HomeMy WebLinkAbout728 ReihartGary D. Relhart
c/o Donald I. Reihart
Laucks & Monroe
29 North Duke Street
York, Pennsylvania 17401 -1282
Re: 86- 041 -C, 87 -073 -C
Dear Mr. Reihart:
+zx sC
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17130
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
Order No. 728
Before: Helena G. Hughes, Chair
Robert W. Brown, Vice Chair
W. Thomas. Andrews
G. Sieber Pancoast
James M. Howley
Michael J. Washo
Date Decided: September 26, 1989
Date Mailed: September 28, 1989
1. Allectations: That you, a Carroll Township Supervisor, violated
Section 3(a) of the 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 you participated
in decisions made by the Board of Supervisors which affect your
personal real- estate development, Hill -N -Dale Estates.
A. Findings:
1. You served as a Township Supervisor in Carroll Township, York
County, Pennsylvania:
a. You have served in this position from January, 1986 to the
present.
b. You also served as chairman of the Township Board of
Supervisors during the same period of time.
2. You are self - employed as a licensed thoroughbred horse trader and
breeder. You did submit a sub- division plan known as Hill -N -Dale
Estates to Carroll Township.
Gary D . f . Reihart
Page 2
3. Carroll Township is involved in the running of a sewer-lihWtikich
'wpuid service, Hill -N -Dale Estates.
4. ,Minutes . of the Township _supervisor's meetings ref1eet °'Setians
were taken by the township supervisors frith- tegatd'to the "€ r =line
toHi11 -N -Dale Estates as follows:
April 3, 1986 . - Motion by,Eichelbergertoi4pptdveybbe
agreement with Dillsburg'Sew4tAA5Me'tlty•
Second • by . Mr. Reihart. The ' vO e + o`as i ait
and Eichelberger :yes and
April 3, 1986 Motion by Reihart to approve the ltanitatb y
sewer -hook -on Ordinance #54-I1&6 . 'Second °by
Eichelberger. The vote was Reihart and
Eichelberger yes and Mrs. Shelley - no.
April 3, 1986 - Motion by Eichelberger to:Semi h 'letter
notifying Gannet Fleming Company. to tcbmplete
the revision Act 537 Plan to "ino3d'e a
sewer line to:Hill- N- Dale:Estates 'This
motion was seconded by Reihart. The vote was
Eichelberger and Reihart yes and Mrs. Shelley
IUD.
April 17, 1986 -
The Hill-N-Dale Estates litigation was
brought on the floor of the meeting. At
this time, the meeting was turned over to
Solicitor William Schrack. A suit brought by
township resident Curtis A. Eppley against
the township was discussed. Mr. Schrack
explained that the damage portion of this
case was concluded by the signing of releases
as authorized by the Liability Insurance
Companies which were involved in the suit.
The motion was made by Supervisor
Eichelberger to adopt a resolution, #1986 -08,
with regard to the equity portion of the case
to authorize Solicitor Schrack to sign a
stipulation of counsel on the release
document. Under the terms of this
settlement, the sewer line would be built
from Dilisburg Borough to Hill -N -Dale
Estates. This would be in accordance with a
Decree of Court which was reviewed at this
meeting.. The motion was seconded by
Reihart. The vote was Reihart and
Eichelberger yes anti Ides . Shelley no-.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 3
April 16, 1987 -
April 16, 1987
Motion by Reihart to award the bid for the
Sewer District 1, from Mumper Lane and
Orebank Road sewer line project, as per
recommendation of Engineering Corporation to
Boyd E. Diller Incorporated in the amount of
$371,967.40 and that they be notified that
this is subject to financing being arranged
in at least the amount of said bid. The
motion was seconded by Eichelberger.
Discussion followed. Vote: Eichelberger
yes, Reihart abstained and Mrs. Shelley voted
yes. Motion carried.
Motion by Reihart to make application to
Mellon Bank for a loan in the amount of
$400,000.00 for the construction of the
sewer line, second by Eichelberger.
Discussion followed. Eichelberger then
withdrew his second. Reihart amended his
motion to read to make application to Mellon
Bank for a loan of $410,000.00 for
construction of the sewer line. Second by
Eichelberger. Vote: Eichelberger yes,
Shelley yes, Reihart abstained.
April 16, 1987 - Motion by Reihart to begin negotiations with
the developers to enter into an agreement for
the purposes -of financing the project.
Second by Eichelberger. Vote: Eichelberger
yes, Mrs. Shelley abstained, Mr. Reihart
abstained. Motion died for a lack of a
majority.
April 16, 1987 - Motion by Eichelberger to submit the Sewer
Connection Agreement drawn by the township
solicitor to the developers. Second by
Shelley. Vote: Eichelberger and Shelley yes
and Reihart abstained. Motion carried.
April 28, 1987 - Sewer line discussion. These minutes
consists of about four pages on the
construction, costs, and financing of-the
sewer project. A list of those individuals
who would be requesting sewage permits
included Mr. Reihart and indicated that he
would want fifty permits. The minutes
indicated that the Sewer Connection Agreement
be revised and further discussion would be
Gary D. Reihart
Page 4
held during a latter pact of the regularly
scheduled meeting on Thursday3. stay 7, 1987.
Solicitor Griest read the Sewer Connection
Agreement by paragraphs for corrections.
Motion was made by Eichelberger seconded by
Reihart who accepted the agreement with the
changes that Solicitor Griest noted, plus add
the cost of liability insurance and that the
Dillsburg Sewer Authority was dissatisfied
with details concerning the basements on
Mumper Lane. Vote: Eichelberger bnd Shelley
yes, Reihart abstained Motion carried.
July 21, 1987 Motion was made by Eichelberger seconded by
Reihart to adopt Resolution 19$714 creating
Sewer District 1 of Carroll Township Sanitary
Sewer System. Vote: Reihart abstained,
Eichelberger yes and Mrs. Shelley no. Motion
did not carry. Later in the evening, a
motion was made by Reihart, seconded by
Eichelberger to adopt a resolution 1987 -14
creating Sewer District 1 of Carroll Township
Sanitary Sewer System. Vote: Reihart
abstained, Eichelberger and Shelley yes.
Motion carried.
October 1, 1987 - Motion by Eichelberger, seconded by Reihart
to adopt Ordinance #02 -1987 which sets forth
rules and regulations for the operation of
the Sanitary Sewer Authority System along
certain portions of Mumper Lane and Orebank
Road known as Sewer District 1. This was t h e
role call vote. Reihart abstained,
Eichelberger yes and Shelley no. Motion dL:d
not carry.
October 1, 1987 - Motion was made by Eichelberger, seconded by
Reihart to adopt Ordinance #02 -1987 which
sets forth the Rates, Rules, and Reaulats
for the operation of the Sanitary Sewer
System of Sewer District 1. This alto walk a
role call vote. Reihart abstained,
Eichelberger yes and Shelley no. Motion did
not carry.
May 28, 1987 -
Gary D. Reihart
Page 5
October 1, 1987 - Motion by Reihart, seconded by Eichelberger
that Solicitor Griest notify James Thawley, a
builder, of his responsibility to install
four laterals in the Hill -N -Dale Estates in
accordance with a Court Order. Vote:
Reihart yes, Eichelberger yes, Shelley yes.
Shelley said she voted yes because it is a
Court Order. Motion carried.
November 19, 1987: A motion was made by Reihart, seconded by
Eichelberger to adopt Ordinance #61 -87, which
sets forth the rates, rules and regulations
for the operation of the Township Sanitary
Sewer System along certain portions of Mumper
Lane and Orebank Road known as Sewer
District 1, and prescribing penalties for any
violations. Vote: Reihart and Eichelberger
yes. Motion carried Minutes reflect that
Supervisor Shelley was not present.
5. You provided the following clarifications regarding the minutes of
the Carroll Township Supervisors where action was taken regarding the
sewer line to Hill -N -Dale Estates:
a. April 3, 1986 The first two motions were not for the
Hill -N -Dale sewer line, but rather an
Agreement that was undertaken in 1979
for the Dillsburg Sewer Authority to
expand their sewer plant and then to run
a sewer line down the Mountain Road,
which is on the other side of the
Township from Hill -N -Dale Estates.
b. April 3, 1986 The next April 3, 1986 motion was in
regard to a law suit brought against the
Township several years prior to my being
elected to the Board of Supervisors.
DER insisted that we adopt this 537 Plan
or they would not lift the sewer
moratorium that had been filed against
the Township for several years prior to
my election. This was merely a plan
that spelled out the safe disposal of
sewage for the area in Sewage District
#1. It said sewers to the Hill -N -Dale
area was the best method of disposing of
sewage from that area. This had been
Gary D. Reihart
Page 6
c. April 17, 1986
d. April 16, 1987
This motion was to finance the
installation of the sewer line. I
abstained, and the other two
supervisors voted for it. We later
decided that an offer from two private
developers to install the line was a
better idea, so we never followed
through with obtaining any financing.
The next two motions have to do with the
private developers building the sewer
line. I abstained. The other two
supervisors voted for it.
f. The sewer line was installed at the expense of the two
developers and no township funds were utilized.
e. April 16 1987
g .
projected in Carroll Township's
Comprehensive Plan dated in 1974.
This motion was in regard to a law suit
that was brought by several residents of
Hi11- 11-D %1e who had malfunctioning
septic systems that were permitted by
the Township Sewer Enforcement Officers.
The Township Solicitor and York County
Judge John Rauhauser worked out an
agreement. I was told that I could
vote on the question to settle the law
suit. This I did, but I was not voting
on installing the sewer line, only that
the agrement offered the Township could
be accepted.
This motion, which occurred one year
later, was for the installation of the
sewer line. It took us all that time to
convince Mrs. Shelley that she would
have to vote to install the sewer line
or it would not get done. I was not
going to vote to install the sewer and I
did not vote to install that line. I
abstained.
The sewer line allowed for 565 permits for "tap -ins" and
only 20 permits were issued to land owners in the H111-15C-
Dale Estates
Gary D. Reihart
Page 7
6. Minutes of the township supervisor's meetings reflect the
following in regards to your action on matters concerning Hill -N-.
Dale Estates befoie the Board of Supervisors:
April- 3, 1986 - Motion by Supervisor Reihart to put the Gary
D 5 -lot final .
subdivision on the floor. Seconded by
Supervisor Shelley. Mrs. Shelley asked a
question with regard to the procedure for
presenting this plan. The township engineer
explained these procedures. A motion was
made by Mr. Reihart to amend the above motion
to read, to approve this plan subject to
payment of a second fee with the plan not be
signed or recorded and no permits issued
until the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources approves this plan.
A vote was taken with Supervisor
Eichelberger voting yes and Mrs. Shelley
voting no. The minutes did not mention
whether Mr. Reihart voted or abstained with
regard to this motion.
June 5, 1986 - Motion by Reihart to adopt a revision to the
537 Plan submitted by Gannet Fleming Company
as the official revised 537 Plan of Carroll
Township by referring specifically to
alternative #5 in the plan as our method of
handling Hill -N -Dale Estates. Second by
Eichelberger. Vote: Reihart and
Eichelberger yes, Shelley no.
December 29, 1986 - Moved by Eichelberger and second by Reihart
to table the plans of Gary D. Ieiiart
Incorporated, Hill -N -Dale Estates lot 3 -27
lots, preliminary plan, and Gary D. Reihart
and Hill -N -Dale Estates, parcel G -21 lots,
preliminary plan. Eichelberger and Mrs.
Shelley voted yes and Reihart abstained.
Motion carried.
February 5, Moved by Eichelberger and seconded by
Reihart, to approve the final subdivision
plans of Hill -N -Dale Estates lot 3, 27 lots,
subject to the posting of bonds in the amount
of $47,000.00 for the improvement of
Secretariate Drive and to add an acceptable
storm water plan to be accepted by the
Gay D . Reihart
Page 8
township engineer. Vote: Eichelberger yes,
Reihart abstained, and Shelley no due to no
;preliminary plans being received by the
'Board. No action was taken.
February 5, 1987 - .Moved by Eichelberger, seconded by 'Reihart,
to .approve the final subdivision plans of
Hill -N -Dale Estates parcel , 23. loss,
subject to the posting of bonds in the amount
of $45,000.00 and ran acceptable'*ater storm
waste = management 'plan to be accepted -by the
township engineer. Vote: Eichelberger .yes
Reihart abstained and Shelley no, because the
plan does not conform to the subdivision
ordinance insomuch as the preliminary pla
has never been approved by the Board of
Supervisors. No action taken.
April 16, 1987 - Reihart presented the modified plan of Lot G
of Gary D. Reihart.
to approve the final
April 16, 1987 Motion by Eichelberger �, Reihart Hill-N-
subdivision plan of Gary
Dale Estates portion G. as modified changing
lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, driveways coming . up to
Northern Dancer Drive and pending all
previous provisions made. Bondin4= $41;000.0
and monuments-$150.00. Feds have been paid.
Seconded by Shelley. Vote: thelleey and
Eichelberger yes, Reihart abstaihed. Motion
carried.
7. You were the developer of a cluster of townhouse - apartterts
located at Logan and Orebank Roads within the township.
8. Minutes of the township supervisor's meetings refleci . that
pertinent actions were taken as follows with regards to the townhouse
development.
June 5, 1986 -
A motion by Eichelberger to adept Resolution
#1986 -09, a Resolution for at dean d approval.
This pertains to the apar#anie t buildings
developed by Mr. Reihart- at Legia Leg and Orbbink
roads wi -thin the township. . 'his' kesblution
was signed by Reihart as the dhaiklien of the
Township Supervisors. The rtdtid i vim
seconded by Reihart. They Vete vat
Eichelberger and Reihart yet awd 1 .
Shelley no.
terry D. Reihart
rage' 9
a. You state that_this.motion was to establish a uniform
#61icy to apply to . all persons in the Township in the event
d plan was not approved by the Board of Supervisors in a
timely manner or because of some other defect created by the
Township which would lead to an absolute deemed approval by
the 'Courts and in the absence of the policy, could cause
great unnecessary expense to the Township. The Solicitor
was then responsible to. decide whether the plan should be
signed by the proper Township officials. You were advised
that you could vote on this Resolution. No approval for
Hill -N -Dale Estates was involved in this vote. The
Solicitor assured you that it was appropriate to do So
because it was the Solicitor then who made the decision on
whether or not the approval should be deemed.
9. Resolution #1986 -09 enacted on June 5, 1986 provided as follows:
- WHEREAS, the Municipalities Planning Code of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sets forth rights
of landowners whose applications for approval of a
plan of subdivision do not receive adequate and
timely response; and
- WHEREAS, an aggrieved landowner possesses the
right to seek a writ of mandamus in instances in
which a municipality has not complied with the
Municipalities Planning Code, which writ the
municipality would be required to defend; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the
Township of Carroll wish to establish, and do
establish, a procedure which would negate the
Township's having to incur the cost of responding
to an action filed byan aggrieved landowner in
the York County Court.
- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in the
event the Board of Supervisors do not undertake
the appropriate action with regard to a plan Of
subdivision, and an aggrieved landowner complains
to the Board, the Board shall.iminediately refer
such complaint to its Solicitor for review. If,
in the opinion of the Solicitor, there exists the
elements required to establish a „ deemed
approval", that finding shall be communicated to
the Board of Supervisors in writing.
Gary D. `Reihart
Page 10
AND IT 3S PURtHER RESOLVED that upon receipt of
the Solicitor's opinion that there has occurred a
"deemed a' iproval" , either ` h Ch airth or the
Vice - Chairman' of the Board of Supervisors, and' the
Board's Set are hereby authorized to affix
the appropri 'signature to the Supervisors'
approval 'block of the plan of subdivision, and
arrange for .recordation of said plan, and 'such
action shall have the 'same effect as though the
Supervisors had affirmatively voted upon the
plan, approved the plan, and delivered it for
recording.
- You signed this resolution as Chairman of the
Carroll Township Board of Supervisors.
10. Township Zoning. Hearing Board minutes of March 13, 1982 reflect
that builder James Thawley was granted permission to erect six four
unit townhouse structures at Logan and Orebank Roads. The following
conditions were imposed:
1. That the construction conform in all respects to the
Carroll Township Zoning Ordinance, the building regulations
of Carroll Township and the regulations of the Penns_ylv'ania
Department of Environmental Resources.
2. AND that there be no further subdivision into smaller
units, of the property in question.
3. AND that a copy of an agreement or deed of the property in
question, satisfactory to the Board Solicitor, be died of
record at the County Recorder of Deeds Office.
The foregoing resolution was offered by L. E. Lutz and seconded by L.
Hair. Vote on the resolution was as follows:
GRANT /AYES: L. E. Lutz, J. R. Richwine, L. Hair
DENY /NAYES: NONE
11. Township Planning Commission.minutes of February 20, 1985
reflect the following information pertaining to the six, four =unit
townhouse structures at Logan and Orebank Roads:
a. During the above Zoning Hearing Board dated March 31, 1982,
Mr. Reihart was granted the exception, Conditionally, in
that the Board imposed the following conditions:
Gary D. Reihart
Page 11
"And that there be no further subdivision into smaller
units of the property in question."
"And that a copy of an agreement or deed of the property in
question, satisfactory to the Board Solicitor, be filed of
record at the County Recorder of Deeds Office."
b. Following further discussion with Mr. Reisdorf,
representing Gary D. Reihart, a motion was made.
On a motion by Carr, seconded by Lavertue, the Planning
Commission recommends to the Supervisors that both plans (Annex 5 of
Hill -N -Dale Estates and Parcel A (Lot A -2) of Hill -N -Dale Estates -
Gary D. Reihart, Inc.) be reiected because of a prior commitment by
the owner at the time (March 13 1982) he requested and received a
Special Exception under the Township Zoning Ordinance, not to further
subdivide the plot as presented to the Zoning Hearing Board at a
recorded Special Hearing.
Motion carried.
c. There was further discussion on Hill -N -Dale subdivisions.
Because Gary D. Reihart has submitted numerous subdivision
plans for his Hill -N -Dale development the following motion
was made.
On a motion by Carr, seconded by Lavertue, the Planning
Commission recommends to the Supervisors that they determine if a
deed as required by an order of the Zoning Hearing Board dated March
13, 1982 was recorded as directed. (Re: pg.5, Item 3) construct the
additional dwelling units to comply with the special exception. (Re:
March 13, 1982, page 2, items ( &10.) And further that Gary D. Reihart
be notified that no additional sub- divisions in the Hill -N -Dale
Development will be permitted until such time as he presents a plan
showing all previous subdivisions and a master plan for future
subdivisions to the Carroll Township Planning Commission. (Re:
Subdivision Ordinance Section 403 -1a)
Motion carried
12. York County Recorder of Deeds Records reflect the following
deeds were filed concerning property located at Logan and Orebank
Roads,. Carroll Township, York County, Pennsylvania:
a. January 11, 1982 - Gary D. Reihart Inc., conveyed this -
property to Gary D. Reihart and Beverly
J. Reihart, his wife, of R.D. 5
Dillsburg, Pennsylvania.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 12
b. March 6, 1985 Gary D. 'Reihart 'ac ; Severlr J. Reihart,
411's taife, cor Yeyedl this . pro1erty t o
Denise Darlene Re their daughter.
c. April 29, 1985 - This - entry reflects that the 'property
transferred to Denise 'Darlene Reihart
±rom her Varents and also listed a
correction to the deed of March 6, 1985.
d. You were elected to the role of Carroll Township Supervisor
in January, 1986.
13. Mr. Joseph C. Hoheneder, Assistant Director, York County
Planning Commission, advised that when a township requests review of
an application for a subdivision, his commission provides a
recommendation that is only advisory.
a. This Commission reviews the factors involved in the
subdivision against the applicable township ordinance or
resolution.
Either approval or disapproval was the normal language used
by this commission on such request.
c. Hoheneder stated that he never personally encountered a
situation where a "deemed approval" resolution was
involved.
d. He allowed that a township could use its own language in
coming up with such a resolution.
e. When the York County Planning Commission receives a request
to review a subdivision, they have 45 days to take action.
If the commission fails to respond within this time frame,
then that would amount to an approval by tie commission.
f. Hoheneder acknowledged that this seemed to be t.e „Fame
mechanism used by Carroll Township in fts use of "deemed
approval.”
14. Records of the Pennsylvania Properties, 199 N. 40th Street,
Harrisburg, PA, reflect the following information in relation to the
purchase of a cluster of townhouses located at Logan and Orebank Roads
within Carroll Township.
a. June 18 1985 - A Memorandum of A was made between
Pennsylvania properties and Denise Darlene Reihart.
GaZy D. Reihart
Page 13
(1) This agreement reflects that Denise Reihart, at her
sole expense,- by her efforts and jointly and severally
with Gary D. Reihart and Beverly J. Reihart, his wife,
will obtain all government approvals necessary for the
subdivision of land marked as Exhibit B with this
agreement.
-(2) A residue tract of about nine acres described as
Exhibit C to the agreement was also set forth.
Denise Reihart was granted the option to purchase the
nine acre tract for $1.00 under certain conditions.
(4) This option was under the condition that Denise
Reihart obtain subdivision approval.
The previous owners of this land tract were -Gary amid
Beverly Reihart.
1:6) Despite repeated reassurances from Gary and Beverly
Reihart and Solicitor William Schrack, Pennsylvania
Properties was apprehensive about this transaction.
( °• In a separate agreement dated August 1986 between
Pennsylvania Properties and Gary and Beverly'Reihart,
the Reiharts agreed to indemnify this firm for any loss
it may suffer from this transaction for the sum of
$1.00.
('3 )
15. You provided the following information in regards to the town
houses located at Logan and Orebank Roads within Carroll Township.
a. In the original approval by the Zoning Hearing Board, and in
granting a variance, the Board did not want each individual
building sold off, making four (4) separate ownerships of
the apartment buildings. However, as long as they remained
together on one large lot, they did not oppose subdivision
of the remaining eight (8) acres.
b. Raymond Carr used his position as a Planning Commission
member to attempt to withhold approval of this subdivision.
Even after the Zoning Hearing Board held a public hearing to
clarify their position, he argued with them that they did
not know what they were doing. He tried every way to stop
the subdivision. When Mrs. Shelley continually refused to
vote on this matter, some procedure had to be found to
permit the subdivision to occur. The Solicitor suggested a
deemed approval approach. It is important to know that Mr.
Raymond D. Carr did everything he could to prevent the sale
Gary D. Reihart
Page 14
of this property to the purchasers. He wrote a personal
letter indicating that Mr.Reihart had been a.nvOlved in
questionable actions which had been referred to the State
Ethics Commission and generated a false impression
concerning the legality of the actions that occurred vith
reference to this matter.
16. Former Township Supervisor: Mildred B. Shelley provided the
following information .in relation to this .situation:
a. She stated that you have voted on-matters relating to yair
real estate interests.
b. In your real estate business, you sell lots to builders APO
investors.
c. Some of these lots are owned by you and some by your famiby
members.
d. During 1985, you transferred ownership of ;a land tract to
your daughter, Denise Reihart.
e. During 1986, as a township supervisor, you took actions
relating to this land tract where townhouse apartments were
built at -LQgan -and Orebank Roads within „the township.
f. Shelley questioned the propriety. of the benefits you
received from transactions pertaining to these townhouse
apartments.
17. Former Township Solicitor, William D. Schrack, .provided tt e
following information with regard the cluster < ,of ctownhouste
apartments located at Logan and Orebank Roads:
a. During early 1986, Schrack was requested by members•of; the
Board of Supervisors to determine the precise intentient_of
the Zoning Hearing Board when it issued its Order ..-d$,ted
March 13, 1982.
b. On March 10, 1986, Schrack, Township Solicitor, _issued a
letter to the Board of Supervisors stating that ...
"according to the last statement in that interpretation, the
restriction was not intended to prohibit: a .subdivi$ion of
the 12.85 acres as would otherwise be perMitted.by. the laws
and ordinance of Carroll Township . ... L acoordingly..it will
be appropriate that the plan be presented.; at- the -next
formal meeting of the Board of Supervisors: for;its review
and consideration. There being no basis for ;;. rejection, gut
plan should be approved."
Gar D. Reihart
Page 15
e. This procedure. was required because Supervisor Shelley
would not vote for approval even though under the law there
Was no reason to deny approval and the Solicitor had
specifically stated that the subdivision plan should be
approved.
f. On June 5, 1986, Gary Reihart and Mr. Eichelberger voted to
adopt Resolution 1986 -09.
Resolution 1986 -09 applied to all persons who had
established a deemed approval and was not limited in its
application to any one development.
g.
h. On June6, 1986, Solicitor Schrack, in writing, order the
Board of Supervisors to approve the townhouse subdivision.
i. On June 27, 1986, Raymond Carr wrote to the purchaser of the
townhouse sites and stated that the subdivision was not
permitted, that the matter had been referred to the State
Ethics Commission and that he or Mildred Shelley would be
glad to discuss the matter further.
On August 20 and August 22, 1986, Mr. Schrack wrote to.the
township purchaser and assured him that the subdivision was
valid and that Mr. Carr was wrong in his accusations.
18. Former Township Planning Commissioner Raymond D. Carr provided
the following information with regard to the instant situation:
a. Prior to February 1985,.you obtained a Special Exception
from the township Zoning Hearing Board to develop townhouse
apartments at Logan and Orebank Roads on a parcel of your
Hill -N -Dale development.
(1) A condition of this Special Exception was that the two
tracts of land in this parcel be deeded as one and that
no further subdivision be permitted.
c. At the next meeting, Hobert Shelley refused to approve that
plan -. Gary Reihart could not vote and it was not approved.
d. On April 16, 198?6 Schrack issued an opinion that
the plan had a "deemed approval" under the municipality's
planning code aad recommended a procedure to follow that
would apply to any res:ident who presented a plan that was
qualified for a "deemed approval."
Gory D. :Reihart
- Page ,6
- In February 1985, you filed subdivision plans for
these two tracts.
Because of the condition set forth the Planning
Commission and the 1385 Board of Township Supetvisors
rejected your plans.
(4) Subsequently; ylou voted for adoption of a resolution
for a "deemed approval" of the plans for subdivi.ss:bn of
these townhouse apartments.
b. The deemed approval resolution was to be used if the
supervisors do not undertake the appropriate action With
regard to a plan of subdivision.
C. This was not the issue with regard to your plan.
d. A written solicitor's opinion was required but never
obtained on this deemed approval.
e. Deemed approval was never utilized before or after the
approval of your subdivision plans.
f. Your subdivision plans were signed by township supervisors
at the meeting when the deemed approval resolution Was
adopted on June 5, 1986.
At the time of settlement, subdivision had not been
approved by the township supervisors. Pennsylvania
Properties then took title to the entire 12 acre tract eft
the condition that they would return approximately eight
acres to you (or Denise Reihart) for $1.00 if subdivisidii
approval was obtained within a certain time limit.
h. You (or Denise Reihart) obtained eight acres of land for
$1.00.
19. Township Supervisor Larry E. Eichelberger provided the following
information with regard to the instant situation:
a. He voted for the deemed oads hich pedby Mr. Logan and Orebank Roads Reihart.
b. He checked the Township Code and Solicitor William Schrack
suggested the deemed approval of this subdivision.
c. The origin of the transaction occurred before Reihart
became a township supervisor.
g •
(2
( 3)
Gary D. Reihart
Page 17
g.
d. During 1985, Reihart transferred the deed on this 12 acre
lot to his daughter, Denise Reihart.
(1) This transfer was beneficial to Reihart for tax
purposes.
(2) Reihart was not a township supervisor in 1985.
(3)
(1)
Reihart was not considering a run for election to
township supervisor during 1985.
e. This incidence of deemed approval was the only time the
deemed approval resolution • was utilized in the township.
(1) Former Supervisor Mildred Shelley blocked the approval
of Reihart's subdivision from December 1984 until June
1986.
(2) Similar incidents have not occurred because Reihart has
not blocked like - requests for subdivision brought
before the Board by members of the Shelley family.
f. Pennsylvania Properties was the buyer of the townhouse
apartments.
An agreement was struck with Pennsylvania Properties
that this firm would hold the deed to the 12 acres of
land until subdivision was approved by the township,
supervisors.
(2) Eichelberger stated that he saw nothing wrong with
such an arrangement.
He voted to run Sewer District One through the township to
Hill- N- Dale . Estates.
(1) He had been trying to have the sewer line completed
since the mid- 1970's.
(2) A county judge
sewer line.
(3)
Shelley and at
supervisor had
line.
handed down an order to complete this
least one other former township
always blocked approval of' this sewer
Gary D. Reihart
Page 1$
h. Reihart, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, presented
a modified .,plan of his own- development at a meeting of the
Board. .. ( _ _
(1) He was aware that Reihart as a developer was
presenting; this plan a Board whichincluded Reihart
as a voting member.
(2) He advised that Reihart as Chairman presents all
similar plans to the=Board.
20. You provided the following information to a State Ethics
Commission investigator:
You have owned as much as 400 acres of township land.
The Township's comprehensive plan permitted the future
development of land in Carroll Township.
c. You purchased land for the purpose of raising horses, but
have subdivided and sold off part of the land.
d. In 1982, plans were presented to develop townhouse
apartments at Logan and Orebank Roads to the Township
Planning Commission.
You've stated that Raymond Carr used his position as
Chairman of the Planning Commission to block approval.
2. The plan for subdivision was dated December, 1984 and
during calendar years 1985 and 1986, approval
blocked by Mildred Shelley.
e. Since Supervisor Shelley was still blocking approval, you
considered a lawsuit against the Township because of the
provision of the municipality's Planning Code.
1. Solicitor Schrack took action to prevent the Township
from making a costly mistake by virtue of Mrs.
Shelley's refusal to permit approval of the
subdivision.
2. Shrack recommended that a resolution for a deemed
approval be voted on by the Township Supervisors.
3. You seconded a motion and voted to pass a resolution
because of the recommendation of the solicitor.
1.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 19
4. You emphasized that you voted for what your solicitor
wrote in the resolution and that this resolution
applied to all residents who had a deemed approval.
5. You related that Schrack, as legal officer of the
Township, wrote in the resolution and recommended it be
adopted.
6. You emphasized that you voted for what your solicitor
wrote in the resolution and recommended it be adopted.
g. As a developer, you are a party defendant with the Township
and others to a lawsuit pertaining to malfunctioning septic
systems.
1. You were not a township supervisor when the problems
with the septic systems occurred.
2. Solicitor Schrack recommended settlement of the
damages portion of the suit and an agreement was
struck with several insurance companies.
3. You stated that based upon the recommendation of the
Solicitor, you voted to accept the court ordered
settlement.
a. A county judge eventually handed down an order to
resolve this matter.
b. You stated that you voted to accept the order of
the county judge.
4. You related that the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources order the Township to develop
an acceptable plan for a sewer system.
h. Mildred Shelley and Raymond Carr have personally done
everything possible to embarrass and frustrate your efforts
to lawfully subdivide, your land.
1. Mildred Shelley has a long — standing personal animosity
toward you.
2. Mrs. Shelley, all during the time you served as
Supervisor, did everything in her power to thwart the
lawful construction of the sewer line ordered by the
Department of Environmental Resources.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 20
11. ;Allegations That you, a Supervisor in Carroll Township, York
County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act
170 of 1978), when you participated in decisions to place funds with
the Adams County National Bank after the bank gave you a $70,000
personal mortgage.
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. S403(a).
A. Findinas:
21. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference.
22. Minutes of the township supervisors' meetings reflect the
following information:
a. January 22, 1987 -It was moved by Mr. Reihart, seconded by
Mr. Eichelberger to adopt a resolution designating Adams
County National Bank and C.C.N.B. as depositories for the
Police Pension Fund, using the bank which offers the best
interest rate at the time of the deposit. Vote:
Eichelberger, yes, Reihart, yes. Motion carried.
23. You provided a copy of a commitment letter from Adams County
National Bank dated August 26, 1986 which approved a personal loan
application for you. That letter contained the following:
a. Your application had been given favorable consideration and
the bank approved a collateral loan for you in the amount of
$70,000, payable over 20 years at 10% interest.
24. You provided the following information regarding this loan:
a. Your application for this loan was favorably considered
almost five months before you voted.
b. You voted for the bank, either Adams County National Sank or
C.C.N.B., which paid higher interest.
Gary D. Rei
Page 21
c. The Board moved all of the money except $100,000 out of the
Adams County National Bank within sixty days after making
the deposit because this bank would not pledge stock as
security.
d. Your financial status would allow you to borrow' $70,000
from any lender in Pennsylvania.
e. You are not an officer or director or holder of stock of
Adams County National Bank which would exceed 5% of the
equity at fair market value of the business.
III. Allegation: That you, a Carroll Township Supervisor, violated
Section 5(b)(5) of the State Ethics Act which requires that the
Statements of Financial Interests include the name and address of any
person who is the direct or indirect source of income totalling in the
aggregate of $500 or more and 5.5(a) and (b) of the State Ethics
Commission regulations which state that the person required to file
shall list the names and addresses of any direct or indirect interests
in real estate of the person, his spouse, and minor dependent children
and real estate interest shall include ownership in the form of title,
as fiduciary, by option agreement, partnership or corporate share,
easement, trustee - beneficiary type interest, or any other form of
interest in realty in that you failed to list your sources of income
and real estate property.
A. Findings:
25. Finding #1 is incorporated herein by reference.
26. Carroll Township records disclose that you have filed Statements
of Financial Interests as follows:
a. March 2, 1983:
b. June 17, 1985:
c. March 27, 1986:
d. January 17,
e. April 25, 1988:
For 1982 calendar year as
township supervisor.
For 1984 calendar year as
for township supervisor.
For 1985 calendar year as
township supervisor
For 1986
township
For 1987
township
calendar year as
supervisor.
calendar year as
supervisor.
candidate for
a candidate
an incumbent
incumbent
incumbent
Gary D. Reihart
Page 22
27. The Statement of Financial Interests filed on March , 1"383
contained the following:
a. Item #13: Real Estate Interests: None
b. Item #14: Creditors: Commonwealth National Sank 14%
Farm Production Credit 12%
Cumber Valley Savings 4 -15%
c. Item #15: Sources of Income: PA Breeders Awards
'training Fees
Sale of Horses
Rental Income
d. item #18: Office of Directorship
in any Business: Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
President
e. Item 19 #: Financial Interests in any legal
entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
28. The Statement of Financial Interests filed on June 17, 1985
contained the following:
a. Item #11 through 17: None
29. Statements of Financial Interests filed on March 27, 1986
contained the following:
a. Item #9: Real Estate Interests None
b. Item #10: Creditors: None
c. Item #11: Sources of Income: Commonwealth of PA
Breeders Awards
d. Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: None
e. Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal
entity for profit: None
30. The Statement of Financial Interests filed an January 17, 1987
contained the following:
a. Item #13: Real Estate Interests: None
b. Item #14: Creditors: Adams FCo Financial 14%
National Bank 101
Gary D. Reihart
Page 23
c. Item #15: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders Assoc.
Real Estate Investments
Penn National Race Track
Philadelphia Park
d. Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business: Gary D.
Reihart, Inc. - President and Owner Flying "R"
Stable and Equus Swimming Center - Owner
e. Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal
entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
31. Statement of Financial Interests filed on April 25, 1988
contained the following:
a. Item #9: Real Estate Interests: None
b. Item #10: Creditors: Adams Co. National Bank 10%
Hill Financial 14%
Drovers and Mechanic 10 /4%
c. Item k11: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders Assoc.
Penn National Race Track
Philadelphia Park
Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
d. Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business:
Gary D. Reihart, Inc., - Owner - President
Equus Aquatic Center, - Owner
e. Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal
entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
32. Carroll Township records confirm that you filed amended
Statements 'of Financial Interests with the township on September 30,
1988 for 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 calendar years. Those forms
contain the .following:
a. Amendment to form filed June 17, 1985:
(1) Item #9: Real Estate Interests: (9) properties at
R.D. #5, Dillsburg, PA.
Item #10: Creditors: Farmers Trust Co. (Truck,)
12%
GMAC (car)
1st National aik. 4f
Wilmington
12%
15%
gary D. Re Oart
Page 24
b.
Otis & Thelma Craun 8%
C.C.N.B. 11 %
Hill :Financial 14%
Item #11: Sources of Income: "PA Breeders Fund
Gary D•. Reihart,
Phila. trarklgal TYkd c
Board of orss
Pe Na -onal Rad'e T%ihc
kin k
Trah.g fetes
Sales of Renal tst to
(4) IteM #14; Office of Directorship in ally
Business:
Gary D. Reihart, Inc., Pre'siden't
(5) Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal
entity for profit: Gary D. Reihart,
Inc.
(3
Amendment to form filed March 27, 1986:
(1) Item #9: (5) properties
(2) Item #14: Creditors GMAC (car) 12%
1st National Bank of
Wilmington l°
Otis & Thelma Cram
C.C.N.B. ii%
gill Financial 14%
(3) Item: #&1L: Sources of Income: Carroll Twp. Supervisors'
PA Breeders Fund
Sales df Real Estate
Penn National Race; ra c
Phlar. Past Race Track
Rental of Real ES to
Gary D. Reiliart, Zs£o
Training; f=ew
Board of HOrsea
c , Amendment tom- form . filed January' 19 , 1581:.
(1) Item;. #9s (4) properties
(2) Item. #10: Creditors: 1st National Bank of 1 5
Wilmington
GMAC (car) 1 '{
Otis & Thelma Craun 8$ '
Garb D. Reihart
Page 2S
(
(3)
C.C.N.B. 11%
Adams Co. National
Bank 10%
Hill Financial 14%
Item #11: Sources of Income: PA Breeders Fund
Real Estate Sales &
Rental
Penn National Race Truck
Training fees
Gary D. Reihart, Inc.
Phila. Park Race Track
Sale of Horses
(4) Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business:
Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President
Equus Aquatic Center, Owner
(5) Item #15: Financial Interest in any legal
entity for profit:
Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President
Equus Aquatic Center, Owner
d. Amendment to form filed April 25, 1988:
(1) Item #9: (3) properties
(2) Item #10: Creditors: 1st National Bank. of
Wilmington 15%
Drovers. and
Mechanics Bank 10
Hill Financial 14%
Otis & Thelma Craun 8%
Adams Co. National Bank 10%
C.C.N.B. 11%
Item #11: Sources of Income: PA Horse Breeders
Training Horses
Boarding Horses
Phila. Park Race. Track
Penn National Race Truck
Charlestown Race Track
Sale of Horses
(4) Item #14: Office of Directorship in any Business:
Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President
Equus Aquatic Center, Owner
(
Ition #15: Financial Interest in any legal entity for
Gary D. Reihart
Page 26
profit: Gary D. Reihart, Inc., President
Equus`Aquatic Center, Owner
33. You provided the following information regarding your filing of
Statements of Financial Interests.
a. You were initially confused about the requirements of these
statements.
b. Other township officials were also confused and failed to
report necessary information on their statements.
c. An out -dated front page of a statement entitled
"supplemental directions" was misleading to you.
d. Your farm is collateral for all of your loans, and also is
where your residence is located.
e. You are self- employed and have no employers to consider
when completing your statements.
f. Some entries on your statements were under wrong captions or
should have been listed under more than one caption of the
statement.
I ran a write -in election, and therefore did not get the
forms in a packet as you do when going through the narmal
procedure. I did not get the form until June 17 after the
May election. That day was my anniversary, and 1 was going
out for dinner. The Township clerk asked me if I had filed
a statement about 3:30 p.m., I said no, and ran home to fill
it out quickly. I was back at the Township office before
closing time at 4:30 p.m. I told the clerk it didn't seen
like I filled in much information, she said I know, 00St of
the people don't fill much in.
h. You denied having any reasons to conceal information tit
should be listed on these statements.
B. Discussion: As a supervisor for Carroll Township, you are a
"public official" as that term is defined under the £tiics Act. 65
P.S. , 5402; 51 Pa. Code 1.1. As such, you are subject to the
restrictions of that law.
In the instant matter, three allegations have been raised
regarding your conduct as a supervisor: whether you partic=ipated in
decisions which would effect your personal real estate development;
whether you placed funds in the Adams County National Dank after you
received a personal mortgage from that institution and lastly, ahethet
g.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 27
you omitted certain disclosures from your Financial Interests
Statement as to sources of income and real estate interests.
As to the first allegation, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act
provides:
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 ).
As to whether your actions violated Section 3(a) regarding
participating in matters concerning your own personal real estate
development, our inquiry must focus on two specific areas: the Hill -
N -Dale Estates and also the townhouse apartment developments at Logan
and Orebank Roads. The particular concern regarding Hill-N-Dale
involves whether your actions as to the installation of a sewer system
which services, in part, }fill -N -Dale Estates transgresses Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Act quoted above. Factually, it appears that at a point
in time prior to your serving as Township Supervisor, several
residents of Hill -N -Dale. Estates filed a law suit because of their
malfunctioning septic systems. The law suit was eventually- amicably
resolved and approved by York County Judge John Rauhauser.
Approximately one year thereafter, a motion to formally settle the law
suit was put before the township board and it was carried by two votes
with your abstention. Thereafter the sewers were installed and paid
for by two developers; no township funds were used for the
installation of the sewer. In addition, tie sewer line allowed for
565 units which could tap in through permit. 4i11 -N -Dale Estates had
only 20 permits out of the total number; 545 went to other units in
which you had no interest. You also abstained regarding a motion to
finance the installation of a sewer line.
Although the record establishes that you did abstain on certain
votes regarding the Hill -N -Dale law suit settlement,, it is also noted
that you did actually make or second certain motions in addition to
actually voting on the settlement on the litigation. Although your
actions resulted in a derivative financial benefit to your
subdivision, Hill-TN-Dale Estates and although you did use public
office through either making motion, seconding motions or voting to
approve the law suit, it is also true that the sewer installation not
only benefitted Hill-N.,D,als Estates but also a large section of the
township. The foregoing is evidenced by the fact that Hill -N -Dale
only accounted for approximately 3% to 4% of the permits that were
Gary D. Reihart
Page 28
issued relative to the sewer line that was installed in the township.
In Markham, Opinion 85 -013, we held that a public official could vote
on a matter wherein he had a financial interest if he had a remote
interest which was affected to the Same degree as .anyone else in the
class or subclass. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we
believe that your overall interest in this matter was remote and
therefore we find that you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics
Act regarding your participation as to the sewer line installation.
Turning to the matter of the township apartment development at
Logan and Orebank Roads of which you were the developer, this matter
could not be resolved by the three member board of township
supervisors: you abstained as to the development, one supervisor
voted in favor and the other voted against. Because of the foregoing
deadlock, the township solicitor advocated the adoption of a "deemed
approved" ordinance. Thus, if action was not taken to approve .a
given development plan within a certain number of days by the board,
the plan would be "deemed approved" as a result of the inaction by the
board. Although you voted in favor of the "deemed approved"
ordinance, and although it appears that your development at Logan and
Orebank Roads was `the . only development plan which was "deemed
approved" through this ordinance as a result of the inability of the
board to act upon the plan, we do not find that your action in voting
for this general township ordinance violated Section 3(a) of the
Ethics Act based upon our analysis in Markham, supra.
Turning. to the allegation regarding the placement of funds in the
Adams County National Bank which had given you a $70,000 personal
:mortgage, it noted that the bank is not a business with which you
• are associated as that term is defined under the Ethics Act.
Section 2. Definitions.
"Business with which he
business in which the person
person's immediate family is
owner, employee or holder of
is associated." Any
or a member of the
a director, officer,
stock. 65 P.S. S402.
Since you are not employed nor an officer or director of the bank
in question, it is not a business with which you are associated. The
bank gave you a personal mortgage prior to the time you voted to
place the funds in that bank, There could not be a use of office to
obtain a financial gain for yourself or a business with which you are
associated under Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above.
Accordingly, you did not violate Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act when
you participated in the decision to place funds in the Adams County
National Bank.
Gary D. Reihart
Page 29
The third and final allegation relatei to the issue as to whether
you failed to disclose certain financial matters "in:yQUr.Financial
Interests Statement. This specific allegation relates to the possible
failure to list certain sources of income and real estate interests on
your Financial Interests Statement.
Se 5. Statement of financial interests.
(b) The statement shall include the
following information for the prior calendar year
with regard to the person required to file the
statement and the members of his immediate family:
(5) The name and address of any person who
is the direct or indirect of .income
totalling in the aggregate $500 or more. However,
this provision shall not be construed to require
the divulgence of confidential information
protected by statute or existing professional
codes of ethics. 65 P.S. §405(b)(5).
55.5. Real estate.
(a) The person required to file shall list
the names and address of any direct or indirect
interests in real estate of the person, his
spouse, and minor dependent children as follows:
(1) Any real estate sold or leased to
Commonwealth or any of its agencies or political
subdivisions.
(2) Any real estate purchased or leased from
the Commonwealth, or any of its agencies or
political subdivisions.
(3) Any real estate which is subjected to
any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth
or its agencies or political subdivisions. _51_
Pa. Code S5.5(a)(1)(2).
(b) Real estate interests shall ;include
ownership in the form of title, as fiduciary, by
option agreement, partnership or corporate share,
easement, trustee - beneficiary type interest, or
any other form of interest in realty. 51. Pa. .Cods,
55.5(b).
Gary D. Reihart
Page 3.Q
For the Financial, Interests Statements onwfile consisting of the
1982 calendar year and 1984 through 1987 calendar years inclusive, you
listed: "none" under the category of real ea-tae= interests, your
thoroughbred horse- raising and: trading bve'irie<sS as a source of income
(except for the 1984 calendar year), certain creditors (except for the
1984, 1984 calendar year), and various interests in legal entities for
profit as well as your offices and business for the years 1982, 1986
and. 1987.
You now have filed amended statements for the calendar years 1983
through 1987 inclusive where you have included your real estate
interests in various properties in the Dillsburg area as well as
adding various sources of income and some other financial interests
items in other categories.
In determining whether your actions violated Sections 5(b)(5) and
5.5(a) and (b) of the regulations, you did not violate those
provisions of law regarding your real estate interests because you are
only required to file those real estate interests which are either
leased to the Commonwealth or a political subdivision or subject to
condemnation proceedings or are somehow involved with the Commonwealth
or a political subdivision. Since it does not appear that any of the
foregoing conditions were applicable, you were not required to list
those real estate interests and therefore you did not violate the
Ethics Act by your failure to include those real estate interests in
your original filings. As to the second part of this allegation
concerning the listing of sources of income, the record does establish
that you did not list all sources of income, but you did make
disclosures through your amended filings. Since there does not appear
to be any evidence that your failure to disclose was either
intentional or an on your part to conceal financial interests,
we find a technical violation regarding your failure to list certain
sources of income but we will take no further action in light of the
fact that you have filed amended` Statements of Financial Interests.
C. Conclusion and Order:
1. As a:Carroll Township Supervisor 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 regarding
matters involving your real estate development Hill -N -Dale Estates.
your: townhouse apartment ,developments ated at Logan aiid Orebafil'
Roads.
3. You did not violate Section 3(a) regarding the placement of -fund
in the Adams County National Bank. since that is not .a - business "with'
which you are associated under --the Ethics Act.
GUI D. Reihart
Page, 31
4. You did not violate the Ethics Act regarding your failure to list
your real estate interests since those interests were not leased or
involved in condMonation proceedings with the Commonwealth or a
politica: sdivlsion.
5. There is at technical .ehijcai violat 'ion. of 5(b)(5) of the Ethics Act
regarding your f= ai]lure to list certain sources of income, however,
this Commission. wa ,L..take no further action because you filed amended
statements and because there is no evidence to indicate that there was
any intent or any attempt on your part to conceal financial interests.
This Order is final and will be made available as a public
document ( teen days after issuance. However, you may request
reconsideration which will defer public release of this Order pending
action on your request by the Commission. A request for
reconsideration, however, does not affect the finality of this Order.
A_ reppnsideration request must be received at this Commission within
fifteen days of issuance and must include a detailed explanation of
you reasons as to . why reconsideration should be granted in conformity
with 51 Pa. Code 52.38.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance
with Section 8(a) of the Ethics Act, 65. P.S. 408(a) during the fifteen
day period and no one, including yourself, unless the right to
challenge this Order is waived, may violate confidentiality by
releasing, discussing or circulating this Order. However, .
confidentiality does not preclude you from discussing this case with
your attorney at law.
Any person who violates 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, 65 P.S.
409(e).
By the Commission,
Robert W. Brown
Vice Chair
Chairperson Helena G. Hughes did not particpate in this matter.
,.,