Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout885 KatzIn Re: Edward Katz STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 91- 036 -C2 Date Decided: May 6, 1993 Date Mailed: May il, 1993 Before: James M. IigWley, Chair Daneen E.. Reese, Vice Chair Ray W. Wilt Aus M. Lee' . A1lan Kluget The. State Ethics Commission; received a complaint regarding a possible violation of the State Waco Act, ict 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. S401 et sea. Written notice c the ,spedif ic allegation (s) was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon comple of the . investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Consent Order was submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration which was subsequently approved. This adjudication of the Commission is hereby issued which sets forth the individual Allegations, Findings of Fact, Discussion, Conclusions of Law and Order. This, adjudication is final and will be made available as a public document fifteen days after issuance. However, reconsideration may be requested `which will defer public release of this adjudication pending action on the request by. the Commission. 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 51 Pa. Code S2.38. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance 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 preclude discussing 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. 6409(e). att, 91- 036 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION': That Edward Katz, a Commissioner' of Monroe County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he participated in a. decision by the Board of Commissioner's to award a bid to Edinger Construction Company for the construction of the Monroe County Environmental Center while' the N. J. Groner Company, a firm in which he, and members of his immediate family, had a financial interest, was a subcontractor. 'aCtis3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. (f) No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall . enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Arty contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 P".S $54:03(x), •(f).., II. IINDING : 1. Edward A.: Katz served wise. C mmissioner of Monroe county from January of 1988 to December of 1991. 2. Katz purchased the R. J: Groner Company in 1969 as a sole proprietorship. 3. Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau records indicate that Edward A. Katz and June H. Katz were added, as interested parties, to Katz, 91- 036 -C2 Page 3 the R. J. Groner Company's fictitious name file on January 21, 1982. a. Corporation Bureau records indicate the R. J. Groner Company was incorporated on January 10, 1984 with Edward A. Katz owning 2,000 shares. b. Corporation Bureau records, dated January 13, 1984, indicate the purpose or description of the R. J. Groner Company was broad plumbing, heating and air conditioning. c. Corporation Bureau records, dated July 10, 1991 indicate the corporate officers of the R. J. Groner Company were Chief Executive Officer Edward A. Katz, Vice President Michael Katz, Secretary June H. Katz and Treasum r June H. Katz. 4. A Corporate Stock Purchase Agreement, dated April 1, 1988, indicates that Edward A. Katz, owner crf 2,000 shares and June H. Katz, owner of 1,000 shares, sold their interest in the R. J. Groner Company to Michael J. Katz. a. Michael J. Katz is the son of Edward A. and stepson of June H. Katz. 5. The purchase price was $200,000. The $200,000 was paid with a $15,000 certified check and a $185,000 negotiable promissory note of the buyer in favor of the seller with an interest rate of nine percent (9 %) on the deferred balance. a. The note was scheduled to be paid in fourteen equal consecutive quarterly payments of $15,000 with the balance being paid in the final installment. ('the . fifteenth) on January 1, 1992. b. Payments were to start on July 1, 1988 and continue on October 1, January 1, April 1 and July 1 of each year until paid in full. c. Michael J. Katz made the payment due January 1, 1991, but was forgiven the balance by Edward Katz. d. No indebtedness currently exists. 6. Katz holds the position of unpaid consultant with the R.J. Groner Company, a job he has held since the company was sold to his son. a. The "position" is one to be available for advice when asked. *atz, 91-036-C2 Pagh 4 7. In Novembsr of 1989 the Monroe Contx ConWvaticql tri 13tiata'qr Direqors opd the ktortioe F:OUnty*aommifOsiOners, tgi-9@d to Ocinttrtiat a new builaing'for. the Monroe" County g§n44on District. a. The building was to be constructed on land moned by the C The b1144ding was to be owned by the Coupty. The Congerya.tion District, agreed to psy off the loon for thh buing, through - a lease agre with the Cotinty, in - t4t1 ttt`) • The County. Co4Rifsisners selected Design Aqpciotes and Glenn 4ihbing; he tqii aticin District's consultant, to design the a. W14104. Bisbing prepared thA proposal which was put out for bids 117 Cry Cqmp 1?. The r,opos,al, or spe were first resented to C44 r5t VOSget of tile onierx.ittiOn Pirit 0 Jso4 onroe o1nty §oll.c.itor, for tlieir te,v4 2 o tb proposal 9onts,A.ngcl sRgqi.fic,aVons for 1144.1:ation; . 9. The 1400ro‘ qovntx ColFissioners passed a r.%,qii1 1141? R789-, 47 94 -- Nov,,g4o;# - 14, 1989 establis.h,ing t0 to, accept a0 rot the - pyrpose of cciiistriiiCtIcip, and' maint.044 of an 4,1A buil ding a. Cqmwiagi?n Katz. seconded the motion t.o. approve the 10. On Nqyhmer, 28, 3989 at a regularly s.chedl meeting, the CountY - Col))44§..:Ofiz'Apt . $,:ta. •• Qv,ed th:A'advAttiO*0.t of a ,guest for Pg91?901:IZ*:thqc5fir.ad County EnvironMent a. Cornmis E se the motion wbicb, Tfm approved. 11. A "Notice Tp 10,dcl advertise prepar0 by the Monroe County C6fmttisOtinet4. and act:Vsit.10d in ° local newspapers advised that seated brow0,4s were fieing, accepted to, construct an 8,000 sq. ""ft 46nroa: Caulitk ConseTtvation District Administrative Oft:1,q,...e.a/Enviroruitent.:11 Edw.:At:19,9 enter.. a,. Proposals were to be received at the, Commisaiontor's F: c. Katz, 91- 036 -C2 Page 5 b. Bids were to be publicly opened and read by the Commissioners at their January 16, 1990 meeting. 12. The Monroe County Board of Commissioners, at their regular meeting on January 16, 1990, opened the bids for the project. a. Commissioners James Cadue, Thomas Joyce and Edward ICatz unanimously voted to defer awarding the bid for the Conservation District building until Craig Todd, Glenn Bisbing, Solicitor John Dunn and the Conservation District's Board of Directors reviewed the bids and made a recommendation. 13. Proposals were received from Super -Mason Enterprises, Upper Mount Bethel, PA and Edinger Construction Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. a. The Super -Mason bid was $579,000 but did not excavation of rock or the digging of a well Section 2A;1.1.L of the contract. b. The Edinger bid was $698,000 but did not contain a 5% bond that was required in the specifications (Instructions to Bidders; 3). 14. By letter dated January. 20, 1990 Glenn Bisbing Consultant to Monroe County Conservation District Board of Directors advised that he reviewed the bids submitted for the projec a. b. c . 15. By letter dated January 22, 1990 Crapq Tqc d, , pisict Manager for Monroe CoUnt : Conservation' District rgt,e, ; tR , .the Monroe County Commissioners `on behalf of the Conservation District Board of Directors regarding the bids for t j ne , bui..ding. a . The ' letter suggests that both bid's received msar not be acceptable due to the failure of Super -Mason Enterprises, Inc. and Edinger Construction Company to comply with the requirements for su -ttai as outlined in the Contract Office no later than 9 :00 a.m., Tuesday, January 16, 1990. ti Inc. of of East include as per Bisbing advised that there were problems wi both bids not meeting the specifications. He felt comfortable working with Edinger Construction Company., If Edinger's bid was incomplete without the 5% bid bond, then that matter should be : answered, by John Dunn, County Solicitor. Eatg 91-03442 Page 6 doCuMentd, plans, and specifiCatiOn@s b. It was the Board's desire that the final dedisiOn be based on iepl considerations that it best left up td the county S6lleit6t. .c. The boatel buggeated that a meeting be arranged betWeeh the Commitsiofieft* 'and bittrict Board to digouds finanding options, And prodedures for rebidding the ptedect if nededgArys 1. lbhtoe County SOlicitOr Jdhn Dunn diddlitted both bids With deMmiesiefier tloyce. a; They relieved the was ConfUsidn octet the bid beind regUlteMent. 1. bunn adifited Joyee that a 10% bid bdhd ititibMItted by idinger tohdtrUdtien met the reguiteffienta of the gounty Ctide. b. Jayee had beheerns With the inimbet of itema deleted from the Super-Maaah bid. d. Cdffithibileher Kat@ did hot pattieipate in these diadithsien@i ils the doleti@gionerg deletred &Warding the dohtratt in February of 1990. les At the meeting of the Monroe caunty CoalMiSsionerS held dh Math 13 19 the Cdttittionegs Voted to award the oontraot for the COfititrUetift Ed the ednteritatien Dittfidt bialding to Edihger COn@trUetion toiripafty ft a total bid of $08,000. a. CoMMistiefterd eadUel Joyde and xatt Were present at this Meetings bs the 1flihtite0 refleCt that the Motion to &Ward the bid was Made by 6ditimi@iiefier JOyde and 8edehded by CO1tM1Adidnet it dothasaidfter Katz denies he deednded 'Oat mdtions ds Theta pd of the Minute@ Of the Match 13, 1990, meeting is Unclear ad to Whe VOted �r this Motion, 19. The contfaet between the Monne Getitity Comtissioners and Edinger tonttfildtieft fo± the 6611@trUetioh of the dounty tOnseritation bi@tfiet building Wag aighed on July 17, 1990. 20. The R. J droner toMpany has tubdentraeted with Edinger Construdtioh Cdmpahy t6 compiete a portion of Edinger's Katz, 91- 036 -C2 Page 7 plumbing, heating and air - conditioning work over the last (10) to (15) years. 21. Prior to July 17, 1990, the R. J. Groner Company submitted a verbal bid to the Edinger Construction Company for subcontracting work on the plumbing, heating and air conditioning at the Conservation District building prior to Edinger submitting their bid to the County - Commissioners. a. R. J. Groner Company submitted the same bid to Super- Mason. 22. The R. J. Groner Company submitted a written proposal to Edinger Construction Company dated July 17, 1990 for plumbing, heating and air - conditioning /ork on the Conservation building. a. The estimate totalled $67 b. The proposal was received by Edinger on July 18, 1990. c. The proposal was signed by Michael J. Katz. 23. Edinger Construction submitted requests for payment directly to Craig Todd, the District Manager of the Monroe County Conservation District. a. Todd would review the request and forward a report to the County Commissioners with a recommendation on payment, either in whole or in part. b. Payments were to be made based on percentages of work completed. c. The County Commissioners would then approve the payments. 24. Minutes of the meetings of the Monroe County Commissioners confirm that Commissioner Edward Katz voted to approve payments to Edinger Construction on January 2, 1991 and February 19, 1991. a. Edinger Construction Company made payments from these funds to their subcontractors, including R. J. Groner. 25. Edinger Construction made the folloing pt paymDt4, to the R. J. Groner Company. '` Date Check bie; 2/08/91 X14, ], 397.80 3/15/91. 35' ; 5.39 .7.7, gatz, 91- 036 -C2 Page 8 4/05/91 436 $ 1.250.00 4/12/91 465 $14,601.23 5/10/91 580 $ 7,472.08 5/17/91- 604 $ 7,813.44 7/12/91 812 $ 1,998.4' 26. payroll sheets, submitted to the County by the R. J. Groner Company for the weeks ending January 17, 1991, January 24, 1991, January 31, 1991, February 7, 1991, February 14, 1991, February 21, 1991, February 28, 1991, March 7, 1991, March 14, 1991, March 21, 1991 and March 28, 19 91, indicate that Michael 7. Katz was one of R. J. Groner's employees who worked on the Conservation District building. 27. Records on file with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for the R. J. Groner Company, 603 Ann Street, Stroudsburg, PA, indicate that Michael J. Matz, SS #1$4 -38- 9772, is an employee who received quarterly wages in 1990 and 1991. 28. There was one set of specifications and bids for the Conservation District building and it included the specifications and bids for the plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning among the other ptoposs1s. a. These specifications were arranged by the County Solicitor. Ord Kats did not directly participate ii. fOi' tat1 -ating the specifications- 2$. Commiesiesters Cackle Joyce and Solicitor a0u 61/ know abet Cammisai o er Katz " s association on. with R- J Crontr. . a. . Ttter would have n., .. to award the contract to Mager regardless, off Mates associations. 30. Scat meats of Financial:Interest fi~_T-e d by Monroe Coux Commissioner Edward AL.. Hats contained the foll6wiztq intOrnotiomL a. tement Matted Mph ]i3„ 139)90- tor t11e Calendar' ' ea'tr 1989 1. ISedrz4 didt maw, list the It.. J.. Groner' Game as a sottarma-ot Income butt indtcaredi '1 e? 2t'ee1 • the ptieition af c taultank Yr to company . nivr St.eteMiftit also indicates he hie btu i Se idlteirisst 00%1, ins the company to, k. s) Stilt , 14.11Chaell S. Katz, on. December: 3'1.,. L98=7'.. b. S attement Dated' April 2', Mir MIA, 91- 036 -C2 Page 9 1. Katz did not list the R. J. Groner Company as a source of income but indicated he held the position of consultant with the company. The Statement also indicates he transferred his business interest ( -0 -) in the company to his son, Michael J. Katz, on December 31, 1987. III. DISCUSSION: As a Commissioner for Monroe County, Edward Katz, hereinafter Katz, is a public official as that term is defined under Act 9 of 1989. 65 P.S. §402. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions of the Ethics Law and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Initially, it is noted that Section 9 of Act 9 of June 26, 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 r such.! . mtolations _ - fsha11 governed by the =priao- lam;; � tahfcrh is=- continudd in effect for thatrtpurpc3se:- as:..it his 'ac : wore not in force. For thec,:purposes' •4f ` th.is - section, a violation was cOmm 'teed prior to = ' the effective date of this act if any elements of the violation occurred prior- thereto Since the occurrences in this case trahspired 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 At 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public official/employee shall not 'engage•in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989 as follows: Section 2.-DefinitLams : "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 office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a- bember of his immediate Katz, 91- 036 -C2 Bsec. 1 1 9 family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" dbes not include an ° adtioa' having a de minimis c©eoitlic impact o d1 affectg to the same dee,(ree-- -a class corifsi'stin 6f- general public or a 'subclass consESSg of'an industry, occupatiorf 1 :or• other 4fotp•^ wi'iich includes the 'public =of f icil br pub2ro em iloye-e, a it or =his immediate famPi ' '-fir a "' business with which ='he 6k '='a 'immberf `hi$ immediate = family Is associated - I".8 . §402 . In addition, Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 specifically provides in-:‘-part tl at no .-public ''b- fficial /employ or sp oiia3 for child_ or - bus, itiess - •:with whlich z 'he or the 7 "dtiolf6t , er is ssoc'ia'ted ="Me"y - enter into & eontlract' witR= hi7s2ogc •erifitien l moody as kited ate' fi've7 " hundred doIlars ire or= a iy st be i cta Blued` at EN 13undreiF dollars ,or more` illimany persbli F awa'id a j 'tlbn tact ° with tide govei meritar- "" body ' ° t tl� wlfi the 'pu l is offitati employee is associated = le §s the doritradt ia= alWi thl.ciii l •'aft: ipeh public proegss._. =: The issue before us is whether Katz violated either Section 3(a) er 3 (f )' " %f `Act 9 of 19 regardirrig the ccaisztriit'onf } the Monroe= :- County Environmental Center when' a subc3ntrabfi 'Wife awarded t6= Rt =J r :' ='Groner Company, a business with which = , a member of - Kattred mediate -fail ly :is associated, G ` Y As a public official, Katz served as, a Commissioner of Monroe County fro3n•''3anuary, 1988 rtro `::•Debbilakrr , 1Y9 'T "a •private eapaioity, .'owned R -. ' , f roth 496`9: 'land idcfid c' 3rated `tlie business • on- Jar`tiar 10I rrc 'a c iirpora&te dlt' p1i"rdlra'se: ajgreeiiierit - datdcti iiipril .1, 1988, Vitz and June'1I r-XaSa salad'' their 'shares" iii ' R : 'J : Grone€ =eom iany' ib • t refit = son,'' M thae1 J Kati t -for .:a r purchase price of`- $4 6=, ..Vi ith' $15','aDa''beinc pafd by oertit oheek= and the; - $18t 066c 1ia1'arrce.14 ' a - prom `sort rite." A' t€r °Mfchae7:' Katz. --i tac e tpaymWh1t' ( 1h 1991.", Raft forgave tfie``baM e Ode " gat still lieIdaille fioa Iorirbf- non4a d % iittitaht witi�'1 9 °�\- ronek Company er- ffe s'edmp`anQ` was - %2ri'd 3 tb 'I4is Lson . =i The Monroe County Commissioners in November of 1989 agreed to constFuct °' a'builaltilt4or= 4 lk ee (tbulitr' 'otbervati 'fili ict (MeeDy on land =tfe z atyC'ni ftefAk -°• design .for` `tlge building' Vas 'pre Z i= b '-'tile=- 1+'ICtD' t tonsAilf t, 'requests for 15i�d proposals ' were ad` is d f 8 efli cfMISv "'L1d141 ;iir= Nr'diiember, 1985'r Onz January dam;' °l Ep ='p ado Ddel d to =the 'o Coun y Board ='of eomfitiseioners ot4keUrqff.taffiaiet4PLaciltids I '`t i'e = 'pro1eot- Proposals wire' 'i ed Nr '1 dS> -fIa% Eti prises Ir c'. , and Edrnger Constrttctt8a f - - -' �:�- per =�:�:. t. n F After the bids were reviewed' by -the i1CCD's consultant, a letter- wa-s sent 'dead '•8afi8a , 99b' vis fi 'ffie oard of ,r4.atc. .s.iti:1 ry '20 990 , 0%, 1 t Katz, 91- 036 -C2 Page 11 concerns that both firms did not comply with the bid specifications. Thereafter, by letter dated January 22, 1990, the District Manager for the MCCD wrote to the County Commissioners raising questions regarding the acceptability of both bids. After the County Solicitor advised County Commissioner Joyce that he did not believe that there was a problem with the Edinger Company bid, the Monroe County Commissioners at a March 13, 1990 meeting voted to award the construction of the MCCD building to Edinger Construction Company. Commissioners Cadue•, Joyce and Katz were present at that meeting. After the County Commissioners signed the construction contract with Edinger Construction on July 17, 1990, R. J. Groner Company subcontracted with Edinger for the plumbing, heating and air conditioning work at the MCCD building. For a period of to fifteen years prior to this contract, R. J. Groner Company had subcontracted with Edinger Construction Company to complete portions of Edinger's plumbing, heating and air conditioning work. As to the MCCD building, R. J. Groner Company, iac :submitted a verbal bid to Edinger prior to Edinger submitting its bid for the entire project. On July 17, 1990, R. J. Groner Company submitted a proposal in writing to Edinger Construction Company for the subcontracting as to the MCCD building. During the construction of the MCCD building, Edinger Construction submitted its requests for payment directly to the MCCD District Manager who in turn forwarded the requests to the County Commissioners with a recommendation.fpr'payment. Payments were made on a percentage of work compl`ete4 aftgr_approval by the County Commissioners. The'minutes, of the nei gs of"the Monroe County Commissioners reflect that Katz slid vote tci app payments to Edinger Construction both on January 2, 9"9 and.Eebruary 19, 1991. In turn, Edinger Corstructiori race a s of payments to R. J. Groner Company. t (FactFinding`, Z 5). ? record reflect that Michael Katz Iaa orie . gr,,R : , J.-Groner y s emp oyees who wya =ked on the MCCD building; ; Ye rt4s ,pf the Per}nsyivan4.a 5 eFartment of Labor and Industry refi.eot g ps4 wages reoeiv d`.by l i.cfiae�. J. Katz as an employee of R. J. " i Grpn_ r , ompany d uriN. construction In applying the visions o f ; ' a r tion 3# a) 4nd 3(f) of Act 9 quoted above td ° the r „stant ma L f ind violations of both ' provisions of - aw.e - As to Sectiozi 3(4), ' was q use both authority of of f iiV bj Katz ' which` resu,1t:ed in a r .vate Pecuniary benefit to a membdi of his immediate fs,mu,1y and'to a buiiness r th which' a "member - of hie, immediate family is associate : 'VI}€ use of authority-of off ice occurred by hie voting_ to ;award. the cqutz act to Edinger Construction whe e: i fit'. . , Gr Y h0. ; offered to perf4m 'the subcontract work as to the MCCD bui1 1ng• proje Miller, Q inion 89 -024. In addition, Katz v ted. to a rove a ert to din er , ., R,B P � t Edinger _ g Construction which is also a a e of a -: Y , city of. office_. J nte, Order• No. $09. Said us`e .b , t y, of office, resu — in a tz, 91 -036; C2 private pecuniary benefit to ,Edinger Construction and. in turn cto R. J. Groner consisting ..of . tlie, payments received on the contract and subcontract. (Fact _ .Find ' ng -,25) . The private pect niary benefit also went to Katz's son, M chg 1 J. Katz. (Fact Finding 26). The following terms are defined u1ar the Et,lics Law; Sectign.,2. D "Immediate family." child, brother or_sieter. Under the ,WaT e pecunia .benefit ,went ase'ets the" busines ti 1 is ass Turning to •th-e ,v.iolat.i Qn ,of Section .3((,f•) ; `f Act 9 of 1989, we must make .oar 044 ; in con=junction ; with Section 2317 of the County Code: • • In the prep ,of specifications for the er "eotLon, co : xuctLon, and al ts . Bf any p.4 14t ti4. ding; hen the entire � � ,_ gg§t *if such work exceeds` fb t xo is d d611arf (4 ,t090 ), separate specif ications' sia11 be pr l for +t following work; 1l 'plu �abin,g, - 2) heating j) vgAtilgting, 4) electrical w or C, 5) elevators • e4 ggv, .ng chairs, 'and 41x' cq plete set of spepi f i €atipns for ai.1 other work.' Board or Commissoners gha] l rggeive separate bids upon e.49.4 of the said branches of work and award the coIAract for the same to the lowest` responsible bidder for each said branches, 'in 1 the balance of the work, iii ; addition 'to the 'plum g, heating f vgAtilating, electrioa1, and eleir4tor and moving s' airs. fnlhere it is desired to in li air conditioning, the heating and v.entilatiR,}g 'Ao involved may be regarded as one br. neh of -k having only one set of specif icatiQne A and b c s� aR4 bids may be received and 'contrasts, _ award tl on:,, as thereinbefore, provided ." 14 k.$;. 123/7. . • Thus,; Section, 23 of the County Code a c-iticafy requires that the prepara :i<� og specifications for• t•he e- section of a construc h; exe€da $ must have, ae a at ,; "Business,with which Any business in'which the bf the person'_s immediate d e.COr; r 02 f icer, ; -o r, y f an jal me 65:P. 1. J .. Aparent, spouse, hells associated." Peen or a member f a is a employee or has a S. 5402. Akfli ,i.t ;is clear that the private a a.member ,of Katz's immediate family and ,Nodlich a n wember ; of Katz's immediate Katz, 91- 036 -C2 ,, Page 13 specifications as to plumbing, heating, ventilating, electrical work, and elevators or moving chairs. However, the specifica- tions and bids for the MCCD building consisted of only one set which included the specifications and bids for plumbing, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and other proposals. Section 3(f) of Act 9 prohibits a public official /employee or spouse or child or any business in which the person or spouse or child is associated from entering a contract or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body unless it has been awarded through an open and public process consisting of a prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. We have previously interpreted the contracting provision of the Ethics Law to be a mechanism to provide for contracting which is otherwise authorized in law. Although there appears to be prior public notice as well as subsequent public disclosure as to the contract with Edinger Construction, there was no public bidding as to the separate specifications as required by the County Code. Thus, there was no prior public notice and subsequent disclosure as to separate specifications for plumbing, heating, ventilating, electric work, elevators, etc. The subcontracting as to R. J. Groner was not bid as required by the County Code. Likewise, there was no public bidding as to the subcontract as required by Section 3(f) of Act 9. We therefore find that Katz violated Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the award of the contract for the construction of the MCCD building to Edinger Construction where R. J. Groner Company received a subcontract which was over $500 and was not awarded through an open and public process. As to both violations of Section 3(a) and 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989, we do note that Katz's vote was not determinative relative to the award of the construction project. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we will take no further action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Edward Katz as a Commissioner for Monroe County was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 19:(9. 2. Katz violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he voted to award a contract - to construct a Conservation District building with - a subcontract awarded to the business with which a member. his immediate family is associated. 3. Katz violated Section 3(11. of Act. 9 of 1989 rearding- the award of a cont.r � t � constr ti:op qk 4 eop.sArvation District building to 4 f Aim v hick, iin turn awn ded a subcontract to a business with which a, member of Katz I , 91- Q O- Page 14 immediate family was associated where the subdeffitEdat was in exCes8 of $500 and was not awarded through aid opeft Ahi public process. In Re: Edward Katz File Docket: 91- 036 -C2 Date Decided: pay 6, 1993 Date Mailed: Mav 11, 1993 ORDEPutesz.i135 1. Edward Katz, as a Commissioner for Monroe County, violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he voted t� award a contract to construct a Conservation District building with a subcontract awarded to the business with which a member his immediate family is associated. 2. Katz violated Section 3(f) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the award of a contract for the construction of a Conservation District building t� a firm which in turn awarded a subcontract to a business with which a member of Katz's immediate family is associated where the subcontract was in excess of $500 and was not awarded through an open and public process. 3. Based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, no further action will be taken. BY THE COMMISSION,