HomeMy WebLinkAbout1250 ScottIn Re: Sandra Scott
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair
Louis W. Fryman, Vice Chair
John J. Bolger
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
Donald M. McCurdy
Michael Healey
00- 053 -C2
Order No. 1250
9/4/02
9/25/02
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an
investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act
9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65
Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its
investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific
allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and
served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An
Answer was filed and a hearing was held. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11
of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and
provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998.
This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and
will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above.
However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at
this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation
of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code
§21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will
defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission.
The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of
1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year.
Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Sandra M. Scott, a (public official /public employee) in her capacity as a Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor II for the Department of Labor and Industry, violated and /or attempted
to violate the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when she used the
authority of her office for a private pecuniary benefit by soliciting and /or accepting a payment
from individuals she recommended to be utilized by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation as a
contractor to provide services to OVR clients; and when she solicited and /or accepted
something of monetary value, including a gift or loan based on her understanding that her
official action would be influenced thereby by soliciting loans from individuals in return for her
selecting these individuals to provide services to OVR clients.
Section 1103. Restricted activities.
(a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a).
Section 1103. Restricted activities.
(c) Accepting improper influence. - -No public official,
public employee or nominee or candidate for public office shall
solicit or accept, anything of monetary value, including a gift,
loan, political contribution, reward, or promise of future
employment based on any understanding of that public official,
public employee or nominee that the vote, official action, or
judgment of the public official or public employee or nominee or
candidate for public office would be influenced thereby.
65 Pa.C.S. §1103(c).
Section 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official
or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or
any confidential information received through his holding public
f
of ce or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself,
a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or
"conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de
minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a
class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of
an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public
official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
65 Pa.C.S. §1102.
II. FINDINGS:
A. Pleadings
1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging
that Sandra Scott violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998).
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 3
2. Upon review of the information the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry
on August 15, 2000.
3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
4. On October 12, 2000, a letter was forwarded to Sandra Scott, by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission informing her that a complaint against her was
reviewed by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7099 3400 0012 4638 3735.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Sandra Scott, with a delivery
date of October 13, 2000.
5. On March 23, 2001, the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission filed an
application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
6. The Commission issued an order on April 9, 2001, granting the ninety day extension.
7. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Sandra Scott in accordance with the
provisions of the Ethics Law advising her of the general status of the investigation.
8. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on July 6, 2001.
9. Sandra Scott was employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Labor & Industry, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, as Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselor from June 8, 1996, until August 4, 2000.
a. Scott served as Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor I from June 8, 1996, until
July 14, 1998.
b. Scott was promoted to a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II on July 14,
1998.
10. Sandra Scott has been employed in the following capacities by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania since 1985.
a. July 22, 1985, to April 8, 1987 — Residential Services Aide, Department of
Public Welfare, Ebensburg Center — resigned April 8, 1987.
b. July 10, 1992, to March 10, 1993 — Residential Services Aide, Ebensburg
Center.
c. July 10, 1993, to September 20, 1994 — Transferred to Department of Labor &
Industry, Hiram Andrews Center, as Therapeutic Activities Aide.
d. September 20, 1994 — Grievance filed, reclassified as Therapeutic Activities,
Service Worker, retroactive to 09/17/93.
e. June 8, 1996: Reclassified as Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor I.
11. On July 7, 1996, Scott transferred from the Hiram Andrews Center, Johnstown, PA, to
the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) Harrisburg Office.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 4
12. Sandra Scott was suspended from her position as a Vocational Rehabilitation
Counselor II effective June 23, 2000, as a result of allegations that she utilized her
position with the Department of Labor & Industry, to secure or attempt to secure
monies from a client and /or service provider(s) for her personal use.
13. Scott was dismissed from her position effective August 4, 2000.
a The dismissal was the result of a fact finding hearing.
b Scott was notified of the termination by letter dated August 3, 2000, from
Barbara Shelton, Deputy Secretary for Administration, Department of Labor &
Industry.
14. A job description for the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II (VRC II)
signed by Sandra Scott on December 1999, included the following duties.
a. Under the general supervision of a professional supervisor, is responsible for
providing a full range of vocational rehabilitation services to disabled individuals
to assist them in obtaining gainful employment.
b. Develops and maintains referral sources in (assigned area) by personal contact
to assure that potential vocational rehabilitation clients are identified. Obtains
preliminary information pertinent to the referral of persons with disabilities for
vocational rehabilitation services.
c. Conducts a comprehensive face -to -face interview with the applicant to gather
pertinent information regarding the nature of the disabling condition, education
and employment history, psycho- social factors and other data needed to initiate
the vocational rehabilitation process. Explains eligibility requirements, scope of
services, confidentiality, appeal rights and determines next steps with the
applicant and other appropriate parties.
d. On the basis of medical, psycho - social, vocational and client information,
determines that applicant's potential for vocational rehabilitation. Guided by
legislation, regulations and agency policy, utilizes professional judgment,
consultation as appropriate with related professionals and the client's
participation.
e. Arranges for and approves expenditures associates with medical, psychological,
psychiatric, physical or other evaluations as part of determining potential for
vocational rehabilitation. Coordinates the delivery of these services through
completion and assures vendor payment.
f. Evaluates, in conjunction with a professional consultant, the information which
has been obtained to ascertain the applicant's potential for rehabilitation and
eligibility.
In consultation with the client, and other appropriate interested parties,
determines an appropriate vocational goal and develops and approves a
mutually agreed upon Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan to achieve the
established vocational goal. Identifies client and agency responsibilities,
services to be provided, and similar benefits to be utilized to achieve the
rehabilitation plan.
h. Coordinates the delivery of planned vocational rehabilitation services and
provides counseling, guidance and placement assistance as needed to assist
the client in achieving the established vocational goal.
g.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 5
j.
Maintains, evaluates and documents client progress or to determine the
appropriateness of case closure.
Provides professional vocational rehabilitation services and maintains liaison
with community service providers to assure that service programs address
client needs.
k. As necessary, provides technical and professional guidance and assistance
concerning agency programs, procedures and services.
Contacts employers to enhance placement opportunities for disabled clients.
m. Performs related work as required.
15. Essential job functions for Scott's position as VRC II include the following:
a. Meets with applicants to obtain information concerning the applicant's physical
or mental condition, social and economic situation, attitudes and aptitudes, work
experience, educational background and personality traits.
b. Evaluates the information which has been obtained to ascertain the applicant's
eligibility for the VR program.
c. Arranges for, and approves expenditures associated with determining eligibility
for, and /or providing vocational rehabilitation services.
d. Identifies handicaps to employment to assist clients in developing Individualized
Written Rehabilitation Programs.
e. Provides counseling, guidance, and placement services designed to encourage
and support clients in their efforts to prepare, obtain or retain employment.
f. Maintains and shares with clients a knowledge of community services,
resources, opportunities and providers to effect a rehabilitation program.
Coordinates the delivery of planned services to assist the client in achieving the
established goal.
h. Serves as liaison and advocate between OVR and community agencies,
providers, consumer groups, advocate groups and employers.
Prepares text for case history records and reports.
j. Maintains accurate and up -to -date case records on clients.
k. Maintains, evaluates and documents progress through the VR process.
Performs work in accordance with federal regulations and departmental policies
and procedures.
m. Travels in and out of District to attend meeting with customers, providers,
employers and community groups, attends training sessions, participates on
work groups, and attends statewide meetings.
g.
16. Cases are assigned to OVR counselors by supervisors of a particular unit.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 6
a. After cases are assigned it is the responsibility of the counselor to make contact
with the client to schedule the initial appointment.
b. Counselors have latitude in how contact is made with a client.
1. Counselors can either contact clients by telephone or by letter.
17. Counselors must determine whether a client is eligible for services.
a. Criteria for eligibility includes having a disability, that is, a physical, mental or
emotional impairment which results in a substantial impediment to employment.
b. If a client is determined to be eligible, the counselor completes a certificate of
eligibility.
c. The counselor then meets with the client to develop an Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE).
1. Prior to April 2000 this plan was known as an Individualized Written
Rehabilitation Program (IWRP).
d. The IPE establishes various goals, including employment.
18. The ultimate goal for the counselor is to assist the client in obtaining /maintaining full -
time employment.
a. One of the tools utilized by the counselor to achieve this goal is the job coach.
b. A job coach is an independent contractor of OVR who assists OVR clients in
finding and maintaining employment.
c. Costs associated with the use of a job coach are paid by OVR.
1. The OVR counselor, along with the client, determines the need for the
job coach.
2. OVR counselors are not required to seek supervisor approval prior to
authorizing the use of a job coach.
19. It is OVR policy for the OVR counselor to meet with a client to discuss job coaches
before a job coach is assigned to a client.
a. OVR policy requires that an IPE be completed by the client and counselor prior
to assigning a fob coach.
1. If job coaching is part of the IPE, the OVR counselor provides the clients
with a list of available job coaches.
b. The counselor discusses job coaches with the client, but it is the client's choice
which job coach to utilize.
1. The counselor is not permitted to pressure, or influence, a client into
using a particular job coach.
20. Once the client selects a job coach, the OVR counselor, client and job coach meet
jointly to identify specific job coaching needs consistent with the IPE.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 7
21. The OVR counselor and job coach then determine and agree upon the number of job
coaching hours necessary for the client to be satisfactorily employed.
22. The job coach is compensated an hourly rate based on the agreed upon hours for each
client.
a. After the meeting with the client and the number of hours for the job coaching
are agreed upon, the job coach may bill OVR for an amount totaling 15% of the
agreed upon hours of job coaching.
b. After the client has been satisfactorily employed consistent with the I PE forfive
working days, the job coach may bill for an amount equivalent to 35% of the
agreed upon hours of job coaching.
c. When a client has been satisfactorily employed for 45 calendar days, the job
coach may bill for an amount equivalent to 25% of the agreed upon hours ofjob
coaching.
d. After the client has been satisfactorily employed for a minimum of 90 calendar
days, the intensive training phase is completed, and both the client and OVR
counselor are satisfied with the client's progress, the job coach may bill for the
final 25% of the agreed upon hours.
23. Prior to 2000, the Harrisburg office of OVR would refer clients in need of job coaching
to one of several agencies in the Harrisburg area.
a. The procedure was changed in or about February 2000 to permit OVR
counselors to employ independent job coaches not affiliated with an agency.
b. Independent job coaches rates were at least one -half of the rate charged by the
agencies used by OVR.
24. Sandra Scott utilized the services of various individuals as a job coaches from January
2000 through July 2000.
a. Diane Smothers was one of the individuals used by Scott as a job coach.
25. In her employment, Smothers was responsible for assisting individuals with disabilities
to obtain and maintain employment.
26. Diane Smothers became acquainted with Sandra Scott in 1998 through her
employment with Living Unlimited.
a. Smothers would meet with Scott to discuss the progress of OVR clients who
were also clients of Living Unlimited.
b. These meetings would occur approximately every four to six weeks.
27. Sometime prior to February 2, 2000, during the course of a meeting Scott and
Smothers discussed Smothers' desire for other employment.
28. During lunch Scott and Smothers discussed Smothers' desire to be self - employed.
a. Scott advised that Smothers could contract directly with OVR, through her, to
be a job coach.
b. Scott told Smothers that she would make referrals to Smothers.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 8
c. Scott offered Smothers $20.00 /hour for job coaching.
29. During February 2000 through April 2000 Sandra Scott referred OVR clients to
Smothers for job coaching.
30. Subsequent to the January 27, 2000, meeting Scott assigned Smothers her first job
coaching client.
31. Scott utilized the CareerLink offices to meet with OVR clients.
32. Job coaches receive payments for various phases from the OVR.
a. The job coach submits a case budget form which describes the phase
completed.
1. The OVR counselor signs the form approving the phase payment.
b. Invoices for services are then prepared by OVR.
1. The invoice contains a fee service description of the phase being billed.
2. The invoice requires an OVR signature.
3. The OVR caseworker usually signs the invoice which gives
authorization to issue payments to the job coach.
33. Sandra Scott, in her capacity as an OVR counselor signed invoices for Diane
Smothers in relation to job coaching services provided by Smothers for Mary Leppla
and Jayne Reese.
a. Scott signed authorization for payments to Smothers in March 2000.
34. Smothers wrote Scott a check in the amount of $900.00 drawn on her personal
account.
35. On March 2, 2000, Diane Smothers issued check no. 1107 in an amount of $900.00
drawn on her personal account to Sandra Scott.
a. The memo portion of the check indicates gift.
b. The back of the check contains the signature of Sandra Scott.
c. The check was cashed on March 3, 2000, at Allfirst Bank by Sandra Scott.
36. On March 3, 2000, Sandra Scott made a deposit of $850.00 to ajoint account owned
by her and her husband, Alfred Scott, at Waypoint Bank (formerly Harris Savings
Bank), account no. 200077392.
37. Account records for 200077392 confirm mortgage payments to Denise Botts on
February 19, 2000, and March 20, 2000.
38. Both Scott and Smothers were at the Harrisburg YWCA seeking applicants for OVR
and /or job coaching.
39. On September 25, 1998, Scott obtained a $1,600.00 loan from Broffs Diamonds, Loan
and Finance Associates, Pittsburgh, PA.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 9
a. Scott provided Broff's with three diamond rings (2 women's and one man's) to
be held as collateral.
40. Scott has made payments to Broff's on the following dates:
Date Date of Amount of Unpaid
Due Payment Charge Payment Principle
07/25/99 07/26/99 $480.00 $1,600.00
05/25/00 05/25/00 $480.00 $1,600.00
03/25/01 03/23/01 $ 480.00 $1,600.00
a. Scott still has an outstanding balance of $1,600.00 with the next charge
payment due on January 25, 2002.
41. In order for Broff's to have returned Scott's rings, in either March, April or May of 2000,
Scott would have been required to make one of the following payments:'
Date of Amount of Unpaid Total
Payment Charge Principle Payment
03/25/00 $384.00 $1,600.00 $1,984.00
04/25/00 $432.00 $1,600.00 $2,032.00
05/25/00 $480.00 $1,600.00 $2,080.00
a. The unpaid principle and the amount of charge could have been paid prior to
the May 25, 2000, due date.
42. If payment was not made by the required May 25, 2000, due date, Broff's was
authorized to begin a process by which they could have sold the rings 90 days after the
due date.
43. OVR has a policy by which they would purchase a computer for a client should the
OVR counselor determine a computer would enhance the client's employment
possibilities.
44. Reese informed Scott of her plans to start her own business and that she planned on
getting a loan to help finance the start -up of the business.
45. The names of the OVR clients were confidential even to potential independent job
coaches.
46. Scott prepared an OVR file document, progress notes for Jayne Reese, dated May 11,
2000, which indicated Smothers advised Scott that Reese would be a good candidate
for the job coaching position and that Smothers was pleased Scott followed her advice
and hired Reese.
47. Scott's hiring of Reese as a job coach ended OVR's contract with Smothers through
which Smothers acted as Reese's job coach.
a. Scott notified Smothers that she would not authorize phases three and four of
OVR's contract with Smothers to provide job coaching to Reese.
48. The client assigned to Reese was Carlton Daley.
49. Sandra Scott, as a Counselor II for the Department of Labor & Industry, Office of
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 10
Vocational Rehabilitation, entered into a number of contracts with Diane Smothers to
provide job coaching services to OVR clients.
a. Scott's duties as Counselor I I included negotiating the terms of the contract, the
hours Smothers worked on the project, and the compensation paid Smothers
for her work.
b. Scott oversaw the work performed by Smothers and had the authority to
terminate the contracts at any time during the course of the agreements.
c. OVR payments to Smothers for job coaching services required Scott's
approval.
50. Scott was assigned to be Reese's counselor and determined that Reese would benefit
from job coaching.
51. Reese was of limited financial means and would not have been able to repay any loan
without job coaching contracts provided by Scott.
B. Testimony
52. Don M. Amis (Amis) is a Vocational Rehabilitation Supervisor in the Harrisburg District
Office of the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR).
a. OVR provides vocational rehabilitation services to persons with severe physical,
mental or emotional disabilities to help them maintain or gain employment.
(1) In order to be eligible for OVR services, a person must first be
determined to have significant impairments that impede the ability to
work and perform work functions.
b. Amis supervises a unit of four to six vocational rehabilitation counselors who
provide rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities throughout the Central
Pennsylvania region.
c. Sandra Scott (Scott) was a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor 11 (VRCII)
under Amis' supervision.
d. The duties of a VRC 11 include making determinations about an individual's
ability to work, and helping OVR customers develop individualized plans for
employment and achieve individual goals to reach employment outcomes.
e. In the process of planning a vocational objective and discussing employment
goals with a customer, a VRC 11 may suggest the utilization of a job coach as an
option to help the customer achieve his /her goals.
f. A job coach assists the customer with everyday job searching activities such as
taking the customer to job sites, assisting the customer with job applications,
and helping the customer through the interview process.
If the customer is employed, the job coach works with the customer and the
employer during the training process, then slowly withdraws from the process
when the customer can perform the job independently.
g.
h. Under OVR's job coaching policy, prior to the provision of any job coaching
services, a VRC 11 is required to negotiate the services to be provided, the
number of hours to be spent providing the services, and the amount OVR will
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 11
j.
spend for those services.
(1) Vendors are paid in four phases.
(a) Vendors receive 15 percent of the cost of the contract
immediately after the contract is made.
(b) After the customer has been employed for five days, the vendor
receives 35 percent of the contract.
(c) After the customer has been employed for 45 days, the vendor
receives 25 percent of the contract.
(d) After the customer has been employed for 90 days, the vendor
receives the remaining 25 percent or the balance of the contract.
Independent job coaches are not associated with job coaching agencies.
(1) Independent job coaches are paid by OVR on a fee for service basis at
the rate of $20 per hour.
(2) Independent job coaches, like job coaches associated with an agency,
are also paid in four phases as per the job coaching contract.
(3) There is no prohibition on using independent job coaches as opposed to
job coaches who work for agencies.
(4) There are no rules or guidelines as to the type of background a person
needs to have to be an independent job coach.
(5) A VRC II need not obtain Amis' approval to hire or select job coaches.
(6) A VRC 11 controls the process of selecting a job coaching agency or an
independent job coach.
Scott came to Amis to discuss employing one of her customers, Jayne Reese
(Reese), as a job coach.
(1) It was Amis' understanding that Scott's lan was to make Reese a job
coach, so that there would be a successful rehabilitation or a successful
completion of a vocational plan.
(2) Amis told Scott that he did not think that it was a good idea and that
Scott should discuss it with the Assistant District Administrator.
k. Amis stated that Scott discussed her idea with the Assistant District
Administrator and obtained approval from him to hire Reese as a job coach.
(1) Reese was then put on the vendor list and became a job coach.
When Reese became a job coach, she was still an OVR customer.
(1) Reese's employment history before becoming a job coach included
providing janitorial services.
(2) Reese's employment goal was to start her own business taking pictures
of animals and putting them in frames.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 12
m. When Reese was an OVR customer, her job coach was Diane Smothers
(Smothers).
P.
(1) Smothers provided job coaching services to Reese as an independent
job coach.
(2) Prior to becoming independent, Smothers was employed as a job coach
for Living Unlimited, a job coaching agency.
(3) When Smothers was employed by Living Unlimited, she worked with
many OVR counselors including Scott.
(4) Smothers wanted to step out and become an independent job coach.
(5) Smothers and Scott arranged that Smothers would provide job coaching
services to Reese as an independent job coach.
(6) Smothers lost Reese as a client when Reese became a job coach
because Smothers' contract obligations were met when Reese became
employed.
Reese was not able to maintain the position of a job coach and is not a
job coach at the present time.
(
n. On June 9, 2000, Amis received a telephone complaint from Reese.
(1) Reese complained that she had been mistreated by Scott and had been
unfairly fired from her position as a job coach.
(2) Reese stated that Scott was angry with her because she had called
Scott's house over the weekend.
(3)
(5)
Reese stated that she had called Scott because she wanted to discuss
fixing some of Scott's countertops and to inform her that she had gotten
a loan that Scott had asked Reese to obtain for her.
(4) Reese stated that Scott had asked her to take out a $3,000 loan so that
Scott could get some jewelry out of a pawn shop.
Reese stated that Scott had asked for and had received money from
other people.
(6) Reese agreed to discuss the matter with Amis and Joe DeLellis
(DeLellis), the District Administrator.
o. Shortly after the telephone call from Reese, Amis received a telephone call from
Smothers.
(1) Smothers told Amis that Scott had requested and received money from
her.
(2) Smothers agreed to discuss the matter with Amis and DeLellis.
When Amis and DeLellis met with Reese, Reese stated that Scott had asked
her for $3,000.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 13
q.
(1) Reese stated that she believed that the $3,000 was a fee to obtain work
from Scott.
(2) Reese stated that when she told Scott that she did not have $3,000,
Scott encouraged her to borrow the money.
Reese stated that she called several different lending institutions, but
was unsuccessful in getting a loan and that Scott was working with her
to obtain the money.
(3)
(4) Reese explained that Scott was unaware that she had been able to
obtain a loan on her own by putting her car up for collateral.
Reese stated that she telephoned Scott over the weekend to discuss
Scott's countertops and to tell Scott that she had obtained the loan for
her; that Scott was angry at Reese for calling her at home; and that
Scott fired Reese as a job coach the following Monday.
(5)
At Amis and DeLellis's meeting with Diane Smothers, Smothers stated that
Scott had requested and received $900 from her.
(1) Smothers stated that after she gave $900 to Scott, Scott asked
Smothers for $2,000, and then $1,500 to get her jewelry out of a pawn
shop.
(2) Smothers stated that she declined Scott's requests for additional funds.
r. After Amis and DeLellis met with Reese and Smothers, DeLellis took control of
the matter and Scott's entire caseload came under intense scrutiny.
(1) All questionable contracts were held in abeyance.
s. Amis testified that he felt that Scott's actions constituted extortion of a client.
t. Scott was fired from her position as a VRC II and is no longer employed by
OVR.
53. Charles Cavalovitch (Cavalovitch) is the Assistant District Administrator in the
Harrisburg District Office of OVR.
a. Cavalovitch's responsibilities include overseeing the counselors' initial
orientation and training during the first two to three month period; supervising
the supervisors in DeLellis' absence; and reviewing case files to grant waivers
or exceptions in relation to job coaching.
b. When Cavalovitch learned that Reese, a potential vendor, was a customer
under a job coaching contract, he and Scott discussed whether this was an
appropriate arrangement.
(1) Scott assured Cavalovitch that Smothers had recommended that it
would be appropriate for Reese to become a job coach.
(2) Cavalovitch asked Scott to follow up their conversation with
documentation in the base file.
(3)
Based upon Cavalovitch's knowledge of Smothers' prior work with OVR,
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 14
Smothers' reputation as a job coach with an agency and as an
independent job coach, and Smothers' recommendation that Reese
would be a good job coach, he felt that it was appropriate for Reese to
become a job coach.
(4) Cavalovitch would not have approved Reese becoming a job coach
without a recommendation from Smothers.
54. Joseph DeLellis (DeLellis) is the District Manager of the Harrisburg District Office of
OVR.
a. DeLellis' responsibilities as District Manager include overseeing the office,
overseeing the budget, and administering to the supervisors and supervisory
units.
b. DeLellis occasionally becomes involved with counselor activities if a counselor
has a question that neither the supervisors nor the Assistant District
Administrator can address; or if a matter arises that is questionable or relates to
policy.
c. In June 2000, DeLellis was advised by Amis that he (Amis) had received two
telephone calls from Smothers and Reese regarding allegations against Scott.
(1)
DeLellis arranged to meet with Smothers and Reese the following
Monday to determine whether there was sufficient information to take
further action.
(2) DeLellis and Amis met with Smothers and Reese in separate meetings.
(a) Reese stated that Scott had approached her to apply for a loan to
include monies for Scott in return for which, Scott would employ
Reese as a job coach.
(b) Reese stated that she was shown a list of potential clients that
she could work with if she would become ajob coach and was
told that she could earn money by providing job coaching
services to those clients.
The distribution of lists of names of clients outside of the
agency and outside of the service delivery constitutes a
breach of confidentiality in violation of federal law.
(c) Smothers stated that Scott had asked her on three occasions for
a loan of funds and that Smothers had given Scott a loan as
evidenced by a canceled check.
d. After the meetings with Smothers and Reese, DeLellis advised Marlin Kester
(Kester), his bureau director, of the allegations against Scott.
e. DeLellis met with Kester, a representative from Personnel Relations in the
Department of Labor and Industry, General Counsel from Labor and Industry,
and the Assistant to the Executive Director.
(i)
f. A determination was made that DeLellis should call Scott into his office and
advise her that she would be suspended for a period of not more than 30 days
while the Inspector General's office would conclude the investigation and that
Scott's employment would be reinstated if the investigation would prove that no
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 15
g.
violations had occurred.
At DeLellis' next meeting with Scott, a Labor and Industry representative and
representatives from the Inspector General's office were present.
(1) The purpose of the meeting was to present Scott with the general scope
of allegations made against her, inform Scott that an investigation would
take place, and advise Scott that she would be under suspension.
(2) Scott stated that she was not guilty of the infractions and that she would
fight the allegations.
h. Some VRC II's who have demonstrated they have incurred travel expenses
have been issued American Express corporate credit cards from the
Commonwealth.
(1) Scott was one of the VRC I I's who received an American Express card
from the Commonwealth.
i. When the Commonwealth corporate credit card is not paid on time, the
Commonwealth is notified, and eventually DeLellis is notified.
j. DeLellis and Scott had one or more discussions about the fact that payments
on her American Express card were overdue and had to be made.
k. A department level decision was made to take the American Express card away
from Scott.
Scott told DeLellis that she had failed to make payments on her American
Express because she had been away for some time and her daughter was
taking care of her mail.
55. Diane Smothers (Smothers) is a job coach with Doors to Success, Inc., which
contracts with OVR.
a. Before joining Doors to Success, Inc., Smothers worked as a job coach for
Living Unlimited.
b. Smothers has 20 years of experience in job placement services.
c. Smothers first met Scott in 1998 when Smothers worked for Living Unlimited.
(1) Most of Smothers' customers had been referred to her through Scott.
d. In February 2000, while Smothers was working as a part -time regular employee
of Living Unlimited, she had a meeting with Scott regarding a client.
(1) At the meeting with Scott, Smothers told Scott that she was unhappy
with her working hours and asked Scott how she could become an
independent job coach.
e. Scott told Smothers that all she would have to do would be to work through her
(Scott).
f. In February 2000, Scott referred two clients to Smothers.
(1) Reese was one of the clients referred by Scott to Smothers.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 16
g.
(2)
(3)
In March 2000, while Smothers was still working part -time for Living Unlimited,
she received a telephone call from Scott.
(1) Scott was crying hysterically and asking Smothers to come to her office
right away.
(2) When Smothers arrived at Scott's office, Scott told her that due to
pressing family matters, she could not pay her mortgage that month.
Smothers recalls Scott asking, "How can you help me? I'm not asking
for money, but how can you help me ?"
(4) Smothers suggested several options including taking out a loan from a
bank, asking relatives for a loan, and working out a payment agreement
with the mortgage company, all of which options Scott rejected.
Smothers testified that she felt compelled to help Scott because she felt
Scott's desperation.
(6) Smothers asked Scott how much money she needed to pay her
mortgage and Scott told Smothers that she needed $900, at which point,
Smothers wrote her a check for $900.
Scott told Smothers that she would pay the money back even if it took
her a year.
(8) After Smothers gave Scott the check, Scott told Smothers that no one,
particularly her husband, must know about this.
Smothers wrote "gift" in memo area of the check so that Scott's husband
would not think that Scott had gotten a loan.
h. Smothers testified that she recalled that in an interview with an investigator from
the State Ethics Commission, the investigator asked the question, "And then
after you gave her the check, she said to you, 'we might as well get started and
get you some contracts.' And that's when she asked you to meet with Reese."
(1) Smothers testified that she recalled answering the investigator's
question as follows: "Well, we need to give you some more contracts. Is
that what she said, we need to give you some more contracts."
After Smothers gave Scott the $900 check, Scott instructed Smothers to
remain at the job center until five o' clock to meet with Reese.
(1) Smothers had not met Reese prior to this time.
(2) The purpose of this initial meeting was to fill out a new case form and
obtain work information from Reese including information about her
disabilities.
(3)
(5)
(
(
(3)
Smothers was assigned to help Reese maintain her current job.
Smothers was still working for Living Unlimited when Reese was
referred to her.
Scott, Smothers and Reese were present at the meeting.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 17
j.
Smothers received three more clients from Scott within the next month.
k. A few weeks later, when Smothers was in Scott's office for business, Scott
asked Smothers for $2,000 so that Scott could get her rings out of hock.
(1) Scott told Smothers about past financial problems that she and her
husband had had; that they had gone bankrupt; and that she had gotten
all of her personal possessions back except for her rings, which were in
the pawn shop.
(2) Smothers testified that Scott stated, "I would never ask for anything from
you again, but $2,000 to help me do that."
Smothers testified that she told Scott that she really felt that she was not
in a position to give her $2,000 and that she would seriously have to
think about it over the weekend.
(3)
(4) Smothers did not have enough money in her checking account at that
point in time.
Scott had not paid back the $900 to Smothers.
(5)
The following weekend, when Smothers' husband was preparing their taxes, he
noticed that her bank account had $900 less than normal and asked Smothers
to confirm that this was not an error.
m. Smothers explained the situation surrounding her loaning the $900 to Scott.
n. Smothers told her husband that Scott had asked her for an additional $2,000.
o. Smothers' husband advised her that she could get in a lot of trouble if her
dealings with Scott were ever revealed.
P. Smothers telephoned Scott the following Monday morning and relayed to Scott
her husband's advice.
q. Scott stated that she would never ask Smothers for another penny and
apologized that the incidents ever took place.
r. One month later, following a business meeting, Scott told Smothers that she
had taken a weekend job and made $500, and that all she needed to get her
rings out of the pawn shop was $1,500.
(1) Scott asked Smothers, "Can you help me out ?"
(2) Smothers replied, "Sandra, we've had this conversation before. I cannot
give you any more money."
s. After Smothers refused to loan Scott additional funds, Smothers noticed that
paperwork was not being processed for her to get paid.
t. Scott contacted Smothers and stated that Reese had told her (Scott) that
Smothers had recommended that Reese become a job coach, and therefore,
Scott was going to put it in writing.
(1) Smothers never recommended to OVR that Reese should become ajob
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 18
coach.
(2) Smothers knew that Reese was not qualified to be a job coach because
Reese lacked the experience needed to work with people with special
needs.
(3)
Smothers made a written notation in her case notes that she never
recommended Reese as a job coach.
u. Smothers lost Reese as a client when Scott decided to make Reese a job
coach.
56. Jayne Reese (Reese) is currently employed as a front desk clerk at Country Oven.
a. Reese's employment history includes running her own professional cleaning
business for approximately 12 years; working in a health store for one year;
working for an engraver; and working as a front desk clerk at a hotel.
b. Reese's ability to work was limited by medications she was taking for a serious
health problem.
c. Reese first met Scott after she contacted OVR in early 2000.
d. Scott was the VRC II Counselor assigned to Reese.
(1) Reese told Scott that her employment goal was to start her own
business.
e. In February or March 2000, Reese met Smothers for the first time.
(1) Smothers introduced herself to Reese and told Reese that she was
going to be her new job coach.
(2) Smothers conducted an intake for Reese, at which time, Reese told
Smothers that she wanted to start her own business.
f. Reese testified that she became depressed working for other people, that she
told Scott that she was going to start her own business with or without Scott's
help, and that she was going to take out a loan to start up her own business.
g. Scott asked Reese whether she would want to come to work for her being a job
coach.
h. Reese accepted the offer to become a job coach.
(1) Reese had no prior training to be a job coach.
Reese accepted Scott's offer because she believed she would be making more
money working for Scott.
(1) Reese concluded that working as a job coach for Scott would be
lucrative when she saw a list of clients on Scott's computer screen.
(a) Scott told Reese that all of the clients on the computer screen
were her clients.
(b) Reese testified, "It just added up real quick because [Scott] told
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 19
me herself... She had her calculator there and she was pushing
the calculator and she said, 'well, you can make this and this
and this per one, each one. "'
j. When Scott offered Reese a position as a job coach, Reese concluded that it
would no longer be necessary to take out a business loan.
k. Scott told Reese that she would still need to take out a loan to purchase work
clothes and things for the office.
Scott asked Reese whether Reese would lend her $3,000 to get her rings out of
the pawn shop, to which Reese agreed.
m. Scott then referred several clients to Reese.
n. Reese applied for a loan from several different banks and her husband's credit
union, but was refused.
o. Reese told Scott that the banks were not going to approve her for a loan, but
that she knew someone who worked at Waypoint Bank who would probably
approve her for a loan if Scott would talk to her.
(1) While Reese was in Scott's office, Scott made a telephone call to
Waypoint Bank and left a message for the person Reese knew.
(2) Scott provided Reese with several Commonwealth business cards, one
of which bore Scott's handwritten notation indicating the amount of
money Reese would be making as a job coach.
(a) Scott wrote Reese's potential salary on her business card so that Reese
could provide something in writing to the banks to facilitate Reese's loan
approval.
P. Reese never obtained a loan from Waypoint Bank.
q. Reese was eventually approved for a loan at Beneficial.
r. Scott was unaware that Reese had applied for a loan at Beneficial or that Reese
had been approved for a loan.
s. Reese telephoned Scott's house over the weekend to tell her that she had been
approved for a loan, but never had a chance to talk to her.
t. The following Monday, Scott fired Reese as a job coach.
(1) During the week that Reese was attempting to take out a loan, Scott
never indicated to her that there was a problem with Reese's
performance as a job coach.
(2) During the week that Reese was attempting to take out a loan, Scott was
referring clients to Reese.
Prior to being fired, Reese became aware that Scott had asked to borrow
money from Smothers.
(a) Reese testified that while in Scott's office, Scott stated, "I don't
know why Diane can't lend me like $1,000 because she just
(3)
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 20
made $20,000. I just gave her a job for $20,000."
57. Antoinette Crownover (Crownover) is the daughter of Jayne Reese.
a. Reese told Crownover that she (Reese) was going to a bank to take out a loan,
partly for herself and partly for Scott.
b. Crownover convinced Reese that Scott was taking advantage of Reese by
asking Reese for money.
c. Crownover accompanied Reese to the bank to apply for a loan, and then to
OVR to help Reese tell Scott that Reese was not going to lend Scott the money.
d. When Crownover and Reese went to Scott's office to tell Scott that the bank
was not going to approve Reese for a loan, Scott became very upset and stated
that Reese was acting just like Smothers because Smothers also would not give
her the money.
(1) Scott convinced Reese that Reese should continue to try to get the
money for her.
e. Several days after Crownover and Reese left Scott's office, Reese found out
that she had been turned down for a loan from the banks she and Crownover
had visited.
f. Reese then applied for a loan at Waypoint Bank.
(1) Reese told Crownover that Scott had called Waypoint and asked the
bank to approve a loan for Reese because she was going to have ajob
at OVR.
(2) Reese was not approved for a loan at Waypoint.
g. When Scott found out that Reese was not going to be approved for a loan, she
fired Reese as a job coach.
58. Jacqueline Waynette -Scott is the daughter of Sandra Scott.
a. Waynette -Scott testified that she first saw Smothers when she went to have
lunch with Scott at Career -Link.
b. Waynette -Scott testified that Scott was selling a ring to Smothers.
c. Waynette -Scott testified that she did not look at the ring, could not describe the
ring, and had no idea how much money changed hands.
59. Sandra Scott (Scott) is a former Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II for OVR.
a. Scott testified that she told Smothers that she had some rings in her possession
and at Broff's Diamond Exchange.
(1) Scott stated that she wanted Smothers to check with her husband
before purchasing a ring from her.
(2) Scott stated that Smothers returned a day or two later when Scott's
daughter, Jackie, was having lunch with Scott and told Scott that she
(Smothers) had spoken to her husband and that there would be no
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 21
problem in purchasing a ring from Scott.
b. Scott testified that Smothers tried to recruit Reese to be a job coach.
(1) Scott stated that Smothers told her that she thought Reese would be a
good job coach.
(2) Scott stated that she approached Amis and discussed the idea with him,
and that Amis suggested that Scott get approval from Cavalovitch.
Scott stated that Cavalovitch approved Reese becoming a job coach.
c. Scott testified that shortly after Reese became a job coach, Reese started to act
strangely.
(1) Scott stated that Reese would run into her office and say that she
(Scott) was going to take people from her and that she (Scott) thought
she was so much better than Reese because she sat behind a desk.
(2) Scott stated that she told Reese to gain control over herself.
(3) Scott stated that she sought guidance from Amis, Cavalovitch, and
DeLellis, but none of them would talk to her.
(4) Scott testified that during the ten years that she worked for the State,
she was never written up or reprimanded for any misdoings or a misuse
of funds.
g.
(3)
(5)
Scott stated that given her position as an OVR counselor, her
supervisors should at least have spoken to her.
d. Scott testified that when her supervisors would not help her, she asked Reese
whether she would consider a psychological evaluation.
(1) Scott testified that she sent Reese to Dr. Fink, a private psychologist
who frequently works with OVR, but "by that time, they had tricked me
down to a hearing."
e. Scott stated that Smothers went to Reese because Reese told her that she
(Scott) was going to take clients away from her.
f. Scott testified that she discovered that Reese was submitting falsified
documents to the State stating that one of Reese's clients was employed
somewhere.
(1) Scott testified that when Reese realized that she (Scott) found out about
the falsified documents, "that's when the plan got together."
On cross examination, Scott acknowledged that Smothers gave her $900; and
that she immediately took the money to the bank and deposited a portion of the
money into her account.
(1) Scott testified that she went to the bank to cash the check right away to
make sure it did not bounce.
(2) Scott testified that she bought the ring fifteen years ago for $1,800; that
it was worth much more today; but that she sold the ring to Smothers for
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 22
$900.
h. On cross examination, Scott acknowledged that Cavalovitch's decision that
Reese would be a good job coach was based upon information that she had
given to him.
j.
On cross examination, Scott testified that some of her rings have been held as
collateral at Broff's Diamonds since approximately 1995.
On cross examination, Scott testified that her Social Security Number is 167-
40 -7748.
(1) Scott testified that she would not be able to explain why her bank
records, which the State Ethics Commission subpoenaed, would contain
a second Social Security number beginning with "171."
k. On cross examination, Scott testified that she believed that Reese and
Smothers were conspiring against her.
(1) Scott testified that she brought up her conspiracy theory to the Inspector
General's office, but the Inspector General's office only included the
answers that she was permitted to answer.
(2) Scott testified that the Inspector General's report of their interview of her
is incomplete.
On cross examination, Scott denied owing $18,000 to an insurance company.
(1) Scott testified that the $18,000 debt belonged to her husband only.
(2) Scott testified that the $18,000 debt arose out of an incident involving a
Chrysler Mountaineer; that the vehicle caught on fire; that her husband
left the vehicle while the vehicle was burning; and that the insurance
company refused to pay for the vehicle.
Scott testified that both she and her husband were investigated
regarding the Chrysler Mountaineer.
(4) Scott testified that she accompanied her husband to court, but she was
never charged with any crime in Bedford County.
Scott acknowledged that she had an opportunity to review ID -28
consisting of the following: (1) certified copy of docket entries from
Bedford County Clerk of Courts regarding Case No. 2001 -00457 (VS)
Scott Sandra Maxine; and (2) certified copy of Order of Court dated
January 23, 2002 bearing the caption, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Sandra Maxine Scott.
(a) Scott acknowledged that the Latin phrase, "nolle prossed" in the
Court Order applied to her.
(6) Scott testified that she has never been in any trouble; has never been to
any hearings or to an arraignment; and has never been fingerprinted.
Scott stated, "I didn't even know they had a criminal action against me
for anything."
(3)
(5)
(7)
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 23
(8) Scott denied ever being handcuffed or taken in front of a judge.
(9) Scott testified that she and her husband were represented by different
attorneys.
m. On cross examination, Scott testified that she filed a complaint with Don Amis
regarding Reese submitting falsified documents to OVR.
(1) Scott testified that Amis refused to talk to her about the complaint.
(2) Scott testified that she did not presently have a copy of the complaint
with her, but that she could get it.
Scott testified that she did not cross examine Amis, Cavalovitch, or
DeLellis regarding the complaint that she alleged to have filed against
Reese.
(3)
60. Scott used her public position as a VRC I1 to solicit and obtain $900 from Smothers in
return for which she referred OVR clients to Smothers.
61. Scott used her public position as a VRC 11 to solicit and to attempt to obtain $2,000 and
$1,500 from Smothers in return for which she intended to refer OVR clients to
Smothers.
62. Scott used her public position as a VRC I I to solicit and to attempt to obtain a loan from
Reese in return for which she referred OVR clients to Reese.
C. Documents
63. Exhibit ID -8, pp 1 - 3 is a photocopy of a loan repayment and security agreement
between Beneficial Consumer Discount Company, Lender, and Jayne M. Reese,
Borrower.
a. The date of the loan is June 1, 2000.
b. The amount financed is $8,298.05.
c. The term is five years.
d. A 2000 Pontiac bearing serial number 1G2JB1249Y7297782 is listed as
security for the loan.
64. Exhibit 1D -10 are photocopies of the fronts and backs of three Commonwealth issued
business cards for Sandra M. Scott.
a. The backs of all three business cards bear Scott's handwritten notations.
b. The back of one of the business cards bears the following handwritten notation
by Scott, "Jayne Reese 1,192.30 2x per mo."
65. Exhibit 1D-11 is a photocopy of a direct deposit checking account statement for Sandra
M. Scott and Alfred Scott from Allfirst Bank for Account Number 09502 - 2757 -5.
a. The statement covers the time period of February 23, 2000 through March
23, 2000.
b. The statement reflects a balance on February 22, 2000 of $1.06, and a balance
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 24
on March 23, 2000 of $1.06.
66. Exhibit ID-12 is a photocopy of a direct deposit checking account statement for Sandra
M. Scott and Alfred Scott from Allfirst Bank for Account Number 09502 - 2757 -5.
a. The statement covers the time period of March 24, 2000 through April 21,
2000.
b. The statement reflects a balance on March 23, 2000 of $1.06, and a balance
on April 21, 2000 of $.00.
67. Exhibit ID-13 is a photocopy of a bank statement for Sandra M. Scott and Alfred Scott
from Waypoint Bank for Checking Account Number 0200077392, and Savings
Account Number 0260012203.
a.
b.
c.
The statement date is March 24, 2000.
The statement reflects a deposit on March 3, 2000 of $850.00 into the checking
account.
The statement reflects an ending balance of $24.00 in the savings account.
68. Exhibit ID -14 are photocopies of the following documents /forms: OVR Billing Process
for Job Coaching Services; Job Coaching Needs Determination and Training Plan;
Hours Negotiated to Meet Job Coaching Needs For (OVR Customer); Guidelines for
Job Coaching Services; Placement Report; and Placement Report — Signature Page.
69. Exhibit ID -15 is a photocopy of the Scott's job description for her former position as a
Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II.
a. Two of the responsibilities outlined in the job description are as follows:
In consultation with the client, and other appropriate interested parties,
determines an appropriate vocational goal and develops and approves a
mutually agreed upon Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan to achieve
the established vocational goal. Identifies client and agency responsibilities,
services to be provided, and similar benefits to be utilized to achieve the
rehabilitation plan.
Coordinates the delivery of planned vocational rehabilitation services and
provides counseling, guidance, and placement assistance as needed to
assist the client in achieving the established goal.
70. Exhibit ID -18, pp 1 and 4 are photocopies of the front and back of check No. 1107
from Diane T. Smothers payable to Sandra Scott in the amount of $900; and a direct
deposit checking account statement for Smothers from Allfirst Bank for Account
Number 00106 - 2812 -6.
a. Check No. 1107 was endorsed by Sandra Scott.
b. The Allfirst checking account statement for Smothers reflects that check No.
1107 in the amount of $900 was drawn from her account on March 3, 2000.
71. Exhibit ID-27 is a photocopy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of Inspector
General's Report of the interview with Sandra M. Scott.
a. Scott stated in the interview that she has never asked anyone she knows
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 25
through OVR for financial assistance and that she has never asked Diane
Smothers for financial assistance.
(1) Scott stated that the only money Scott ever received from Smothers was
$900, which was the price of a ring that Scott had sold to Smothers.
(2) Scott stated that Smothers was always admiring Scott's jewelry; that
Smothers asked her whether she (Scott) would consider selling her
diamond ring to her; and that Scott sold the diamond ring to Smothers
for $900 in March 2000, prior to Smothers becoming a job coach.
Scott stated that prior to selling the ring to Smothers, she told Smothers
that she (Scott) would have to check with her husband to see if her
husband had any objections to her selling the ring to Smothers.
(4) Scott stated that after her husband voiced no objections, she sold the
ring to Smothers.
Scott stated that she purchased the ring fifteen years ago for $1,800;
that she told Smothers to get the ring appraised before purchasing it so
that Smothers would feel comfortable with the price; that Smothers paid
Scott with a $900 check; and that Scott thought it was "cute" when
Smothers wrote "gift" on the memo portion of the check as a reminder to
herself that it was a gift to herself.
b. Scott stated in the interview that she has three rings worth $16,000 at Broff's
Diamond Exchange in Pittsburgh, which is similar to a pawn shop; that Broff's
pays customers 10% of the value of the jewelry; that Scott received $1,600 in
cash; and that Scott likes dealing with Broff's because she feels it is easier than
applying for a regular loan.
c. Scott stated in the interview that she never asked Smothers for money to get
her rings back from Broff's; and that she makes enough money at her part -time
job to get her rings back if she wants.
(1) When interviewed, Scott could not explain why she does not retrieve her
rings from Broff's if she makes enough money at her part -time job to do
so.
(3)
(5)
d. Scott stated in the interview that she never asked Jane Reese for any financial
assistance and that she has never called a bank on Reese's behalf.
e. Scott stated that in the interview that in May 2000, when Reese, Reese's
daughter, Antoinette Crownover, and Crownover's boyfriend came over to her
(Scott's) house, Reese started " ranting" that she needed a loan for her daughter
to go to oll y wood to become a movie star; that she told Reese and Crownover
that she did not want to be involved; and that she knew nothing about Reese
buying a computer from Gateway.
72. Exhibit ID-28 consists of the following: (1) certified copy of the docket entries from the
Bedford County Clerk of Courts for Case No. 2001 -00457 (VS) Scott Sandra Maxine;
and (2) certified copy of Order of Court dated January 23, 2002.
a. The docket entries provide in part as follows:
12/03/2001 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND WAIVER
OF ARRAIGNMENT FILED BY SHRISTOPHER [sic] J. MARZZACCO,
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 26
ESQUIRE
1/29/2002 ORDER OF COURT DATED JANUARY 23, 2002 ON MOTION
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALL CHARGES FILED IN THE ABOVE -
CAPTIONED MATTER ARE HEREBY NOLLE PROSSED BY TRHE [sic]
COURT, S /DANIEL LEE HOWSARE P.J.
b. The January 23, 2002 Court Order reads as follow:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BEDFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Criminal Action
No. 457 for 2001
vs. OTN — H — 153031 — 4
Sandra Maxine Scott Charges: Arson,
Criminal Conspiracy, et. al.
ORDER OF COURT
And now, January 23, 2002, on motion of the District Attorney, all charges filed
in the above - captioned matter are hereby nolle prossed.
Counsel:
For the Commonwealth: -
Dwight G. Diehl, Esquire
District Attorney
For the Defendant: -
Christopher J. Marzzacco, Esquire
By the Court,
73. Exhibit ID -30 is a photocopy of an Allfirst Sole /Joint Ownership Account Agreement for
Sandra M. Scott.
a. The Account Agreement lists the following as Scott's Social Security Number:
171 -42 -9209.
b. Scott signed under penalty of perjury that her tax payer identification number is
171 -42 -9209.
(1) The above tax payer identification number is handwritten above the
typewritten Social Security Number, 167 -40 -7748, which appears to
have been scratched out by hand.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Sandra M. Scott, hereinafter Scott,
has been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 27
Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., codified by the Public
Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq.,
which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
The allegations are that Scott, as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II for the
Department of Labor and Industry, violated or attempted to violate Sections 1103(a) and
1103(c) of the Ethics Act by soliciting or accepting a payment from individuals she
recommended to be utilized by the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation as a contractor to
provide services to OVR clients; and by soliciting loans from individuals in return for her
selecting these individuals to provide services to OVR clients.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, a public official /public
employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using
the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself,
any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his
immediate family is associated.
Section 1103(c) of Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 quoted above provides in part that a
public official /public employee shall not solicit or accept anything of monetary value based
upon any understanding that his vote, official action or judgment would be influenced thereby.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts.
Sandra Scott (Scott) was employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Labor and Industry (L &I), Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (OVR) from June
8, 1996 until August 4, 2000. Scott held the position of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor!
from June 8, 1996 until her promotion to Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II (VRC II) on
July 14, 1998. Scott was fired from her position as VRC II, effective August 4, 2000.
As a VRC 11, Scott's primary job responsibilities included determining an applicant's
eligibility for OVR services and potential for vocational rehabilitation; conferring with the client
to determine an appropriate vocational goal, and developing a mutually agreed upon
Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) to achieve the established vocational goal; and
coordinating the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services, and providing necessary
assistance to assist the client in achieving the established vocational goal.
Scott often utilized job coaches to help her clients reach their vocational goals. Under
the OVR Billing Process for Job Coaching Services, Scott was permitted to hire job coaches
employed by job coaching agencies or independent job coaches who were not affiliated with
job coaching agencies. One of the job coaches Scott frequently worked with was Diane
Smothers (Smothers).
Scott and Smothers became acquainted in 1998 when Smothers was employed as a
job coach for Living Unlimited, a job coaching agency. At that time, most of Smothers'
customers had been referred to her through Scott.
In February of 2000, during a business meeting, Smothers told Scott that she was
working too many hours at Living Unlimited and that she was interested in providing job
coaching services as an independent contractor. Scott advised Smothers that she (Smothers)
could contract directly with OVR, through her, to be a job coach, and receive referrals through
her. Beginning in February 2000, Scott began referring clients to Smothers in her capacity as
an independent job coach.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 28
In March 2000, Smothers received a telephone call from Scott. Scott was extremely
upset. Scott told Smothers that she needed Smothers' help and asked Smothers to come to
her office at CareerLink. When Smothers arrived at the CareerLink office, Scott told her that
she was unable to meet her mortgage payment for the current month due to pressing family
matters. Smothers recalls Scott asking her, "How can you help me? I'm not asking for money,
but how can you help me ?" Smothers suggested several different options including taking out
a loan from a bank, asking relatives for a loan, and working out a payment agreement with the
mortgage company, all of which options Scott rejected.
Feeling empathy for Scott, Smothers asked Scott how much money she needed to pay
her mortgage. Scott told Smothers that she needed $900, at which point, Smothers wrote
Scott a check for $900 out of her personal checking account.
Scott told Smothers that she would pay the $900 back and then warned Smothers not
to tell anyone, especially her (Scott's) husband, about the $900. Smothers wrote "gift" in the
memo portion of the check so that Scott's husband would not think that Scott had received a
loan.
After Smothers gave the $900 check to Scott, Scott told Smothers to remain at the job
center until 5:00 p.m. to meet with a new client, Jayne Reese (Reese). Smothers and Reese
had not met prior to this time. Smothers told Reese that she was going to be her new job
coach and conducted an intake for Reese. Reese told Smothers that her vocational goal was
to start her own business.
Several weeks later, Scott asked Smothers for $2,000 to retrieve some of her rings
from Broff's Diamond Exchange (Broff's), an establishment in Pittsburgh similar to a pawn
shop. Smothers told Scott that she would have to think about it over the weekend. When
Smothers' husband discovered that Smothers had given Scott $900 and that Scott had asked
Smothers for an additional $2,000, he advised her that loaning money to Scott, a State
employee, who was providing her with clients, could be construed as an illegal "kick back."
Smothers then telephoned Scott and told her that based upon her husband's advice, she was
not going to lend Scott the $2,000.
One month later, Scott asked Smothers for $1,500 to retrieve her rings from Broff's.
Scott asked Smothers, "Can you help me out ?" Smothers replied, "Sandra, we've had this
conversation before. I cannot give you any more money."
Unsuccessful in her efforts to obtain additional funds from Smothers, Scott turned to
Reese. Although Reese's vocational goal was to have her own business, she was still
working for other people. When Scott became aware that Reese was feeling depressed with
her current employment situation, and that Reese was planning to take out a loan to start up
her own business, Scott asked Reese whether she would want to come to work for her as a
job coach.
Reese accepted Scott's offer after seeing a confidential list of clients on Scott's
computer screen in her office at OVR. Scott told Reese that all of the clients on the computer
screen were her clients and that Reese could make money as to each client.
Reese had no prior training to be a job coach; her employment history included running
her own professional cleaning business, working in a health store, working for an engraver,
and working as a front desk clerk at a hotel. Reese's vocational goal was not to become an
independent job coach, but to start her own business taking photographs of animals and
putting the photographs in frames.
Reese concluded that she would not need to take out a business loan now that she
would be working with Scott as an independent job coach. However, Scott convinced Reese
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 29
that she should still take out a loan to purchase work clothes and office supplies and that she
should lend Scott a portion of the loan so that Scott could retrieve her rings from Broff's.
Thereafter, Scott referred several clients to Reese who was now an independent job
coach. Scott contacted Smothers and told her that Reese had become a job coach and that
Reese had told her (Scott) that Smothers had recommended her to be a job coach. Smothers,
however, never recommended Reese as a job coach because she knew that Reese lacked
the necessary background to work with people with special needs. When Reese became a
job coach, Smothers lost Reese as a client.
Reese, accompanied by her daughter, Antoinette Crownover, visited several different
banks for loans. Scott tried to help Reese get a loan from Waypoint Bank by making a
telephone call to a Waypoint employee whom Reese knew and by providing Reese with some
of her business cards bearing her handwritten notations reflecting Reese's potential earnings
as a job coach.
None of the banks, including Waypoint Bank, approved Reese's loan applications.
Unbeknownst to Scott, Reese was eventually approved for a loan from Beneficial Consumer
Discount Company. Reese telephoned Scott's house over the weekend to tell Scott that she
had been approved for a loan, but never actually spoke to Scott. The following Monday
morning, Scott fired Reese as a job coach.
The Investigative Division has filed a brief in this matter. Respondent Scott has not
filed a brief.
The Investigative Division in its Brief seeks: (1) a violation of the Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act on the basis that Scott, as a VRC II, used governmental resources and property,
accessed confidential OVR client information, participated in the formulation of vocational
plans for OVR clients, recommended the use of job coaches by OVR clients, chose the
individuals who would serve as job coaches, influenced the choice of job coaches selected by
OVR clients, and determined which job coaches would be approved to provide services to
OVR clients, all in an effort to obtain a $900 loan from Smothers and to avoid paying interest
and out -of- pocket expenses for loan application fees; (2) a violation of Section 1103(c) of the
Ethics Act on the basis that Scott, as a VRC II, solicited and accepted a loan of $900 from
Smothers, solicited loans of $2,000 and $1,500 from Smothers, and solicited a loan of $3,000
from Reese based upon Scott's understanding that in exchange for the funds, she would
refer OVR clients to Smothers and Reese; (3) restitution in the amount of $900; (4) treble
penalty in the amount of $2,700; and (5) a referral with a specific recommendation for criminal
prosecution to the Office of Attorney General and the District Attorney of Dauphin County,
with a notation that the record be examined for possible violations of the perjury statute under
the Crimes Code of the Commonwealth.
Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the
actions of Scott violated Section 1103(a) and 1103(c) of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of
1998.
In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, the record reflects
uses of the authority of office on the part of Scott. But for the fact that Scott was a VRC II,
she would not have been in a position to hire Smothers as an independent job coach, refer
OVR clients to Smothers, establish and authorize Smothers' compensation, and use the
CareerLink offices to meet with Smothers on personal business. Such actions by Scott were
uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted
in a private pecuniary benefit to Scott consisting of the financial gain that Scott received when
she obtained an interest -free $900 loan from Smothers, which loan Scott never repaid. We
find that Scott's actions as to Smothers were deliberate and purposeful, with a manifest intent
to create a situation whereby Smothers became dependent upon Scott for clients and possibly
more inclined to give Scott money. Scott's underhanded motives are highlighted by her
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 30
actions of having Smothers meet her at her office at CareerLink to ask for a personal loan,
and repeatedly asking Smothers, "How can you help me ?" The exact same day Scott
received the $900 from Smothers, Scott remarked to Smothers, "Well, we need to give you
some more contracts," and had Smothers wait at the CareerLink office to meet a new client,
who happened to be Reese. As to Scott's use of the CareerLink offices, we have long held
that a public official /public employee may not use governmental equipment, facilities, property,
or personnel for personal, business, campaign, or reelection activities. See, Friend, Order
800; Metrick, Order 1037; Cours, Order 1150. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit inured to
Scott. Accordingly, Scott violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she hired Smothers
as an independent job coach, referred OVR clients to Smothers, established and authorized
Smothers' compensation, and used the CareerLink offices to meet with Smothers on personal
business to obtain an interest -free $900 loan from Smothers.
We find an attempt by Scott to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to Smothers
when she attempted to obtain a $2,000 loan and a $1,500 loan from Smothers. Although
Scott never actually received those additional loans from Smothers, we determine, as we have
in the past, that as to the requirement in Section 1103(a) for a private pecuniary benefit, the
element of a private pecuniary benefit can either be a pecuniary benefit received or the
attempt to obtain a pecuniary benefit. See, Taylor, Order 983; O'Malley v. State Ethics
Commission, Memorandum Opinion filed in Commonwealth Court on March 17, 1989 at No.
2658 C.D. 1987; Metrick, Order 1037. When Smothers refused to lend Scott the additional
funds, Scott deliberately, purposefully, and intentionally reduced or eliminated referrals to
Smothers, failed to process paperwork in order for Smothers to get paid, removed Reese as
Smothers' client by making Reese a job coach, and then lied to her superiors that Smothers
had made a recommendation that Reese would make a good job coach. In that Scott used the
authority of her office to attempt to obtain additional funds from Smothers, we find that Scott
attempted to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
We likewise find an attempt by Scott to violate Section 1103(a) as to Reese. The facts
in this case reflect that Scott utilized her authority as a VRC II to the greatest extent to extort
money from Reese. Scott's actions included the utilization of Commonwealth telephone(s) to
call Waypoint Bank, and Commonwealth issued business card(s) to prove Reese's potential
salary as a job coach. As to the use of Commonwealth telephone(s) and business card(s), we
reiterate the prohibition against a public official /public employee using governmental
equipment, facilities, property, or personnel for personal, business, campaign, or reelection
activities. See, Friend, supra; Metrick, supra; Cours, supra. Finally, the goal of Scott was to
manipulate Reese into obtaining a personal loan with Reese in turn making a loan of a portion
of the funds to Scott. Such action by Scott was an attempt to violate Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act.
Turning to Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act, in order to establish a violation under this
provision, it is necessary to show that a public official /public employee solicited or accepted
something of monetary value based upon the understanding of that public official /public
employee that his official action or judgment would be influenced thereby. In this case, we find
that Scott solicited and accepted a loan of $900 from Smothers, solicited loans of $2,000, and
$1,500 from Smothers, and solicited a loan of $3,000 from Reese all at times when Scott
knew that both Smothers and Reese were dependent upon her for client referrals. When
Scott actually was in receipt of the funds or thought that she would receive the funds, her
actions towards Smothers and Reese were favorable; however, when it appeared to Scott that
the funds would not be forthcoming, Scott's attitude and actions towards Smothers and Reese
changed dramatically resulting in the abrupt curtailment of client referrals and, in the case of
Reese, the loss of her position as a job coach. Accordingly, based upon the above, we
determine that Scott violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when she solicited and
accepted a loan of $900 from Smothers, solicited loans of $2,000, and $1,500 from Smothers,
and solicited a loan of $3,000 from Reese based upon her understanding that her official
action or judgment would be influenced thereby. See, Kasaback, Order 993; Zwick, Order
1062.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 31
As to the allegations of violations of Section 1103(a) and 1103(c) of the Ethics Act,
Scott at the hearing preferred the following arguments in her own defense.
With regard to the $900 Scott obtained from Smothers, Scott testified that one day
when her daughter, Jacqueline Waynette -Scott was at the CareerLink office having lunch with
her, Smothers came into the office and bought a diamond ring from her (Scott) for $900. Scott
provided similar statements in her interview with the Inspector General, during which she
stated that Smothers paid Scott with a $900 check and wrote "gift" in the memo portion of the
check to indicate that the ring was a gift to herself. On cross - examination, Scott testified that
she immediately took the $900 check to the bank to make sure that it would not bounce. As to
Scott's testimony that she cashed the check right away to ensure that it would not bounce, we
find nothing in the record to support that Scott had any reason to question Smothers' credit.
The fact that Scott readily accepted Smothers' $900 personal check as opposed to a certified
check, cashier's check, or cash indicates otherwise.
We note that Waynette- Scott, who testified on behalf of her mother, managed to
provide only vague and general testimony. Waynette -Scott testified that she was at the
CareerLink office when the alleged sale of the ring occurred, but that she did not look at the
ring, and could not describe the ring or state how much money changed hands.
Scott testified that she discovered that Reese was submitting false documents to the
State, and that Reese, upon realizing Scott's discovery, collaborated with Smothers to
conspire against her. Scott's testimony was undermined on cross - examination when she
testified that she filed a complaint with Amis alleging that Reese was submitting falsified
documents to OVR, but failed to bring a copy of the complaint to the hearing, or cross- examine
Amis, Cavalovitch or DeLellis as to Reese or the complaint. Scott's testimony that she
brought up her conspiracy theory to the Inspector General's office, but the Inspector General's
office only included the answers that they 'allowed" her to answer is absurd.
Scott testified that Smothers told Scott that she thought that Reese would be a good job
coach and tried to recruit Reese as a job coach. Scott's testimony is contradicted by the
testimony of Smothers who stated that she never recommended Reese as a job coach
because she knew that Reese lacked the experience needed to work with people with special
needs. Given Smothers' 20 years of experience in job placement services, and Cavalovitch's
reference to Smothers' solid reputation as a job coach, we find Smothers to be reliable witness
and her testimony to be credible.
Scott testified that during her tenure with the State, she was never written up or
reprimanded for a misuse of funds. Scott's testimony is contradicted by the testimony of
DeLellis that there was a department -level decision to revoke Scott's Commonwealth issued
American Express card for failure to make timely payments; and that DeLellis and Scott had
one or more discussions regarding the overdue credit card balance and the fact that payments
had to be made.
Scott testified that she has never been charged with any crime, has never been in any
trouble, has never been to a hearing or an arraignment, and has never been fingerprinted or
handcuffed. Scott's testimony is contradicted by Exhibit ID -28, which establishes that she
was: (1) charged with arson and criminal conspiracy in the case of Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania vs. Sandra Maxine Scott, Docket No. 457 for 2001 in the Court of Common
Pleas of Bedford County; (2) scheduled to appear at an arraignment; (3) represented by
Christopher J. Marzzacco, Esquire; and (4) subject to the Court's Order dated January 23,
2002 ordering on the motion of the District Attorney that all charges filed in the matter be nolle
prossed.
Finally, Scott testified that her Social Security number is 167 -40 -7748. See, N.T. p.
357. However, Exhibit ID -30, which is a photocopy of an official bank account agreement for
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 32
Scott, reflects that that Scott used another Social Security number or tax identification number,
171 -42 -9202, and then signed under penalty of perjury that the number shown on the form
was her correct taxpayer identification number.
Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances in this case, we do not find
Scott's testimony as outlined above to be convincing or credible. Scott's deliberate and
scheming conduct with respect to Smothers and Reese firmly establish a violation of Section
1103(a) as to Smothers, attempts to violate Section 1103(a) as to Smothers and Reese, and
violations of Section 1103(c) as to Smothers and Reese.
Section 1109(c) of the Ethics Law directs that any person who obtains a financial gain
for violating the Act shall pay a sum equal to three times the amount of financial gain into the
State Treasury or Treasury of the political subdivision. We believe that a treble penalty in this
case is warranted given the egregious nature of Scott's conduct. Based upon the record
before us, it is evident that the single- minded motive of Scott was to use her position as a VRC
II to exploit Smothers and Reese. Scott's plan involved ignoring the normal administrative
protocol and hiring Smothers and Reese as independent job coaches; exercising absolute
control over the job coaching process so that all of Smothers and Reese's clients were
referred to them by Scott without any input from the clients themselves; taking advantage of
Smothers, an OVR vendor, and Reese, an OVR client, who had certain health issues and
financial difficulties, and obtaining or attempting to obtain large sums of money from both of
them; attempting to discredit both Smothers and Reese through a succession of lies and
mistruths told to Commonwealth authorities; and attempting to hold herself out as completely
unaccountable by claiming in her defense that she was a victim of conspiracy, which claim she
contends was never revealed in the Inspector General's report because the Inspector
General's office only included answers that she was "allowed" to answer. We find Scott's
conduct to be egregious and outrageous, and therefore determine that a treble penalty is
warranted in this case.
Scott's conduct reflects a callous disregard of her public position and a violation of the
public trust in an effort to use her public position for financial gain. Accordingly, Scott is
directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make payment of $2,700 to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission. Non - compliance will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action.
The actions of Scott warrant the referral of this case to a law enforcement agency for
review as to a criminal prosecution. Based upon the record before us, Scott's conduct was
intentional. Scott seized upon the vulnerability of Reese, an OVR client whom she was duty
bound to assist, recruited her to become an independent job coach without any prior
experience or training, solicited money from her, and fired her when she thought Reese could
not give her a loan. Scott's actions as to Smothers was equally calculated as noted above.
Given the egregious, calculated and intentional nature of Scott's conduct, we will refer this
matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency for review as to a criminal prosecution.
We conclude that there is a reasonable expectation that a prosecution would be
instituted against Scott. It is our view that a jury or court as fact finder would have a sufficient
basis to conclude that Scott acted intentionally with respect to the conduct we have reviewed
in this matter. See, 18 Pa.C.S. § 302(c). Accordingly, this case shall be referred to both the
Office of Attorney General and Dauphin County District Attorney with the Commission's
recommendation for the institution of a criminal prosecution against Scott as to violations of
the Ethics Act.
In addition, Section 1109(e) of the Ethics Act provides:
§ 1109. Penalties.
Scott 00- 053 -C2
Page 33
(e) Other violations of chapter.... Any person who willfully
affirms or swears falsely in regard to any material matter before a
commission proceeding pursuant to section 1108 commits a
felony and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of
not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for not more than five
years, or both.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(e).
During the course of these proceedings, certain statements were made under oath by
Scott, which statements are contradicted by the facts as previously outlined. Therefore, we
are also referring this matter for review as to whether there have been any violations of
Section 1109(e) of the Ethics Act or of the perjury or false swearing provisions of the Crimes
Code.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Scott, as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II for the Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Department of Labor and Industry, was a public employee subject to the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Scott violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in using the authority of office when
she hired Smothers as an independent job coach, referred OVR clients to Smothers,
established and authorized Smothers' compensation, and used the CareerLinkoffices
to meet with Smothers on personal business to obtain an interest -free $900 loan from
Smothers.
3. Scott attempted to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she attempted to
manipulate Reese into obtaining a personal loan with Reese in turn making a loan of a
portion of the funds to Scott.
4. Scott attempted to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she attempted to
obtain a $2,000 loan and a $1,500 loan from Smothers.
5. Scott violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when she solicited and accepted a
loan of $900 from Smothers, and solicited loans of $2,000, and $1,500 from Smothers.
6. Scott violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when she solicited a loan of $3,000
from Reese.
In Re: Sandra M. Scott
ORDER NO. 1250
File Docket: 00- 053 -C2
Date Decided: 9/4/02
Date Mailed: 9/25/02
1. Scott, as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II for the Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation, Department of Labor and Industry, violated Section 1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when she hired Smothers as an independent job coach, referred OVR
clients to Smothers, established and authorized Smothers' compensation, and used
the CareerLink offices to meet with Smothers on personal business to obtain an
interest -free $900 loan from Smothers.
2. Scott attempted to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she attempted to
manipulate Reese into obtaining a personal loan with Reese in turn making a loan of a
portion of the funds to Scott.
3. Scott attempted to violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she attempted to
obtain a $2,000 loan and a $1,500 loan from Smothers.
4. Scott violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when she solicited and accepted a
loan of $900 from Smothers, and solicited loans of $2,000, and $1,500 from Smothers.
5. Scott violated Section 1103(c) of the Ethics Act when she solicited a loan of $3,000
from Reese.
6. Scott is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make a payment
of $2,700 through this Commission to the State. Failure to comply will result in the
institution of an order enforcement action
7. Given the egregious nature of the violations by Scott, this case shall be referred to both
the Office of Attorney General and Dauphin County District Attorney with the
Commission's recommendation for the institution of a criminal prosecution against
Scott as to violations of the Ethics Act as well as review for prosecution under Section
1109(e) of the Ethics Act or of the perjury or false swearing provisions of the Crimes
Code.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair