Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1256 DiPietroIn Re: Robert DiPietro File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Daneen E. Reese Frank M. Brown Donald M. McCurdy Michael Healey 01- 051 -C2 Order No. 1256 12/4/02 12/16/02 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §§ 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investi9ation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investi9ation the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Robert DiPietro, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as Mayor of Wyoming Borough, Luzerne County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1103(, 1104(a), 1105(a) and 1105(b)(5) ... of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), (f) 1104(a); 1105(a), (b)(5) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary benefit by selling a used laptop computer to the borough police department for which he has oversight responsibility; when the sale of this computer to the police department was awarded without an open and public process; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and calendar year 2001 as a former public official; and when he failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. II. FINDINGS: 1. Robert DiPietro served as the Mayor of Wyoming Borough from January 5, 1998, until December 31, 2001. 2. DiPietro had supervisory responsibility over the Wyoming Borough Police Department in his official capacity as Mayor. 3. DiPietro, in his official capacity as mayor, regularly provided council with a monthly report during council meetings, which included information on public safety issues. 4. DiPietro was interested in improving the department's equipment and technology. 5. During DiPietro's term of office, Wyoming Borough applied for available grant monies from both the state and federal governments. 6. On June 10, 1998, a grant application was submitted to the United States Department of Justice to participate in the COPS and More 98 Award program. a. The application was signed by Mayor DiPietro and Police Chief John F. Gilligan. 7. The grant application sought funding for a civilian clerk and computer equipment and software. a. Computer equipment acquisition would result in time savings through use of technology for departmental operations. 1. Related software would enable the streamlining of daily operations. 2. Laptop computers would allow for the completion of reports in the field. 8. The borough's grant application included a specific funding request as follows for computer and computer related equipment. a. AST Laptop Computers $ 4,698.00 (2 @ $2,349.00) ALERT Records Management Program $ 5,550.00 ALERT Care $ 975.00 Required Software $ 562.00 Computer Desk $ 600.00 Computer Consultant $ 3,000.00 b. The borough was eligible for funding of $28,856.00. DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 3 9. The borough's estimated cost for laptop computers was based on a written quote from Vince O'Boyle, 183 Fourth Street, Wyoming, PA 18644, dated June 10, 1998, for the sale of two (2) AST laptop computers at a cost of $2,349.00 each. a. This information was included in the technology portion of the grant budget. 10. Wyoming Borough did not publicly advertise or solicit any formal bids for a laptop computer. 11. DiPietro, in his official capacity as Mayor, signed all documents relating to the borough's COPS and More Grant application. 12. Conditions of the Cops and More Grant application require, in part, that "the grantee agrees to abide by the terms, conditions and regulations as found in the COPSMORE 98 Grant Owners Manual and the Uniform Administrative for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, 28 C.F.R. Part 66." a. 28 C.F.R. Part 66 (Code of Federal Regulations) provides in Section 66.36(b)(3) as follows: Grantees and subgrantees will maintain a written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer or agent of the grantee or subgrantee shall participate in selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when: (i) The employee, officer or agent, (ii) Any member of his immediate family, (iii) His or her partner, or (iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above, has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award. The grantee's or subgrantee's officers, employees or agents will neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties or subagreements. Grantee and subgrantees may set minimum rules where the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal intrinsic value. To the extent permitted by State or local law or regulations, such standards or conduct will provide for penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations of such standards by the grantees and subgrantee's officers, employees or agents, or by contractors or their agents. The awarding agency may in regulation provide additional prohibitions relative to real, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest. 13. The Cops and More grant application assurances require that grant recipients certify and provide assurances that the recipient will comply with all legal and administrative requirements that govern the applicant for acceptance and use of federal funds. a. Item No. 4 of the assurances requires applicants as follows: DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 4 You will establish, if you have not done so already, to prohibit employees from using their positions for a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business or other ties. 14. The borough's Cops and More grant application was approved by the U.S. Department of Justice on April 19, 1999, in an amount of $28,405.00. 15. Wyoming Borough's grant of $28,405.00 was to be used between December 1, 1998, and November 30, 1999. a. The grant included funding for civilian personnel in the amount of $17,317.00 and $11,088.00 for equipment and technology. b. The COPS and More grant award acceptance was signed by Robert DiPietro in his official capacity as Mayor and William Ragantesi, Assistant Police Chief, on June 17, 1999. 16. Wyoming Borough did not utilize the grant funds to purchase two laptop computers as cited in the grant application. a. A new Gateway desktop computer system costing $2,881.00 was purchased from Gateway for use in the police office. 17. On June 10, 1999, DiPietro sold a used laptop computer to the borough police department. a. The laptop belonged to DiPietro and was to be used by the police department. 1. The laptop was used by DiPietro in a prior job. 18. After delivering the laptop to the police department, DiPietro directed Karen Pokorny, borough secretary, to issue him a borough check in the amount of $2,349.00 made payable to Sharon DiPietro. a. Pokorny requested a receipt or invoice confirming the purchase. 19. On June 10, 1999, DiPietro provided a handwritten invoice /receipt in the amount of $2,349.00 to Karen Pokorny for payment for the laptop computer. a. The handwritten invoice states "Paid $2,349.00 for laptop computer for police department." b. The handwritten statement is signed Robert DiPietro. 20. At DiPietro's direction, Pokorny issued borough check number 2056 on June 10, 1999, in the amount of $2,349.00 to Sharon DiPietro. a. Sharon DiPietro is the Respondent's wife. b. Neither the borough secretary nor any borough officials had any dealings with Sharon DiPietro. 21. Wyoming Borough check number 2056 was cashed by the DiPietros. a. Robert DiPietro's name appears as the last endorsement on this check, DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 5 following that of his wife. 22. The sale of the laptop by DiPietro was not previously approved by borough council. 23. No formal bid process was utilized when the sale was made by DiPietro. 24. The purchase was made at DiPietro's direction. 25. The payment to DiPietro was not approved by council prior to being issued. a. No records exist to confirm whether the payment was ever approved by council. 26. DiPietro sold the used laptop computer to the borough for the same amount that was budgeted for one (1) new unit, $2,349.00. a. The $2,349.00 figure charged to the borough by DiPietro was the price quoted in the COPS and More grant from Vince CY Boyle for a new computer. 27. Grants and purchases relating to the police department were discussed at council meetings at least nine (9) times since DiPietro became Mayor in January 1999. a. The status of grants were reported on during council meetings as part of the Mayor's report or under the heading finance and grants. b. None of these discussions related to the acquisition of a laptop computer for the department. 28. Minutes of Wyoming Borough Council meetings from January 1999 to March 12, 2001, indicate that the topic of obtaining grant money to purchase a laptop computer for the police department was never brought before council for discussion or any official action. 29. A purchase of this nature would require council approval. 30. DiPietro never informed any member of council that he sold a used laptop computer to the borough. a. DiPietro states that he advised council of the sale of the laptop computer to the borough. 31. The laptop DiPietro sold to the borough remained in the police department's possession until approximately December 20, 2001. a. The laptop was used by the police department to complete reports, but was not utilized for one of its intended uses, namely the Metro /Alert software. 32. Between June 1999 and December 2001, questions were raised by citizens regarding the propriety of DiPietro selling a used laptop computer to the borough. 33. On December 10, 2001, Wyoming Borough Council held an executive session to discuss among other things the computer transaction. a. DiPietro was present for this executive session. b. Borough Solicitor, Mark Bufalino, informed DiPietro during the executive session that proper bid procedures were not followed with the computer sale. DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 6 c. Solicitor Bufalino directed DiPietro to reimburse the borough the amount DiPietro received for the computer. 34. On December 20, 2001, DiPietro issued personal check number 3876 in the amount of $2,349.00 to Wyoming Borough. a. DiPietro issued this check to the borough as reimbursement for the cost of the laptop computer he sold based on Solicitor Bufalino's suggestion. b. DiPietro received his computer back from the borough after making reimbursement. 35. DiPietro retained the borough funds of $2,349.00 from June 10, 1999, until December 20, 2001, when advised by the borough solicitor to return the funds to the township. (The following findings relate to the allegation that Robert DiPietro failed to file Statements of Financial Interests and failed to disclose the borough as a source of income on other Statements of Financial Interests) 36. DiPietro, in his official capacity as Mayor, was annually required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form. 37. Blank Statement of Financial Interests forms are annually sent to the Wyoming Borough Secretary. 38. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with Wyoming Borough include the following filings by DiPietro during the years he served as Mayor. a. Calendar Year: 2001 No forms filed by May 1, 2002 b. Calendar Year: 2000 No forms filed by May 1, 2001 c. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Emp. in any Business: All Other Financial Interests: d. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Emp. in any Business: Directors All Other Financial Interests: 1999 02/16/00 on SEC Form 1/00 Mayor UFCW Federal Credit Union Eagle USA UFCW Federal Credit Union, Boardof Directors None e. Calendar Year: 1997 No forms filed by May 1, 1998 1998 02/18/99 on SEC 1/99 Mayor UFCW Federal Credit Union Nationsway Transport UFCW Federal Credit Union, Board None of DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 7 f. Calendar Year: Position: Filed: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: All Other Financial Interests: 1996 Mayoral candidate 02/27/97 on SEC Form 1/97 UFCW Federal Credit Union Nations Way Transport, Walsh Real Estate, UFCW Credit Union None 39. DiPietro failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests form for calendar year 1997 by May 1, 1998. 40. DiPietro failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests form for calendar year 2000 by May 1,2001. 41. DiPietro failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests form for calendar year 2001 by May 1, 2002, the year after completing his term of office as Mayor. 42. DiPietro failed to list Wyoming Borough as a source of income in excess of $1,300.00 on Statements of Financial Interests filed by him for calendar years 1998 and 1999. a. DiPietro did not disclose income received from the borough as a result of the sale of the laptop computer. 43. DiPietro annually accepted compensation in the amount of $1,500.00 as Wyoming Borough Mayor during calendar years 1998 through 2001, even though he had not filed Statements of Financial Interests. 44. DiPietro received compensation of $6,000.00 from Wyoming Borough for calendar years 2001, 2000 and 1997, the years he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Robert DiPietro, hereinafter DiPietro, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et se as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that DiPietro in his capacity as Mayor of Wyoming Borough, Luzerne County, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 3(f)/1103(f), 4(a)/1104(a), 5(a)/1105(a) and 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he sold a used laptop computer to the borough police department without an open and public process; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and the calendar year 2001 as a former public official; and when he failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 2/1102. Definitions DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 8 "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public f of ce or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. § 402/65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 3/1103. Restricted activities (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. Any 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. § 403(f)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act specifically provides in part that no public official /public employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 9 Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act requires that each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 5(b )/1105(b) of the Ethics Act requires that every public official /public employee and candidate list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate of $1,000 or more. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. DiPietro served as the Wyoming Borough Mayor from January 1998 through December 2001. Since DiPietro as Mayor had supervisory responsibility over the police department and had an interest in improving its equipment and technology, he reported on such issues during the monthly council meetings. In June of 1998, Wyoming Borough applied for a grant from the state and federal governments for hiring a civilian clerk and purchasing computer equipment and software for the police department. Part of the funding request for $28,856 included two laptop computers at $2,349 per unit. DiPietro as Mayor signed all documents relating to the borough's grant application which contained the usual conflict of interest provisions against self dealing. In April of 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice approved the application and awarded a grant in the amount of $28,405 to the borough. Wyoming Borough did not utilize the grant funds to purchase two laptop computers as per the grant application. Instead, a Gateway desktop computer system in the amount of $2,881 was purchased for use by the police department. In June 1999, DiPietro sold a used laptop computer to the police department which he had from in a prior job. DiPietro directed the borough secretary, Karen Pokorny, to issue a check in the amount of $2,349 payable to Sharon DiPietro, his spouse. The handwritten invoice signed by DiPietro stated: "Paid $2,349 for laptop for police department." The invoice on its face appeared to comport with the grant application regarding two laptop computers at a unit price of $2,349. At DiPietro's direction, Pokorny issued a borough check in the amount of $2,349 to Sharon DiPietro in June of 1999. As to the sale of the laptop by DiPietro to the borough, there was no advertising for bids nor any approval by borough council. The purchase was made solely at DiPietro's direction. DiPietro did not raise the issue of the sale of his laptop at any council meeting. Even though such a purchase would require council approval, DiPietro did not even inform any council member of the sale of his used laptop computer to the borough. From June 1999 to December 2001, citizens raised questions regarding the sale by DiPietro of his used laptop to the borough. In December of 2001, Wyoming Borough Council held an executive session to discuss the computer transaction wherein DiPietro was present. After the solicitor opined that procedures were not followed for the computer sale, DiPietro was directed to reimburse the borough for the laptop purchase. DiPietro then issued a check in reimbursement to the borough for the cost of the laptop and received his computer. Although DiPietro as Borough Mayor was required to file Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's), he failed to file SFI's for the calendar years 1997 and 2000. In addition, DiPietro failed to file an SFI for the calendar year 2001 which was the year after he left public service. Although DiPietro filed SFI's for the calendar years 1998 and 1999, he failed to list the borough as a source of income. Since the record reflects that DiPietro received annual compensation in the amount of $1,500 as Wyoming Borough Mayor, such salary exceeded the $1,300 threshold for reporting income under the Ethics Act. DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 10 Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find: a violation of Section 1103(a) by DiPietro as to the sale of a used laptop computer to the borough police department; a technical violation of Section 1103(f) by DiPietro as to the sale of a laptop computer to the borough, which sale was in excess of $500 and without an open and public process; a violation of Section 1104(a) when DiPietro failed to file SFI's for 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and calendar year 2001 as a former public official; and a technical violation of Section 1105(a), (b)(5) when DiPietro failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on SFI's filed for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. In addition, DiPietro agrees to make payment in the amount of $3,500 through this Commission to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this Order and to file SFI's for calendar years 1997, 2000, 2001 and file amended SFI's for calendar years 1998 and 1999 including Wyoming Borough as a source of income. The SFI's are to be filed with Wyoming Borough with copies forwarded to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) to the above allegation, DiPietro as Mayor took various actions as to the computer sale which were uses of authority of office. But for the fact that he was Mayor, he would not have been in a position to effectuate the purchase of his used laptop by the borough. DiPietro directed the borough secretary to issue a check in the amount of $2,349 to his spouse for the purchase of his computer. Such uses of authority of office resulted in a private pecuniary benefit consisting of the financial gain that DiPietro or his spouse received on the sale of his computer to the borough. Lastly, private pecuniary benefit inured to DiPietro himself or his spouse who is a member of his immediate family as that term is defined under the Ethics Act. Accordingly, DiPietro violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of office as Mayor to sell his used laptop computer to the borough for $2,349. See, Zangrilli, Order No. 946. As to Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act, the contracting provision allows a public official, spouse or child to contract with his governmental body; however, if the contract is $500 or more, it must be awarded through an open and public process. In this case, there was no advertisement or bidding for the purchase of the computer by the borough. DiPietro simply directed the sale of his used laptop to the borough and directed the borough secretary to issue a check payable to his spouse in the amount of $2,349. The facts of record establish that there was a contract between DiPietro and the borough in excess of $500 which was not accomplished through an open and public process. Accordingly, DiPietro technically violated Section 3(f)/1103(f) of the Ethics Act as to the sale of his used laptop computer to the borough for $2,349 when such contract was in excess of $500 and not awarded through an open and public process. See, Schweinsberq, Order No. 940. Turning to the SFI allegations, the record establishes that DiPietro as Borough Mayor failed to file SFI's for the calendar years 1997 and 2000 as a public official and also failed to file for the calendar year 2001 as a former public official. Accordingly, DiPietro violated Section 4(a)/1104 (a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file SFI's for the 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and for the 2001 as a former public official. Although DiPietro filed SFI's for the calendar years 1998 and 1999, he failed to list Wyoming Borough as a source of income for those two years even though his income as Mayor exceeded the $1,300 reporting threshold. Accordingly, DiPietro technically violated Section 5(a), (b)(5)/1105(a), (b)(5) of the Ethics Act when DiPietro failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on his SFI's for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, DiPietro is directed to make payment DiPietro 01- 051 -C2 Page 11 in the amount of $3,500 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. DiPietro is further directed to file SFI's for calendar years 1997, 2000, and 2001 and to file amended SFI's for calendar years 1998 and 1999 including Wyoming Borough as a source of income within thirty (30) days of the date of the issuance (mailing) of the final adjudication in this matter. The SFI's are to be filed with Wyoming Borough with copies forwarded to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. DiPietro, as Mayor of Wyoming Borough, was a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. DiPietro violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he sold his used laptop computer to the borough police department. 3. A technical violation of Section 3(/1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when DiPietro sold his laptop computer, which sale was in excess of $500, to the borough without an open and public process. 4. DiPietro violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and calendar year 2001 as a former public official. 5. A technical violation of Section 5(a), (b)(5)/1105(a), (b)(5), 65 P.S. §405(a), (b)(5)/ 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(a), (b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when DiPietro failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interestsfiled for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. In Re: Robert DiPietro ORDER NO. 1256 File Docket: 01- 051 -C2 Date Decided: 12/4/02 Date Mailed: 12/16/02 1. DiPietro, as Mayor of Wyoming Borough, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he sold his used laptop computer to the borough police department. 2. A technical violation of Section 3(/1103(f) of the Ethics Act occurred when DiPietro sold his laptop computer, which sale was in excess of $500, to the borough without an open and public process. 3. DiPietro violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for 1997 and 2000 calendar years as Mayor and calendar year 2001 as a former public official. 4. A technical violation of Section 5(a), (b)(5)/1105(a), (b)(5), 65 P.S. §405(a), (b)(5)/ 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(a), (b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when DiPietro failed to disclose Wyoming Borough as a source of income on Statements of Financial Interestsfiled for the 1998 and 1999 calendar years. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, DiPietro is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,500 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this Order. 6. DiPietro is directed to file SFI's for calendar years 1997, 2000, and 2001 and to file amended SFI's for calendar years 1998 and 1999 including Wyoming Borough as a source of income within thirty (30) days of the date of the mailing of this Order. The SFI's are to be filed with Wyoming Borough with copies forwarded to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 7. Compliance with 5 and 6 above will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair