HomeMy WebLinkAbout884 BruntonSTATE ETHICS COMMISSION
308 FINANCE BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
In Re: William Brunton : File Docket: 92- 038 -C2
Date Decided: May 6, 1993
Date Mailed: May 11, 1993
Before: James M. Howley, Chair
Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair
Roy W. Wilt
. . t ' Austin M. Lee
Allan M. Rluger
The State Ethics Commission received a complaint regarding a
possible violation of the State Ethics Act, Att 9 of l$WA3 1
S401 et ;ma. Written notice, of the specific allegation (s) was
served at the commencement of the investigation. A ` .1i EA t report
was issued and served, upon completion of the inveSti¢at-itbn which
constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer
was filed acrid =+a hearing was waived'. A.'eonaent -Order wts submitted
by the parties to the Commission for conaideration which was
subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is
hereby issued which sett - forth -the individual Allegations j Pindinqs
of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Lawdd Order.
This ad judiicatioa; 'is. 'final 'and will be made available as a
public document fifteen days after ' issuance. ' However,
reconsideration maybe requested which will defer public release of
this' ad judicatidn.pending action on the request by the COttnission.
A request for , reconsideration, however, does not affect the
finality of this adjudication. A reconsideration request must be
received at this Commission within fifteen days of issuance and
must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to Why
reconsideration should be granted in conformity with Si Pa. Code
S2.38.
The files in this case will remain confidential in ecoordande
with Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. S408(h) during the fifteen day period
and no one unless the right to challenge this Order is waived, may
violate confidentiality by releasing, discussing Or circulating
this Order. However, confidentiality does not preelude dimming
this case with an attorney at law.
Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics At IS
guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000
or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 P.S'. S409(e)
Brunton, 92 =03.$C2
Page 2
1, ALIggaZZO,L2
That William Brunton, a Supervisor for Independence Township,,
Beaver County, voted the b listed provisions of the State
Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) , when he utilized concrete block,
gravel, and mortar paid for with township funds for his personal
purposes and when he direct the township employees and equipment
to work on his personal property.
$eation 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 providest
Section 3. Restrjc d Activ. ies:
(a) No public official of public employee
shall engage in conduct that constitutes
conflict of interest. 65 P.S. 403 (a).
11. FIND!Nel $
1. wi1liam Brunton served as an elected Independence Township
Supervisor from January, 1984, until May 12, 1992,
a, Brunton was employed by the township's road department on
0 part - time Willis,
b. gegrge Brunton, William Brunton' father serves in the
04paeity of rQ dnaster.
2, On er . about March 13, 1991, township workers began renovations
to the township police office.
Work •performed including the installation of a steel
10 glass block window and a cinder block wall.
, labor was Wiled.
c. Materials needed for the project came from Parkway
Concrete Products, P.Q. Box 1407, Aliquippa, PA. 15001.
Brunton determined the amount of materials needed
and ordered it,
'Independence Township records include our invoices for
materials from Parkway Concrete Products.
gt
The of the four invoices are signed as received by Bill
Brunton,
b, One does not contain any signatures.
4. Invoices front Parkwy Concrete Products were for the following
pruntop, 92- 038 -C2
Page 3
materials:
a. Invoice date: 3/13/91
Invoice #31368
Items: Chisel $10.25; 100 8" reg (block) $67.00
20 8" 1/2 (block) $10.00
1 ton sand - $14.50
10 type s (mortar mix) $50.50
Frame and hinge $60.00
Steel door - .$450.00
Regular hinges - $11.00
Total: $678.25
Received: Bill Brunton
Invoice date: 3/14/90 r n.•-r
Invoice #31387 r1.
Note: The invoice date should be 3/14/91
Items: 8, 4 x 8 x 16 solid.- $5.A i..
Total: $5.04
Received: Bill Brunton u
d. Invoice date: 3/19/91
Invoice #31440 f „. ;te r: ...
Item: - Cast black vent - 48.0
Total: $8.00 , :c>
Received: Bill Brunton
5. Most of the supplies purchased from Parkway Concrete Products
were used on the police office. •J.%
a. Brunton ordered one ton .of , sand °at :..$14.50 , and only
needed approximately 1/4 ton. r.
b. Brunton ordered ten bags of mortar mi.k at' $5.05• a bag and
only used 3 1/2 bags. Half of a• baggy is. still. 'at the
township garage.
Invoice date: 3/13/91
Invoice *31374 Items: 4 x 4 glass block window $271.80
Received by: Not listed.
,5•4j
c. Brunton ordered one hundred '8 " regular :black ; at $.67 each
and twenty 8" half blocks at $.50 each.: :.
1. The police proSect required appr"oat,te1y thirty -
fiver whole and ninfsitall blocks
6. Excess materials were piled 'behind the c�ramsb ildimg.
a. These piles were not locked up or aeecnred in any fashion.
B;yntpn, 92-038-C2
Page 4
b. The pile includes approximately sixty -four whole and two
half blocks.
7. There is no evidence that William Brunton appropriated or used
for personal purposes township owned block or mortar.
8. Independence Township bought gravel and slag in bulk from
Miller Brothers, on ten occasions during 1990.
a. The price per ton range from $10.00 to $11.65 per ton
delivered.
b. The average price per ton delivered in 1990 was $10.71.
c. The gravel and slag is stored behind the township
building.
c. Dydek received no additional
Brunton's for his services.
d. No reimbursement was made
9. Around March of 1991, William Brunton personally loaded up
between eight and ten tons of gravel from the township stock
in a township truck.
a. The gravel and slag was worth between $85.64 and $107.10.
b. There is no evidence that William Brunton used this
material for personal purposes.
10. Sometime between March 19, 1991 and May 23, 1991, road
department employee Joseph Dydek spent six to seven hours
pouring a concrete footer at William Brunton's property.
a. Dydek was on township time when this occurred.
b. Dydek's hourly wage was $6.00 per hour.
c. This cost Independence Township between $36.00 and $42.00
in labor.
11. Dydek testified that he was directed to go to William
Brunton's property by roadmaster George Brunton, William
Brunton's father.
a. Dydek was not instructed to clock out and remained on
township time.
b. Dydek knew he would receive his normal wage from the
township since he did not clock out.
compensation fry the
by William Brunton to
Brunton, 92- 038 -C2
Page 5
Independence Township for Dydek's labor.
12. William Brunton denies that Dydek worked on his property on
township time.
13. Personal records of William Brunton include Independence
Township receipt #107 dated 4/21/86, in the amount of $20.00
from William Brunton.
a. A notation on the receipt indicates it was for block and
mortar with a notation of garage sale.
b. The receipt is signed by -Delores McCoy (then treasurer).
14. This receipt does not correspond to the materials referenced
in finding #4.
a. No other receipts exist indicating payments were made by
Brunton for township bought materials.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Independence Township in Beaver C ounty,
William Brunton, hereinafter Brunton, is a public official as that
term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. 5402. As such, his
conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics. I4aw and the
restrictions therein are applicable to him.
Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 261,
1989 provides, in part, as follows:
"This amendatory act shall not apply to
violations committed prior to the effective
date of this act, and causes of action
initiated for such violations shall be
governed by the prior law, which is continued
in effect for that purpose as if this act were
not in force:. .:_ t For the .purposes of this
section, a violation was .committed , pxior, - to
the effective date of this act if anyelements
of the violation occurred prior thereto."
Since the occurrences in this case transpired after the
effective date of Act 9 (June 26, 1989), we must apply the
provisions of Act 9. to determine whether the Ethics Act was
violated.
Under Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 19 83 quoted above, . a public
official /employee shall not engage, in conduct.. that constitutes a
conflict of interest. t
Arunton,.92= 038 -C2
Page 6
The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 bf 2`9
as follows:
Section 2-Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of inte'reSt .
Use by a public official mr public -employee of
the authority of his offii. ot of employment 'or
any confidential informat ;on received tktri
his holding public office of employitten't t
the private pecuniary benefit Of himself', a
member of his immediate family or a best
with which he or <a cf his immediate
family is associated "tb ifli:ct" Or n'conflirot
of interest" does not inclubelan action having
a de minimis economic impartur 'rich •aff=e
to the same degree a class consisting of 'the
general public or .a subclass coutistirtg of a
industry, occupation of other group Whith
includes the public official or public
employee, a Member or his immediate family or
-a business with which be or a member of his
Immediate family is associated. 65 P -. S. S402.
The issue before us is whether Brunton violated Section 3(a)
Af Act 9 of 1989 when he -allegedly used concrete black, travel a d
mortar paid for by township funds for ;Ass own personal use and When
he allegedly directed a township employee and equipment to work on
his personal property.
In Independence Township, Brunton served as a Supe -� .iaor• fr'ok
January 1984, until May, 1992. During that pBri0d, $ruhtib'h Vas
employed as a township road department employee On a part
basis and his father, merge Brunton, was employed a3 road Feaster.
In March,--1991, when the township began renatating the foshi.i
police office,._ Brunton determined and ordered the atnou?t Of
materials needed. Several of the invoices were signed by Srunton.
The materials• included a steel door, glass block window and einner
blocks. In addition, sand, gravel and slag were ordered. Although
only a small portion of these materials was used, the remainder was
stored behind the township building. The piles of the Materials
were not locked up or secured in any fashion,
Although Brunton was observed loading up a township trunk with
between eight and ten tons of gravel from the township stook pile
in March, 1991, there is no evidence to indicate that Brunton used
this material for personal purposes. (Fact Pinding 9b) In
addition, there is no evidence to indicate that Sruntoft
appropriated or used for personal purposes the township Cinder
block or mortar. (Fact Finding 7).
Brunton, 92- 038 -C2
Page 7
In March, 1991, road department employee Joseph Dydek spent
six to seven hours at Brunton's property pouring a concrete footer.
Dydek did the work on township time and received his normal wage
from the township. Dydek was not instructed to clock out and
remained on township time while he performed the work at Brunton's
property. Brunton did not reimburse the township for Dydek's
labor. Brunton denies that Dydek worked on township time doing
personal work on his property.*
In applying the provisions of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989
quoted above, we do not find that Brunton violated that provision
of law regarding the alleged utilization of concrete block, gravel
or mortar paid for by township funds for personal purposes because
there is no evidence of record to so indicate. (Fact Findings 7,
9b
) .
As to the utilization cif Joseph Dydek on township time to do
work at Brunton's property, we do find a violation of Section 3(a)
of the Ethics Law. It is clear in this case that Brunton, by
virtue of being a Supervisor, was able to have a township employee
on township time and at township expense pour a concrete footer at
his personal residence. Such action is clearly a private pecuniary
benefit to the extent that Brunton did not have any out of pocket
expenses for such labor. Lastly, the private pecuniary benefit
inures to Brunton since it was done at his personal residence. On
that basis, we find a violation of the Ethics Law. See, Foster,
Order No. 749; Rakowskv, Order No. 744; Valentine, Order No. 652.
However, given the totality of the facts and circumstances in
this case, we will take no further action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. William Brunton, as a Supervisor for Independence Township,
Beaver County, was a public official subject to the provisions
of Act 9 of 1989.
2. Based upon an insufficiency of evidence, Brunton did not
violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the alleged
utilization of concrete block, gravel and mortar paid for by
township funds for his personal purposes.
3. Brunton did violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding
the utilization of a township employee to perform work at his
personal property on township time and at township expense
which constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Brunton.
In Re: William Brunton : Pile Docket: 92-038-C2
: Date Decided: May 646 1993
: Date Mailed: May 11, 1993
DAUER _ND. 8414
William Brunton, as a Supervisor for Independence Township,
Beaver County, based upon an insufficiency of evidence, did
not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the
alleged utilization of concrete block, gravel and mortar paid
for by township funds for his personal purposes.
26 Brunton did violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding
the utilisation of a township employee to perform work at his
personal property on township time and at township expense
whiCh constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Brunton.
3. Eased upon the totality of facts and circumstances in this
ease, we will take no further action.
BY THE COMMISSION,
JAMES M. HOWLEY,