. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 9 Ryes: Iorfido, Radakovich, Hochevar, Bufalini, Valentine. Nays: none. Abstain: Schimonsky, Wayenfelter. k. June 6 1986 - a special meeting was held to act on the request of the water authority to extend the life of the authority. After much discussion, Mr. Iorfido moved, second by Radakovich to authorize the proper officers to sign the resolution as presented. 10. The minutes of the Ambridge Water Authority reflect the following regarding your appointment to that board: e. January 9, 1986 - a communication was read from the council of the Borough of Ambridge informing the authority that Ambridge Council (;.t the meeting of January 6, 1986) appointed Mr. Edward Iorfido to fill the unexpired term previously held by Mr. Dodaro which will expire December 31, 1987. (i) Mr. Dodaro placed in nomination Mr. Edward Iorfido for the office of board chairman. No other nominations were made and after a roll call vote, Mr. Iorfido was declared the duly elected board chairman for the year 1986. 11. You received no compensation for your service on the borough water authority. 12. You provided the following information relating to this situation. a. You have served on the borough water authority since 1986. b. You have never been paid for your service on the authority. c. You voted in favor of your appointment. d. You did vote as a councilperson to extend the life of the authority at a time when you served on the authority. e. This was done in order to issue a bond. B. Discussion: As noted above, you are a "public official" subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. Mr. Edward Iorfido Page 10 As also previously noted, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act provides, in part, that a public official may not use public office to obtain a financial gain for himself other than compensation provided for by law. Once again, your conduct must be scrutinized to determine whether your voting to appoint yourself to the position of director of the authority is implicated under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act. In this regard it is noted that the May 19, 1980 minutes of the Ambridge Borough Council indicate that a motion was made to appoint you to the Ambridge Water Authority for the term beginning in January 1, 1981. The minutes reflect that you voted in favor of appointing yourself to that position with the Authority. When a question was raised as to the legality of your appointment in light of the fact that it was done prior to the time of which a vacancy occurred, the motion was made to set your appointment aside and you voted against that motion. Thereafter, in January 6, 1986, a motion was made to appoint you as director on the water authority to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Dodaro and you voted in favor of your own appointment. Lastly, the minutes of the Ambridge Water Authority reflect the January 9, 1986 communication from the Borough of Ambridge wherein you were appointed to fill the term of Mr. Dodaro that would expire on December 31, 1987. Once again, the evidence reflects that there was a use of office on your part for your own personal interest in obtaining a position on the water authority. However, it is noted that you do not receive any compensation for your service on the authority. In light of the fact you have not received any financial gain in this matter, this Commission finds that there is no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act as to this allegation. C. Conclusion and Order: 1. As a member of the Ambridge Borough Council and then as a member of the Ambridge Water Authority, you are a public official subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act. 2. You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you voted to increase the working hours and grant a wage increase which affected your son who at that time was not a minor dependent child and, hence, not a member of your "immediate family" as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. 3. You did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when you voted to appoint yourself to a position with the water authority since you have not received any compensation for your service on the borough water authority. Mr. Edward Iorf ido Page 11 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 fiv.� and will be made available as -a public document 15 days after service (defisa-d as mailing) unless you file documentation with the Commission which justirc reconsideration and /or challenges pertinent factual findings. See 51 Pa. 'Tdry 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 proceedi np is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $1,000 or impricohed for not more than one year or both, see 65 P.S. 409(e). By the Commission, Joseph W. Marshall, ICI Chaff r!na n