Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1049 BrookeIn Re: David Brooks STATE ETHICS COMMISSION 308 FINANCE BUILDING HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120 File Docket: 96- 050 -C2 96- 067 -C2 X -ref: Order No. 1049 Date Decided: 5/29/97 Date Mailed: 6/11/97 Before: Daneen E. Reese, Chair Austin M. Lee, Vice Chair Roy W. Wilt Allan M. Kluger Rev. Joseph G. Quinn Julius Uehlein 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 Law, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §401 aea., by the above - named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was untimely filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission 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 Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §408(h). Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Law 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. §409(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That David Brooks, a public official in his capacity as Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority, Beaver County, violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by using the facilities of the Authority for storage of personal items including but not limited to a jet ski and trailer, boat and trailer and a personal automobile. Section 3. Restricted Activities (a) No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 P.S. §403(a). 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 of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. §402. That David Brooks, in his capacity as a private citizen violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989) when he disclosed or acknowledged to other persons, information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry and investigation before the Commission involving Dana Lengyel, an employee of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority. (96- 067 -C2) Section 8. Investigations by the commission (k) As a general rule, no person shall disclose or acknowledge, to any other person, any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which is before the commission. However, a person may disclose or acknowledge to another person matters held confidential in accordance with this subsection when the matters pertain to any of the following: (1) final orders of the commission as provided in subsection (h); Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 3 II. FINDINGS: (2) hearings conducted in public pursuant to subsection (g); (3) for the purpose of seeking advice of legal counsel; order; (4) filing an appeal from a commission (5) communicating with the commission or its staff, in the course of a preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration by the commission; (6) consulting with a law enforcement official or agency for the purpose of initiating, participating in, or responding to an investigation or prosecution by the law enforcement official or agency; (7) testifying under oath before a governmental body or a similar body of the United States of America; (8) any information, records or proceedings relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or petition for reconsideration which the person is the subject of; or (9) such other exceptions as the commission, by regulation, may direct. 65 P.S. §408(k). 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging that David Brooks violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989). 2. Upon review of the complaint by the Director of Investigations a recommendation was made to the Executive Director to commence a preliminary inquiry. 3. At the direction of the Executive Director, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on June 12, 1996. 4. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 5. On August 9, 1996, a letter was forwarded to David Brooks, by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 4 him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. Z 129 438 627. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Jodean Brooks, with a delivery date of August 12, 1996. 6. A full investigation to case number 96- 050 -C2, was commenced at the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission. 7. On September 3, 1996, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging David Brooks violated other provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989). 8. At the direction of the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission, the Investigative Division initiated preliminary inquiry to case number 96- 067 -C2, on September 3, 1996. 9. The preliminary was completed within sixty days. 10. On October 10, 1996, a letter was forwarded to David Brooks by the Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. P 281 102 760. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of David Brooks with a delivery date of October 12, 1996. 11. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to David Brooks in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him /her of the general status of the investigations 12. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on January 28, 1997. 13. David Brooks has served as the Sewer Plant Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority (VTMA) since June 13, 1975. 14. The VTMA provides sewer and water service for Vanport Township and water service for Brighton Township. 15. As Superintendent, Brooks has supervisory responsibilities over three (3) full - time employees and is responsible for the general care and maintenance of Authority equipment and facilities. 16. In his capacity as Superintendent, Brooks is a non - unionized employee of the VTMA. a. Brooks does not have an employment contract with the VTMA. Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 5 17. Brooks' benefits as Superintendent of the VTMA include: Salary Medical Coverage Sick /Vacation Pay Pension Plan Participation 18. The VTMA complex includes two garages for the storage of supplies and other items used by the VTMA. a. The VTMA does not make storage spaces available to the general public. 19. From approximately January, 1991, through July, 1996, David Brooks stored personally owned items including, but not limited to, a car, boat with trailer and jet ski with trailer in one of the VTMA buildings. a. The boat and jet ski were stored during the fall and winter months. b. These items were stored in an enclosed garage area in concert with other VTMA tools and equipment. 20. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles confirm the following vehicles and trailers licensed to David P. Brooks: Vehicle License Registration Date a. 1977 Dodge Coupe R98489 12/91 b. 1986 Tennessee trailer TB40945 05/97 c. Master Craft Trailer XA65820 04/97 d. 1990 Chevrolet truck CZ92253 01/97 e. 1983 Honda Motorcycle None 21. Brooks stored a 1977 Dodge Coupe, identified in Finding No. 20, from approximately January 1981 through July 1996 in a VTMA garage. a. This vehicle formerly was owned by Brooks' father who passed away in August 1980. 22. Brooks also stored a boat with trailer, not identified in Finding No. 20, from approximately January 1981 through 1985. a. This boat was also owned by his father. b. Brooks sold this boat and subsequently purchased the boat with trailer identified in Finding No. 24(a). c. This boat and trailer combination was stored approximately six (6) months per year between 1981 -85, as it was used by Brooks the remainder of the time. 23. Two former officials of the VTMA recall the board verbally approving Brooks' storage of his father's vehicles in the garage. Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 6 a. This occurred after Brooks' father died in 1980. b. Former Member Howard Cable and the former secretary to the VTMA recall this approval. 24. Brooks also stored other personal items in VTMA garages from 1986 through 1996. a. Brooks also stored a 1986 Tennessee trailer with boat, identified in Finding No. 20(b), from 1986 through May 1996. b. Brooks stored the Mastercraft trailer with jet ski, identified in Finding No. 20(c) from approximately September 1994 through May 1996. 25. Brooks' personal items stored in VTMA garages were not needed or used in the normal course of VTMA operations. 26. Brooks was not provided with any written authorizations to store the car and /or boat. 27. Minutes from the VTMA Board meetings do_ not include any discussions or official actions on the storage issues. 28. Brooks did not get any Board approval for the storage of the jet ski with trailer or the 1986 boat with trailer. 29. Brooks received a private pecuniary benefit by storing the jet ski with trailer and boat with trailer approximately six (6) months each year in VTMA garages. a. Brooks did not have to pay for storage facilities as a result. 30. A private storage facility is located less than one /tenth of a mile from the VTMA sewer plant. a. This facility rents indoor and outdoor storage space to the general public. b. As of July 29, 1996, the rates for enclosed space sufficient to house a car, boat with trailer and jet ski with trailer were as follows: 10 x 15 $58.30 /month (boat w /trailer or jet ski w /trailer) 10 x 20 $68.90 /month (car) 31. Brooks received a financial gain of $3,789.50, for the storage of his personal vehicle at the VTMA Plant Garage from January 1992 through July 1996. a. Financial gain calculation based on the $68.90 per month value for the 10 x 20 storage space for a period of fifty -five months. 32. Brooks received a financial gain of $816.20, for the storage of his jet ski with trailer at the VTMA Sewer Plant Garage during the off- seasons of 1994, 1995 and 1996. Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 7 a. Financial gain based on $58.30 per month by fourteen months or two six month seasons in a 10 x 15 area. 1. 1994 October - December 2. 1995 January - April 4 months October - December 3 months 3. 1996 January - April 4 months 3 months 33. Brooks received a financial gain of $1,632.40, for the storage of a boat and trailer in the VTMA Sewer Authority Garage during the off - seasons since January 1992. a. Financial gain based on twenty -eight months of storage, six per year between January 1992 and April 1996 for a 10 x 15 storage area at $58.30 per month. 34 No authorization was given to Brooks to store the jet ski with trailer or the boat and trailer. a. Brooks took it upon himself to store these items in VTMA garages. 35. Brooks could have stored the personal items on an approximately ten acre tact of land located along with his primary residence. a. Brooks currently is storing these items at his residence. b. Brooks did not want to store the car, boat or jet ski at his residence when he could store them inside at the VTMA Sewer Plant. 36. Brooks received a total financial gain of $6,238.10, for the storage of his car, boat with trailer and jet ski with trailer at the VTMA. a. Financial gain based as follows: 1. Car $3,789.50 Finding No. 31 2. Boat w /trailer $ 816.20 [sic] Finding No. 32 [sic] 3. Jet Ski w /trailer $1,632.40 [sic] Finding No. 34 [sic] Findings 37 through 43 pertain to the allegation that Brooks violated the confidentiality provisions of the State Ethics Act. Findings No. 1 through 36 are incorporated by reference. 37. Brooks was interviewed by Investigators of the State Ethics Commission on March 21, 1996, regarding allegations that three (3) other officials of the VTMA violated provisions of the State Ethics Act. a. Brooks was not the focus of any Ethics Commission investigations at that time. Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 8 b. Prior to the interview, Brooks was provided with a copy of the confidentiality provision of the State Ethics Act. c. Brooks reviewed the confidentiality provision and had no questions about it. 38. Since the March 21, 1996, interview, Brooks has openly discussed and made reference to the Ethics Commission investigations against other VTMA officials. 39. On March 21, 1996, within twenty minutes of the completion of his interview, Brooks discussed the substance of the Ethics Commission investigations with Greg Collins, an employee under Brooks' supervision at the VTMA. a. Collins saw the confidentiality provision card on Brooks' desk, reviewed it and advised Brooks that he should not be talking about the investigations. 40. Brooks regularly and openly discussed the substance of the Ethics Commission investigations with employees under his supervision, including Greg Collins, Warren Clark and Bob Fraser. a. Brooks admits that these discussions occurred with some regularity. b. These discussions occurred with such regularity that no one kept track of them. 41. Brooks discussed the substance of the allegations with vendors and members of the general public who would come in contact with him. a. Brooks talked about the allegations especially those pertaining to the employees pension fund when asked "what's new" or "how are things going." 42. Brooks would tell VTMA Sewer employees when Ethics Commission representatives would be at the water office, a separate facility located approximately one -half ('h) mile from the sewer plant. 43. During the week of January 6, 1997, Brooks contacted Bill Giles inquiring as to whether Greg Collins turned Brooks into the Ethics Commission. a. Giles is the Business Manager of the Plumbers /Steamfitters Local representing maintenance employees of the VTMA. b. This call pertained to Ethics Commission investigations relating to Brooks. c. Brooks did not make reference to Ethics Commission investigations against other VTMA officials. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, David Brooks, hereinafter Brooks, has been a public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 9 Employee Ethics Law ( "Ethics Law "), Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. §401, et seg. The issues before us are whether Brooks as Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority violated Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law as to the allegation that he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by using the facilities of the Authority for storage of personal items including but not limited to a jet ski and trailer, boat and trailer and a personal automobile and whether he violated Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law as to the allegation that he disclosed or acknowledged to other persons, information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry and investigation before the Commission involving Dana Lengyel, and employee of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority. Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law quoted in Section I above, 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 as set forth in Section I above. • Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 provides in part that no person shall disclose or acknowledge any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or reconsideration petition which is before the Commission. Section 8(k) further provides for nine exceptions which are not relevant to this case. Initially, we must consider a procedural issue that has arisen regarding the receipt of an Answer to the Investigative Complaint. The pleading stage in this case began with the issuance of the Investigative Complaint on January 28, 1997. On its face, the Investigative Complaint stated that an Answer had to be received at this Commission within thirty (30) days of issuance and that the Respondent should take that document immediately to an attorney. In this case, an Answer was received on February 28, 1997 which was thirty -one days after the issuance of the Investigative Complaint. An Application Nunc Pro Tunc was received from Respondent's counsel on March 10, 1997. In the Application, it is argued that it would be harsh not to consider Respondent's defenses due to an omission of counsel. The Investigative Division filed an Answer to the Petition arguing that a late filing is permissible only if there is fraud or a breakdown in the mail system, neither of which occurred in this case. It is clear under the Ethics Law and Regulations that a response to the Investigative Complaint must be received within 30 days. 65 P.S. §408(e); 51 Pa. Code §21.5(k). As noted above, even the face sheet of the Investigative Complaint states that an Answer must be received within 30 days. The Answer in this case was received one day late. In order for a late answer to be deemed timely filed, there must either be fraud, a breakdown in the mail delivery system (Getz v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 83 Pa. Commw. 59, 475 A.2d 1369 (1984); West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard, 460 Pa. 551, 333 A.2d 909 (1975)) or excusable negligence by the party's attorney (Bass v. Com., 485 Pa. 256, 401 A.2d 1133 (1979)). None of the conditions for allowing the filing of a late Answer is present in this case. In fact, there has not been even an allegation of fraud, any breakdown in the mail system or excusable negligence of counsel. The only argument proffered is that Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 10 it would be harsh not to consider Respondent's defenses due to an omission of counsel. That argument presents no basis for allowing the filing of a late Answer. Baxter, Order No. 985. Parenthetically, we note that our Regulations allow for the filing of an application for an extension to file an Answer. 51 Pa. Code §21.5(k). No such request was made in this case prior to the filing deadline. The Application to File Nunc Pro Tunc is denied. facts. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the salient Brooks serves as the Sewer Plant Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority (VTMA) which provides sewer and water service for Vanport Township and water service for Brighton Township. Brooks is a non - unionized VTMA employee who is responsible for the general care and maintenance of the VTMA equipment and facilities and is the supervisor of three full -time employees. The VTMA complex includes two garages for the storage of supplies and other items used by VTMA. Although VTMA storage facilities are not available to the general public, Brooks stored personal property there (Fact Findings 19, 20). In particular, Brooks stored a 1977 Dodge from January, 1981 through July, 1996 in the VTMA garage (Fact Finding 21). In addition, Brooks stored a boat with trailer from approximately January, 1981 through 1985 (Fact Finding 22). Brooks sold the boat and purchased another boat with a trailer which was stored at the VTMA garage from 1986 through 1996 (Fact Findings 22, 24). At one time, two former VTMA officials verbally approved the storage by Brooks of motor vehicles in the VTMA garage (Fact Finding 23). Further, Brooks stored a Mastercraft trailer with Jetski in the VTMA garage from approximately September, 1994 through May, 1996. None of the personal property items of Brooks which were stored in the VTMA garage was needed or used for VTMA operations (Fact Finding 25). Brooks was never provided with any written authorization to store the car or boat at the VTMA garage nor was any official action taken as to such matters (Fact Findings 26 -28). Since Brooks stored his personal property at the VTMA garage, he did not have to pay for such storage at a commercial facility. A private storage facility is located less than one -tenth of a mile from the VTMA sewer plant. The rental rate at such facility for a 10' x 15' area is $58.30 a month and for a 10' x 20' area is $68.90 per month as of July 29, 1996. The facts as to the second allegation, which involves a charge of a breach of confidentiality, concerns disclosures made by Brooks regarding an SEC investigation. In March, 1996, Brooks was interviewed by SEC Investigators relating to allegations that three VTMA officials violated the State Ethics Law. Brooks received and reviewed a copy of the confidentiality provision of the State Ethics Law. However, after the interview, Brooks openly discussed and referenced the investigations as to the three VTMA officials. In particular, Brooks discussed the investigations with Greg Collins who is a VTMA employee under Brooks' supervision. Collins saw the confidentiality card and advised Brooks that he should not talk about the investigations. Nevertheless, Brooks continued to discuss the SEC investigations with Greg Collins and two other VTMA employees, Warren Clark and Bob Frasier. Brooks also discussed the substance of the SEC allegations with vendors and members of the general public with whom he came in contact. Brooks even told VTMA sewer employees when SEC investigators were present at the water office which was approximately one -half mile from the sewer plant. Finally, during the week of January 6, 1997, Brooks contacted Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 11 Bill Giles who was the Business Manager of the local union representing VTMA employees and inquired as to whether Greg Collins turned him (Brooks) into the Ethics Commission. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Brooks violated Sections 3(a) or 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989. As to the first allegation, we note that the storage of certain items of Brooks' personal property occurred prior to July 26, 1989 which was the effective date of Act 9 of 1989. Section 9 of Act 9 of 1989 provides: 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. The Investigative Division is seeking violations of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the storage by Brooks at the VTMA garage as to the car, the boat with trailer, and the Jetski with trailer. As to both the car and boat with trailer, the storage of these items began prior to July 26, 1989 but continued thereafter. As to such personal property, we find that this conduct predated Act 9 of 1989 and on that basis we find no violation of Section 3(a) of the Ethics Law. We are aware that the boat with trailer was used for recreational purposes and hence was not permanently stored at the VTMA garage. However, under these particular facts and circumstances, we do not believe that such actions constituted a break or separation so as to constitute separate events. We believe that the operable event occurred prior to Act 9 of 1989 and continued thereafter, despite occasions where Brooks used the boat and trailer followed by a return to the VTMA garage for storage. As to the Jetski with trailer, the storage of this property did not begin until September, 1994 which was after the enactment of Act 9 of 1989. In this instance, we find a violation of Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 as to the storage by Brooks of the Jetski with trailer. Rakowsky, Order 943. There was a use of authority of office on the part of Brooks in that he as Superintendent took such action to store his personal property at the VTMA garage. But for the fact that he was VTMA Sewer Plant Superintendent, Brooks could not have stored such personal property in the VTMA garage. There was no official Board action to approve such storage. The use of authority of office resulted in a pecuniary benefit to Brooks himself. Brooks did not have any out -of- pocket expenses as to the storage of this personal property at a commercial storage facility. The pecuniary benefit was private because there is no authorization in law for the storage of private personal property at this public facility. Lastly, as noted above, the private pecuniary benefit enured to Brooks individually. Turning to the matter of restitution, Section 7(13) of Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §407(13), specifically empowers this Commission to impose restitution in those instances where a public official /employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Law. In this case, as to the Jetski with trailer, there was fourteen months of storage at the VTMA garage. A comparable current rate for such storage is $58.30 a month. Fourteen months of storage would equate to $816.20 (Fact Finding 32). Brooks, 96- 050- C2/96- 067 -C2 Page 12 Therefore, Brooks is directed within thirty days of the date of issuance of this Order to make payment in the amount of $816.20 through this Commission to the VTMA. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by the Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. As to the second allegation concerning a breach of confidentiality under Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989, we find no violation. The allegation specifically charges a breach of confidentiality against Brooks as to the investigation involving Dana Lengyel. Although the findings in this case amply document Brooks' disclosure that certain VTMA officials were being investigated as well as other details about the investigation to VTMA employees and others, the findings do not reflect as to whether such disclosure was made against Lengyel or other VTMA officials. It is clear that Brooks, contrary to the confidentiality provisions of the Ethics Law, had discussions about certain Commission investigations. Such conduct is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that Brooks was advised of confidentiality by Commission staff and by one of the VTMA employees with whom Brooks was discussing such investigations. However, we do not know with certainty from the fact findings about whom Brooks disclosed confidential information. There is no reference to Lengyel in these fact findings. Accordingly, based upon a lack of clear and convincing proof, we are constrained to find no violation of Section 8(k) of the Ethics Law as to the disclosures by Brooks as to SEC investigations for the reason that the record does not substantiate that such disclosures were made as to Lengyel. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. David Brooks, as Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Brooks did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the storage of a car and boat with trailer at the VTMA garages in that such activity began prior to the enactment of Act 9 of 1989. 3. Brooks violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he stored a Jetski with trailer at the VTMA garages without Board approval which constituted a private pecuniary benefit consisting of storage costs which Brooks did not have to pay. 4. Brooks did not violate Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the disclosure of certain investigations as to VTMA officials in that the record does not establish any confidentiality breach as to Dana Lengyel. In Re: David Brooks ORDER NO. 1049 File Docket: 96- 050 -C2 96- 067 -C2 Date Decided: 5/29/97 Date Mailed: 6/11/97 1. David Brooks, as Superintendent of the Vanport Township Municipal Authority, did not violate Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the storage of a car and boat with trailer at the VTMA garages in that such activity began prior to the enactment of Act 9 of 1989. 2. Brooks violated Section 3(a) of Act 9 of 1989 when he stored a Jetski with trailer at the VTMA garages without Board approval which constituted a private pecuniary benefit consisting of storage costs which Brooks did not have to pay. 3. Brooks did not violate Section 8(k) of Act 9 of 1989 regarding the disclosure of certain investigations as to VTMA officials in that the record does not establish any confidentiality breach as to Dana Lengyel. 4. Brooks is directed within thirty days of the date of issuance of this Order to make payment in the amount of $816.20 through this Commission to the VTMA. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by the Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, ogusAti DANEEN E. REESE, CHAIR