Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout890 DeGrettoSTATE ET+iICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE- BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA I.712O In re:- Michael A. DeGretto File Docket: 92- 025 -C2 Date Decided: June 28, 1993 Date Mailed:_ June 30, 1993 Before: James M. Howley, Chair Daneen E. Reese, Vice Chair Dennis C. Harrington Roy W. Wilt Austin M. Lee Allan M. Kluges Joseph W. Marshall, III The State Ethics Commission received complaints regarding possible violations of the State Ethics Law, Act No. 170 of 1978 and Act No. 9 of 1989. Written notice, of the specific allegations was served at the commencement of the investigation. A Findings Report was issued and served, upon completion of the investigation, which constituted the Complaint by the Investigation Division. An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. 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 §2.38 and /or 51 Pa. Code §21.29(b). The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 8(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and 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 Act 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). DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Michael DeGretto, Chief Deputy Sheriff of the Cambria County Sheriff's Department, violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1978 and Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he requested and /or received reimbursements for expenses reportedly incurred in regard to service of process which expenses were in fact not incurred from 1986 to the present: Section 3(a) of Act 170 provides: Section 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall use his public office of any confidential information received through his holding public office to obtain financial gain other than compensation provided by law for himself, a member of his immediate family, or a business with which he is associated. 65 P.S. S403(a). Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 provides: Sections 3. Restricted Activities. (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. S403(a). II. FINDINGS: 1. Michael DeGretto is Chief Deputy for the Cambria County Sheriff's Office. a. He was appointed to the position. of Chief Deputy by Cambria County Sheriff. Jay Roberts in 1988. b. Prior to his appointment as Chief Deputy, DeGretto was employed by the Sheriff's office as a Deputy from 1986, through 1988.. 2. Jay Roberts has served as the Sheriff of Cambria County since 1986. a. DeGretto was not employed by the Sheriff's office prior to Roberts election. 3. Article XII, Section 1203, of the County Code provides the following description of the position of Chief Deputy: DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 3 The Chief Deputy shall have full power and authority to perform any duty incumbent upon the Sheriff, with like effect in law as if such official act had been done by the Sheriff in person, regardless of the ability or temporary of such Sheriff to act, while such Sheriff continues in office. 4. The responsibilities of the Chief Deputy also includes those of the position of deputy which include the following: a. Transporting prisoners; b. Serving papers, including Bench Warrants, Civil Complaints, and Protection From Abuse Orders, and notification of Sheriff Sale. c. Enforcing strike injunction orders; d. Surveillance as necessary to serve Criminal Bench Warrants. 5. In his position as Chief Deputy, DeGretto is on call twenty - four hours a day. a. The position of Chief Deputy is one of management. b. Deputies are also assigned on -call duty. 6. The Sheriff's office utilizes daily assignment sheets which reflect each deputy's assignment for that day. a. Assignments include: Transporting prisoners; guarding the holding area; court room duties; serving papers; or guarding the Domestic Relations offices in Ebensburg and Johnstown. b. Daily assignments are subject to change during`the day. c. Sheriff Roberts and /or DeGretto the authority to effect changes in assignments. 7. DeGretto is responsible for making the assignments each day. a. According to the assignment sheets, DeGretto usually assigned himself to transports or holding. 8. Service of Process and return of service forms are completed by Cambria County Sheriff's Deputies when they serve papers on individuals who have had complaints filed against them. a: These papers include Bench Warrants, Civil Complaints, DeGretto, 92-- 425 -C2 Page 4 'Protection Prom Abuse Orders, and Sheriff Sale notifications. b. Each xp1..aint is assigned a number which allows it to be traced through the S Stem. 9. After a complaint is filed with the Piothonotary's Office, a certified copy of the complaint and a check are taken to the Sheriff's office, where a deputy picks up the complaint and the Service of Process. a. The Service of Process is returned to the Sheriff's office by the deputy .completed and signed. b. The Service of Process is filed in each attorney's individual file, and the attorneys are notified by postcard from the Sheriff's office indicating the date the service was completed. c. The Affidavit of Service is returned to the Prothonotary's Office. 10. The Service of Process shows the naive of the deputy who "served the papers; date; time; individuals Set - lied; place of serviee; and mileage. a. The Return. of Service also shows each unsuccessful attempt at service. 11. A review of the Return of. Services for the years 1:1881 t r'qi g r March, 1992, on file in the Cambria c©utt• SrFief•i-ff's Office; was conducted to determine the number Of serriees made fey Michael DeGretto. 12. The review included. approXintately 6,41-7 services whichr were logged by case number, date and time of serviee; and deputy(s"j making the service. 14. DeGretto made or assisted another" deputy on: fifty -eight of the total services reviewed. a DeGretto made individual services* arid ateempted services as follows: 1988 - 10 sery ceelattempts' one 7 cases. 1989 - 33 services/attempts " orlk 3 Oa9es 1990 20) services / attempts> on 15 cased' 1991. - 20 services/attempts on 1'2' caises✓ 1992 - 2.0;services/ attempts on 23 daseg b. Services did not- always' reflect the name 6f a' deputy who DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page' 5 assisted in making a service. 14. The Cambria County Sheriff's Office has several vehicles designated for official use. a. Sheriff cars which are used to transport prisoners, are equipped with cages for that purpose. b. Sheriff cars are used by the deputies to serve papers. 15. Michael DeGretto submitted Mileage Reimbursement Requests for expenses incurred in using his personal vehicle on business related to his employment by the Cambria County Sheriff's Office. a. Mileage was permitted to be reimbursed for other county business in addition to service of process. 16. Travel expenses were submitted monthly on a Cambria County Mileage Reimbursement Request form. a. The form required odometer start and finish readings; travel start and finish time; destination and purpose; and total miles traveled. b. A space was provided for the description, year and license plate of the vehicle used. 17. The second page of the Mileage Reimbursement Request provided that the employee submitting the Request certify that the statement Of mileage incurred was a true` statement a. The Mileage Reimbursement Request also required a sworn statement from the employee, that every item charged was actually performed in the legally authorized business of • , "Caries County. 18. ' Ih, 1x988, DeGretto claimed reimburs+enerit 'for 8,635 miles, for the period June through December, or an average of 1,147.8 miles iber month. 'ra , Seven reimbiirsement checks totaling $1,721.78, were issued to DeGretto by-the county during this time period. Re'iMburseMent was made at a rate of $.21 per mile. r t c. The monthly reimbursement average was $257.25. d. No requests were submitted for the period January through May, 1988. DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 6 19. On 6 of the 120 days that DeGretto claimed mileage reimbursement, case numbers are listed to show that services were made. a. The remaining 114 days reflect Only the destination. 20. In 1989, DeGretto claimed reimbursement for 13,646 miles for the period February through December, or an average of 1,137.2 miles per month. a. Eleven reimbursement checks totaling $31087.04, were issued to DeGretto during this time period. b. Reimbursement was made at a rate of $.22.5 per Mile for the period February through Decembers and $.24 per mile for December. c. The monthly reimbursement average was $257.25. 21. Of the 176 days that DeGretto claimed mileage reiinbur"sementi only one day includes both the destination and a case number. a. The remaining 175 days reflected only they destination . b. On January 8, 1989, DeGretto traveled 184 'Biped to Pittsburgh on case #1988 -0329 and 0330. (1) This case is not included in the 58 referenced in finding no. 13. 22. to 1990, DeGretto claimed reimbursement for 12,421 ri les, for eleven months during the period January through December, for an average totaling 1,129.2 miles: a. Reimbursement checks in totaling the amount of $2,882:88, are issued to DeGretto during this tune period. b. Reimbursement was made at the rate of $.24 per mile. c. The monthly reimbursement average was $262.08. d. No mileage reimbursement was submitted for the month of June. e. Travel to an annual conference accounted for 409 of the total 12,421 miles. 23. Of the 117 days that DeGrett6 d1aint+eid mileage telitibUrgeMent, none reflect the case numbers of services made. 24. In 1991, DeGrettd claimed reimbursement for 8,737 miles, for DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 7 eleven months during the period January through - December, or an average of 794.3 miles per month. a. Eleven reimbursement checks totaling $2,09648, were issued to DeGretto during this time period. b. Reimbursement was made at a rate of $.24 mile. c. The monthly reimbursement average was $190.62. d. No mileage reimbursement was submitted for the month of July. 25. Of the 88 days that DeGretto claimed mileage reimbursement; none reflect the case numbers of services made. a. On three days in January, mileage was claimed for attending a Deputy Sheriff's School in Altoona. 26. In 1992, DeGretto claimed reimbursement for 2,371 miles, for the period January through March, or an average of 790.3 miles per month. a. Three reimbursement checks totaling $569.04, were issued to DeGretto during this time period. b. Reimbursement was made at a rate of $.24 per mile. c. The monthly reimbursement average was $1 89.68. 27. The January and February Mileage ReimbursementRequests do not reflect case numbers of any services made,,, . __. 28. In March, 1992, a new Mileage Reim6iurseaient Request Form was initiated which provides two separate columns for destination 'f purpose a. DeGretto listed "Civil Writ" .n ".the Purpose Column, but did not list case numbers df 'service's made. b. DeGretto lists the start" and finish times for each destination. (1) Start and finish` times lied" not been-listed prior to the use of this new form. (2)' The previous form provided space for start and finish times. c. DeGretto lists mileage and traveling to the court house, however these miles are not included in the total which DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 8 he is reimbursed for. 29.. Betweeh 1988, and March, 1992, DeGretto's name appears fifty - eight tithes as serving or assisting on serving papers, in the following areas of Cambria County: a. Colver Ebensburg Cresson Johnstown 20 15 5 4 b. Other areas where services were attempted or made include Gallitzen, Portage, Spangler, Barnesboro, Mineral Point, Richland, Nanty =Glo, and Revloc. c. On six occasions (not included in'subsection a above), services were made in the county court house, 'requiring no mileage or travel. (1) The Sheriff's office is located in the Court House. 30. Deputies are generally assigned areas in the county in which to serve papers, based on where they live: a. DeGretto lives in Colver, 7 miles from the County Court House in Ebensburg: 31. On the following dates, travel destinations on DeGretto's Mileage Reimbursement Request (MRR) do not correspond with the destination of services made or attempted on those days. a. On September 7; Service /attempt on case #1988= 2047, made in Colver, 14 miles. MRR destination: Blandburg and Barnesboro, 102 miles. b. August 18, 1988: Service /attempt on case #1188 -1910; made in Johnstown, 20 miles the same date. MRR destination: Colver and Revloc on a PFA served to 6. Galley; for a total of 35 miles. c. On August 12,. 1988: Service /attempt on case #1988 -1903, in Colver, 18 miles MRR destination: Colver and Rev loc to serve PFA 88=1903. d. December 14, 1988r Attempted service on case #1988 -0967, in Cresson and Gallitzen/ Mileage' unknown. DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 9 MRR destination: Scalp - Level and Johnstown, total 87 miles: April 6, 1992: Service made in Cresson and Portage, 33 miles. MRR destination: Fallen Timber and Chest Springs 89 miles. e. June 2, 1989: Service /attempt on case #1988 -920, in Colver 14. MRR destination: Blandburg, 90 miles. f. On February 9, 1990: Service /attempt on case #1994 -80, made in Revloc, 5 miles. MRR destination: Beaverdale, Sidman, and Portage, 89 miles. February 9, 1990: Service /attempt on case number 1990- 412, made in Colver, 16 miles. g. On September 25, 1990: Service /attempt on case #1990- 800, made in Ebensburg, 2 miles. MRR destination: Johnstown, Westmont, and West End, 104 miles. h. August 9, 1990: Service /attempt on case #1990- 13425. This service was at the request of the State of Maryland. Zero miles were recorded and no destination is indicated. MRR destination: Adams Township, Johnstown, and Richland, 74 miles. i. March 18, 1991: Service /attempt on case #1991 -655, made in Ebensburg, 5 miles. MRR destination: Nanty -Glo, Mineral Point, and Johnstown, 104 miles. j. March 22, 1991: Service /attempt on case #1991 -781, at the County Court House, no mileage. MRR destination: Johnstown, Ferndale, and Franklin Borough, 87 miles. March 23,1991: Service of additional papers on the same case number, in , Colver. no mileage recorded. DeGketieo, 92-025-62 Page 10 J : Mak 13, 1991: Service/attempt on case #1991-1258, made in dolver, 8 miles. MRR destination: Westmont, Loretto; Ashville and Patton, 110 miles. 1. August 29, 1991: Service/attempt on case #1591-2282, made in Ebensburg, 5 miles: . MRR destination: Sailax, Portage, South Fork, and Johnstown, 18 miles. m. August 12 1991: Service/attempt on case #1991-12610, Made in Ebensburg, 4 miles. MRR destination: Patton, Hastings; Nick Town and Spangler, 116 miles. On that same date, additional service on the same caid was made in Ebensburg, no mileage listed. n. September 4th and 5th, 1991: A number of services/attempts on a case known as 1991-CTSA. (Cambria Township Sewer Authority), made in Colver, 14 mile each: MRR destination, September 4: Court House, zero miles. MRR destination, September 5: Loretto, ReirIoC, and Ebensburg, 41 miles. September 16, 1991: Service made on this same case in Colver, 16 miles. MRR destination: No travel indicated. o. March 2, 1992: Service/attempt on case #1983-776, Made in Mine 40, mileage unknown. MRR destination: Mine 40, Geistown, Johnstown, and the Court Houge, 17 milei to (Mine 40). The March, 1992, travel submitted by DeGretto gag _ submitted on a new Cambria CountiMileage Reimbursement Request Form. On this form, DeGretto lists each individual destination by time and mileage. On March 2, . the date listed above, DeGretto traveled to Johnston and served a Civil Writ (46 miles); Geistown to serve a Civil Writ (26 miles); and Mine 40 to serve a Civil Writ (17 miles). He did this between 8:30 AM, and 1:10 P11, When he returned td the Cotrt House. DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 11 No other services were found at the time of the review for case numbers served in Johnstown and Geistown by DeGretto on that date. p. February 6, 1992: Service /attempt on case #1985 -351, made in Barnesboro and Spangler, mileage unknown. MRR destination: Carrolltown, Spangler and Barnesboro, 89 miles. March 23, 1992: Service /attempt on case #1984 -457, made in Barnesboro, mileage unknown. MRR destination: Court House, Barnesboro and Spangler, 74 miles. r. February 25, 1992: Service /attempt on case #1992 -433, in Colver, 14 miles. MRR destination: No travel indicated. 32. A review of the daily assignments sheets for the period 1988, through and including March, 1992, with the exception of the year 1991, showed that DeGretto was generally assigned to transports. a. According to the Sheriff's office, 1991 records of assignments sheets were not available. b. On seven occasions (of the 58 being referenced), DeGretto was assigned as follows: Floater; holding; Court Room; and cottage (re: Caddis trial). c, On seven dates, no assignment was listed. 33. On four occasions, DeGretto was known to have chauffeured Joseph Roberts to Dr. David Rogerson's office in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. a. Joseph Roberts, a foster `Cambria County Commissioner, is the father of - Jay Roberts. b. Dr. Rogerson 1S s a hearing specialist. c. Office personnel advise that DeGretto brought Joseph Roberts to the office, waited for him, and left with him. (1) Joseph Roberts is elderly and of ill health. s�f.e -usua r ia•sted :a4, ; least one hour. peGrett:o, 92- 025 -C2 Page 12 e. The drive from Ebensburg to minutes each way. 34. DeGretto did not serve /attempt that , Dr. Rogerson's office has Joseph Roberts. 35. On the dates that DeGretto was known Joseph Roberts to Dr. Rogerson's office, following: 01/17/90 02/26/90 10/11/90 11/01/90 - 04/_15/91 05/08/91 - Court House ., N/A Court House Travel to Westmont, Richland, 104 miles - Vacation - Travel to Cresson, Li Gallitzen, 98 miles Johnstown is approximately 25 any papers on the six dates recorded as appointments for to have accompanied his MRR's reflect the Brownstown, and lly, Portage, and 36. According to office personnel, Jay Roberts accompanied his father on the first visit to Rogerson's office, believed to be January 17, 1990. 37. On the first three dates, Mileage Reimbursement Requests submitted by Joseph Roberts, as Commissioner, show that he submitted reimbursement for travel to Johnstown, the location of Dr. Rogerson "s office. a. It is not known whether Roberts conducted any county business on these occasions. III. DISCUSSION: Initially, it is noted that the allegations in this case relate_ to both Act 9 of 1989 and Act 170 of 1978. In this regard, Section 9 of Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 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. For the purposes of this section, a violation was committed prior to the effective date of this act if any elements of the violations occurred prior- thereto. Under both Act. 170 of 1978 and Act. 9 of ]339),: as a Chief Deputy Sheriff in Cambria.. County, Pennsylvania,. M chasI A.. DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 13 DeGretto, hereinafter DeGretto, is a public employee as that term is defined under both acts... See also,.51 Pa. Code. As such, his conduct is subject to the provisions, of both laws and the restrictions therein are applicable to him. Under. Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 quoted above, a public official 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. 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 office 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 or his immediate family qr a business with which he or a member .of ,his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. 5402. Under Section 3(a), of Act 170 of 1978 quoted above, this Commission has determined that use of office by a public official to obtain a financial gain for himself or a member of his immediate family or a business with which he is associated which is not provided for in law transgresses the above provision of law. Thus, use of office by a public official to obtain financial gain which is not authorized as part of his compensation is prohibited by Section 3(a): Hoak /McCutcheon v. State Ethics Commission, 77 Pa. Commw. Ct. 529, 466 A.2d 283 (1983); Yacobet v. State Ethics Commission, 109 Pa. Commw. Ct. 432 531 A.2d•536 (1987). Similarly, Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act would prohibit a public official /employee from using public office to advance his own financial interests; Koslow v. State Ethics Commission, 116 Pa. Commw. Ct. 19, 540 A.2d 1374 (1988). Preliminarily, we have before us an Application to File an DeGret 92-025-C2 Page 14 Answer Mind Tunc. The Complaint in-this case was issued on May 7, 1993,_ and an Answer was due at tilis:dommission on or before June 7, 1993. A timely Answer wa ,s,. filed and after such deadline expired; the above Application was received. The Ethics Law ana,Reaulations artalear an:i explicit in that an answer must be ; received_ within - t , hirtSil,-0J days unless an extension request is receiv and grantee to the deadline, The failure to,file an . nswer by results in the admission of _the findings in the coV-1:a.iTAt W,e,Oo not have the latitude to grant an after the fact extension a showing of a breakdown in the mail process.,, See., Reed Opijon 92-002;. Port* Order, 042-S. Accordingly, based upon the above, we deny the Application. The substantive issue beAo;e us is whether DeGretto violated either Section 3(a) of Act 170 or Act; 9 regardithe receipt (4 reimbursements for expenies,,whi-oh-ailegedly were not incurred during the period 1986 to the present. - - DeGretto, as Chief _,Deputy Sherif f .uaMiQr.b4 C.PLATO:-.3( was appointed as a Deputy _Sheriff aj4 irfDputy in 1 988 ,af ter the election Jay Roberts Roberts erif. - TA') responsibilities of the. , „ Top, ..7trAnspor_ting, prisoners serving .varioli.1R441. pp.pAra erk;orcinii strike injunction orders, and- serving wa As :Ch1Diy, DeGretto is in a management position but is also assigned to on- call duty. As . - to daily operagOni 4,n,4he Sherifg's qffic.p ikstiget -is uti for. _each . Deput.s assignent •for that ,d54r,„ticulaF-7,fiety., DeGrett makes the assjnients r ar- ciay-tp,s4y fossAi and ualzall assigns himself Ax),,-Ehe transporta;t or ho14nq, When a Depu.ty .,er'Srs7et?rocess ,p s reurn •.9; e pez:vice reflects the, _.Deputy' -14340seved -the. J paiers,,,„ s the individual aerv.e4 and mileage as well as each unsuccessful attempt at service. In this ca-.e, 0 r , ot serv,i1q4% iwass AI 4.. during the, period from..:1.98.8 t44Qugh MArCh 449 - CPA: o approximately 6 sTkit 7 seFN.4.qq* gx54A4. bY eas /IMPIPPA; dAtem,.hckf service, and DennelimaLisinst ,=that w -,re th fects ,,at DeGretto made or assisted 58 of the total services reviewed. (Fact Finding 13). rcimLursemer DeGret.;tst s : 4 1 m i t . ted_ m eaere e.* r exp4e, t.„,s to Cambria Coupty.,Shexif f 's Qf f ice ;p servc f poce 410291. other Countybus.ness, Monph,14 tF9,3? „NA ted. fe form, the $ec9n4 PFIge Of whi.ch. re144.1trii*..1 th@ that the . state1e f „4"-i-1eage i..cue ci a tp4,p, T4e reimbursementS b DeGretto for the years 1988 through March, 1992 • DeGretto, 92- 025 -C2 Page 15 appear in Findings 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26. In March, 1992, a new mileage reimbursement request form was initiated which provided two separate columns for destination and purpose. As to DeGretto's reimbursement forms, there are instances where DeGretto's mileage reimbursement requests do not correspond with the destination of services made or attempted on those days. (Fact Finding 31). In addition, there were several occasions where DeGretto has chauffeured Joseph Roberts, a former Cambria County Commissioner and father of Sheriff Jay Roberts, to his doctor's office. (Fact Finding 33). For the most part, the reimbursement forms are generalized without any specific reference to cases for which expense reimbursements were claimed. In determining whether DeGrettO violated Section 3(a) of Act 170 or Act 9 regarding his submitted expense reimbursements, it is necessary to establish, through evidence of record, that DeGretto submitted and was paid for expenses which were in fact not incurred. If that occurred, there clearly would be a violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law because DeGretto would be using the authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit or financial gain for himself other than compensation provided for by law. Thus, in Hagen, Order 55 -R, we held that a first class commissioner violated Section 3 of Act 170 of 1978 when he received township funds which were in excess of or not authorized by the First Class Township Code. Similarly, in Cohen, Order 610 - R, and Williams, Order 734-R, we found that public employees violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law when they received their salary as a public employee while they were in fact obtaining compensation from private business activities during working hours. In the foregoing cited cases, there was evidence of record to establish the improper receipt of payments or salary. However, in the instant matter, we do not believe that the evidence of record establishes that DeGretto submitted expenses which in fact We r e � AQ t incurred and on that basis, we find no violation ba on the evidence. A postscript is necessary to our determination. We are concerned in reviewing this case about the expense reimbursement reports submitted by DeGretto which t9 a large extent were generalized without any specifics, We question whether such reporting was done due to merely shoddy completion or whether such was done to preclude or inhibit the verification of whether such expenses were in fact incurred. In light of the foregoing, our conclusion of no violation does pot signify an exoneration based upon our review of the record but rather merely reflects a result based upon an insufficiency of evidence. Lastly, DeGretto is reminded that public ,office is a public DeGretto, .92- O2:5 -:C2 Page 16 trust stad therefore DeGretto must comport his conduct sb as to adhere to the standards set forth In the Ethics Law. TV,. cONC S W W : 1. Michel A. DeGretto, as Chief Deputy Sheriff of Cambria County, is a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 170 of 1978 and Act 9 of 1989. 2. Based upon the evidence, DeGretto did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 170 of 1918 or Act 9 of 1989 as to the reimbursement fo4r expenses for the period between 1986 to the present. In re: Michael -A. De retto ORDER No 89 File Docket: 92 --©25. C2 Date Decided: June 28, 1991 Date Mailed: June 30, 1993 1. Michael A. DeGretto, as Chief Oeputy,.• Sheriff of Cambria County, did not violate Setticsn13(' d Act of 1978' or 9 of 1989 as to the reinmbiirseme tt for for period between 1986 to the present based upon the evidence. BY THE COMMISSION, .fi•4. JAMES M. HOWL R Commissioners Roy W. Wilt and Austin M. Lee agree with the majority as to the denial of the Application to File an Answer Nunc Pro Tunc but concur as to the finding of no violation.