HomeMy WebLinkAbout1253 StreamsIn Re: Thomas Streams
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Daneen E. Reese
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
Donald M. McCurdy
Michael Healey
01- 060 -C2
Order No. 1253
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
investi9ation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific
allegation(s). Upon completion of its investi9ation the Investigative Division issued and
served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An
Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived held. The record is complete. A
Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the
Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this
Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11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.
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Thomas Streams, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Coroner for
Indiana County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5) of the Public Official and Employee
Ethics Act (65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq.) when he used the authority of his office for a private
pecuniary benefit by hiring his spouse to serve as administrative assistant for the Coroner's
office and approving her salary and subsequent pay increases; and when he failed to list any
direct or indirect source of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interest
filed for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 calendar years.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Thomas Streams has served as the Indiana County Coroner since January 1974.
2. Streams' duties and responsibilities of the Coroner, among others, include:
a. Completion and signing of death certificates;
b. Supervision of autopsies performed;
c. Investigation of suspicious deaths.
d. Completion and processing of various documents.
e. Be on -call and be accessible twenty -four hours per day, 365 days per year.
1. Completion of various paperwork and documentation considered time
sensitive regarding reporting guidelines.
3. The Indiana County Coroner's Office currently employs eleven individuals.
a. Streams occupies the only full time position.
b. Two part -time, salaried deputy coroner positions exist.
c. Seven contract positions of deputy coroner exist.
d. Another contract position is secretarial.
1. Duties associated with the secretary position include generating
correspondence, typing reports, filing, answering telephone calls, etc.
4. The Indiana County Coroner is one of nine row offices in Indiana County.
5. Individual row officers are responsible for the researching, interviewing, and presenting
of candidates for county positions to the Salary Board for employment in their
respective offices.
a. The Coroner alone holds this responsibility for the Coroner's Office.
6. The Indiana County Salary Board fixes the number of positions and salaries of county
employees.
a. The Salary Board is composed of the three county commissioners and the
county treasurer.
1. The chairman of the county commissioners is typically the chairman of
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 3
the Salary Board.
b. Individual row officers also sit on the Salary Board for discussion and voting
regarding their respective offices.
7. Salary Board action regarding a specific row office can occur at any point during the
year by submission of a written request from the row officer.
a. The request must be presented to the Director of Personnel to be placed on the
meeting agenda.
8. The Salary Board is not responsible for the hiring or approving the salary of contract
employees hired by county row offices.
a. Individual row officers have the authority to hire contract employees providing
that funds for the position exist in the row officer's budget.
b. This would include the eight contract employees of the county coroner.
9. The county commissioners establish the county budget on an annual basis.
a. The county budget is established at the end of each calendar year for the
following year.
b. Row officers /department heads provide input to the county commissioners
regarding their respective budgets.
1. The Coroner is responsible for submitting the proposed budget for the
coroner's office.
2. This would include funding for contract employees.
10. The county commissioners have the authority to accept, deny, or amend any proposed
budget submitted by row offices.
a. The proposed budget is generally discussed by the commissioners and the row
officer /department head at budget hearings.
b. The row officer /department head has no vote /authority in the approving of the
budget.
11. Raises provided to county employees are typically accounted for in the county budget.
a. This includes raises for union, non - union, managerial, and contractual
employees.
12. Since at least 1973, the Coroner's budget, as approved by County Commissioners,
has included funds to enable the filling of a contract secretarial position.
13. The position of coroner's secretary has been a contractual position as long as Streams
has served as coroner.
a. The secretary position is not re- established by the Salary Board at its annual re-
organization meetings.
b. The secretary is not documented as a county employee on county payroll.
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 4
14. The coroner's secretary receives a monthly payment for the performance of her duties.
b.[sic] There is no minimum or maximum number of hours required to be worked by
the secretary.
15. Checks issued as payment to the Coroner's secretary are disbursed from the Indiana
County General Fund.
a. Compensation received is documented by way of IRS Form 1099's.
16. Candice Streams is the spouse of Thomas Streams.
a. Candice Streams currently resides with her husband at 643 College Lodge
Road, Indiana, PA.
17. Streams has employed his wife, Candice Streams, as a paid contract employee in the
coroner's office since at least 1985.
a. IRS Form 1099's available at the county courthouse office document
compensation issued to Candice Streams since 1985.
18. Indiana County does not consider Candice Streams a county employee.
a. Candice Streams has no personnel file at the county courthouse.
19. Prior to 1981, Streams employed Elanor Zettner as secretary to the Coroner.
a. Zettner was also employed as Streams' secretary in a private capacity by
Citizens Ambulance Service.
b. Zettner held the position of coroner's secretary only during the time that
Streams operated the coroner's office from his office at Citizens Ambulance
Service.
20. Streams did not publicly advertise the vacant secretarial position after relocating the
Coroner's Office to his residence.
a. Streams did not accept applications for the position.
b. Streams did not interview any candidates for the position.
21. In or about the mid 1980's, discussion occurred between Streams and the Indiana
County Commissioners regarding hiring a full or part time county employee as a
secretary in the coroner's office.
a. The commissioners in office at that time believed it would be more financially
beneficial for the county to annually set aside a specific amount of funding for
the secretarial position rather than authorize the hiring of an additional county
employee.
22. Although the commissioners in the 1980's were aware of Candice Streams'
employment as the coroner's secretary, the commissioners took no official action
regarding approving the contractual employment of Candice Streams' as the coroner's
secretary.
a. Candice Streams' employment and compensation by the Coroner's Office was
not approved and /or discussed during either the county commissioners or
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 5
salary board meetings, from 1985 to the present.
1. Minutes of the February 13, 1984, Salary Board meeting document an
increase in the salary of the Coroner's secretary from $60.00 per month
to $75.00 per month.
2. The individual occupying the secretarial position is not listed.
3. No other specific record of the coroner's secretary or the wage for the
position exists in the minutes of that time period.
23. In an interview conducted with State Ethics Commission investigators on September
26, 2001, Streams confirmed that Candice Streams began working as the coroner's
secretary soon after Streams relocated the coroner's office into his personal residence
since 1981.
24. Streams supplied proposed budgets, including wages for the coroner's secretary, to the
commissioners for review on an annual basis from 1981 through 1998.
a. Candice Streams' salary as the coroner's secretary was established annually
by the commissioner's when approving the budget for the coroner's office.
25. Prior to the budget hearings in the fall of 2001, Streams had not supplied the
commissioners with a proposed budget for approximately the past three years.
a. Streams did not submit budget proposals after 1998 due to his frustration over
the commissioners not granting the coroner's office the budget Streams
proposed.
b. From 1998 to 2001 the county commissioners set the Coroner's Office budget
with no input from Streams.
26. From 1996 through 2001, the following salaries have been budgeted for the position of
coroner's secretary:
Year Salary
1996 $ 3,000.00
1997 $ 3,000.00
1998 $ 3,000.00
1999 $ 3,600.00
2000 $ 3,600.00
2001 $ 4,000.00
27. Candice Streams submits an invoice to the commissioners' office from the coroner's
office on a monthly basis regarding payment due her for performance of duties.
a. Included on the invoice are charges for secretarial services and rent for use of
the Streams' home as the Coroner's Office.
b. Also included on the invoice is postage and office supply reimbursement
(when applicable).
28. Upon receipt the invoice is processed and the county issues payment to Candice
Streams in the form of one check for the total amount from the county general fund.
a. Checks issued specify Candice Streams as the payee.
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 6
b. The county treasurer's signature is present on the check as the authorizing agent.
c. Thomas Streams plays no role in the approval of Candice Streams' invoices.
29. From October 1996 through September 2001, Candice Streams received 60 checks
from Indiana County totaling $41,024.47 for secretarial services, rental payments,
postage, and office supplies as shown below:
a. Of the $41,024.47 issued to Candice Streams, $19,950.00 was issued as
payment for secretarial services rendered.
1. The remaining $21,074.47 consisted of rent payments and postage, and
supply reimbursements to Streams.
30. Candice Streams, as the coroner's secretary, received compensation in excess of the
amount budgeted by the county commissioners in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 as
shown below:
Year Amount Amount Overpayment
budgeted received
1998 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,600.00 $ 600.00
1999 $ 3,600.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 600.00
2000 $ 3,600.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,200.00
2001 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,600.00* $ 600.00
Total $ 3,000.00
31. Candice Streams' salary was increased by the county commissioners in 1998, 1999,
2000, and 2001 after budget estimates for the Coroner's Office had been approved by
the county commissioners.
a. The increases resulted from informal discussions between Thomas Streams
and one or more of the county commissioners.
1. The informal discussions occurred during the years when Streams did
not submit budget requests.
2. All employees of the coroner received similar increases.
b. The county commissioners approved the increases in Candice Streams' salary.
32. Streams filed Statements of Financial Interests in his position of Indiana County
Coroner on April 13, 1999; January 27, 2000; and January 29, 2001 for calendar
years 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively.
a. Streams disclosed no direct or indirect sources of income on his 1998, 1999, and 2000
calendar year Statement of Financial Interests.
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Thomas Streams, hereinafter
Streams, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et se as codified by
the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65Pa.C.S. § 1101
et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 7
The allegations are that Streams, as Coroner for Indiana County, violated Sections
1103(a and 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he hired his spouse as administrative assistant
for the Coroner's office and approved her salary and subsequent pay increases; and when he
failed to list direct or indirect source of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial
Interest (SFI's) for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 calendar years.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows:
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.
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.
§ 1105. Statement of financial interests
(b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the
following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the
person required to file the statement:
(5) The name and address of any direct or indirect
source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 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 or common law privileges
65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5).
Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act requires that every public official /public employee and
candidate list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the
aggregate of $1,300 or more.
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 8
As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of
Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this
Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein.
As the Indiana County Coroner, Streams employs individuals to work in the Coroner's
Office either as part -time, salaried deputies or as contract employees. The Indiana County
Salary Board, which is composed of the three county commissioners and treasurer,
determines the number of positions and salaries for county employees. The salary board,
however, does not hire or approve the salary for contract employees in the county row offices.
Contract employees are hired by the row officer and are paid from the budget for that row
office. The county commissioners establish the county budget annually and have the
authority to accept or amend any proposed budget submitted by the row officers.
In the Coroner's Office, the position of secretary has been a contract position for as
long as Streams has served as coroner. Prior to 1981, Streams employed Elanor Zetner as
his secretary who was also employed by a Citizens Ambulance Service in the same building
where Streams operated the Coroner's Office. After Streams relocated the Coroner's Office
to his residence, he employed his spouse, Candice, as a paid contract employee. In Indiana
County, Candice Streams is not considered a county employee and there is no personnel file
for her at the courthouse. As to the hiring of his spouse in the Coroner's Office, Streams did
not publicly advertise for the vacant position, did not accept any applications, and did not
interview any applicants for the position.
Although the county commissioners were aware of the employment of Candice
Streams as the coroner's secretary, they took no official action to approve the contractual
employment. The minutes of the February 1984 salary board meeting reflect an increase in
the salary for the coroner's secretary from $60 to $75 per month. Although Streams
submitted no input for the budget for the Coroner's Office from 1998 through 2001, the
following amounts were budgeted for the position of coroner's secretary: $3,000 for the years
1996 -98, $3,600 for 1999 -00, and $4,000 for 2001.
Candice Streams submits a monthly invoice to the county commissioners which
includes a payment to her for the performance of her secretarial duties and rent as well as
reimbursements for office supplies and postage. Streams plays no role as to the approval of
his spouse's invoices that are submitted to the county.
For the period from October 1996 throu9h September 2001, Candice Streams received
$19,950 in payments for secretarial services in the Coroner's Office. For the years 1998
through 2001, Candice Streams as the coroner's secretary received $3,000 of compensation
in excess of the amount budgeted by the county commissioners. See, Fact Finding 30.
Candice Streams, along with other employees in the Coroner's Office, received such
increases in salary for the time period 1998 throu9h 2001 following informal discussions
among Streams and some of the county commissioners. In this regard, the county
commissioners did approve the increase in the salary of Candice Streams.
Although Streams filed SFI's for the calendar years 1998 through 2000, he failed to
disclose any direct or indirect sources of income on his SFI's for those three calendar years.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement proposes that: Streams unintentionally violated
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he hired his spouse as a contract employee for the
Indiana County Coroner's Office and participated in actions resulting in pay increases for his
spouse; and Streams violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
on SFI's for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 calendar years income in excess of $1,300. In
addition, Streams agrees to pay $250 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to the
Streams 01- 060 -C2
Page 9
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission, and to file amended Statements of
Financial Interests disclosing all sources of income in excess of $1,300.
In applying Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, there were uses of
authority of office on the part of Streams in hiring his spouse as secretary in the Coroner's
Office and having involvement as to pay increases for his spouse. But for the fact that
Streams is coroner, he would not have been in a position to hire his spouse as a secretary in
the Coroner's Office as well as have discussions with the county commissioners regarding
increases in payments for his employees. Such actions were uses of authority of office. See,
Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits
consisting of the salary that Candice Streams received as a secretary in the Coroner's Office
as well as the increases that she received in that position. Lastly, the private pecuniary
benefits inured to Candice Streams who, as the spouse of Streams, is a member of his
immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, Streams
unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he hired his spouse ouse as a
contract employee for the Indiana County Coroner's Office and participated actions
resulting in pay increases for his spouse. See, Schirq, Order 1146.
Turning to the SFI allegation, the record reflects that Streams filed SFI's for the
calendar years 1998 through 2000 but failed to disclose any sources of income. We take
administrative notice that the compensation for the row office of coroner exceeds the $1,300
income threshold for SFI purposes. Accordingly, Streams violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the
Ethics Act when he failed to disclose income in excess of $1,300 on his SFI's for the calendar
years 1998 through 2000.
Streams is directed within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order to file amended
SFI's for the calendar years 1998 through 2000 listing Indiana County as a source of income.
In addition, Streams is directed to list all other sources of income for those years which
exceeded the $1,300 threshold under the Ethics Act.
We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the
proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and
the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Streams is directed to pay $250 to
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the mailing
date of this Order. Compliance by filing amended SFI's for the calendar years 1998 through
2000 and the payment of $250 will result in the closing of this case with no further action by
this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Streams, as a Coroner for Indiana County, is a public official subject to the provisions
of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Streams unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he hired his
spouse as a contract employee for the Indiana County Coroner's Office and
participated in actions resulting in pay increases for his spouse.
3. Streams violated Section 1105(b)(5) when he failed to disclose sources of income in
excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998, 1999, and
2000 calendar years.
In Re: Thomas Streams
ORDER NO. 1253
File Docket: 01- 060 -C2
Date Decided: 9/4/02
Date Mailed: 9/25/02
1. Streams, as a Coroner for Indiana County, unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of
the Ethics Act when he hired his spouse as a contract employee for the Indiana
County Coroner's Office and participated in actions resulting in pay increases for his
spouse.
2. Streams violated Section 1105(b)(5) when he failed to disclose sources of income in
excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998, 1999, and
2000 calendar years.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Streams is directed to pay $250 to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days of the mailing
date of this Order.
a. Compliance by filing amended SFI's for the calendar ears 1998 through 2000
and the payment of $250 will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission.
b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair