HomeMy WebLinkAbout1257 SchlangerIn Re: James Schlanger
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- 066 -C2
Order No. 1257
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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11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.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That James Schlanger, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as a
Councilman for Swissvale Borough, Allegheny County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104 a
and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a), §1104(a) and 1105(b)
when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by participating in t e
issuance of payments, including signing checks, resulting in compensation to him in excess of
the amount allowable by law; when he used the authority of his public office for a private
pecuniary gain by converting for his personal use a check given to him as payment of a
borough amusement machine tax; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests with
Swissvale Borough for the 1997, 1999 and 2000 calendar years; and when he failed to
disclose on Statements of Financial Interests for the 1998 calendar year all sources of income
in excess of $1,300.
II. FINDINGS:
1. James D. Schlanger served as a Councilman for Swissvale Borough, Allegheny
County, from May 27, 1991, to March 20, 2002.
a. Schlanger was originally appointed by council to fill a vacancy on council and
was subsequently elected to consecutive four -year terms beginning in 1992,
1996, and 2000.
b. Schlanger served as a member of the Borough Finance Committee from
January 1996 through December 1997 and January 2000 through July /August
2001.
1. Schlanger was the Chairman of the Finance Committee from January
2000 through June 2000.
c. Schlanger resigned from council on March 20, 2002.
2. A seven - member council and mayor govern Swissvale Borough.
3. Prior to 2002, Council President, Vice - President, Chairman of the Finance Committee,
and the Borough Manager held signature authority over the borough payroll account.
a. Council members other than those listed above had signature authority on the
payroll account at various times.
b. Schlanger signed payroll checks as an authorized signatory since at least 1991.
4. The borough required at least two signatures on all payroll checks.
a. The borough did not generally utilize signature stamps for authorizing checks.
5. Section 1001 of the Borough Code establishes that councilmen may receive
compensation to be fixed by ordinance at any time and from time to time based on the
population of the borough.
a. The salaries are to be payable monthly or quarterly for the duties imposed by
the provisions of the Act.
6. Swissvale Borough Council has enacted ordinances establishing the amount of annual
compensation to be received by Council members.
7. The most recent ordinances setting council salary occurred in 1995 and 1997.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 3
a. Swissvale Borough Ordinance 95 -12 set Council's annual salary at $2400.00.
1. The ordinance specified that payments were to be made in $200.00
monthly installments.
2. The ordinance went into effect on January 1, 1996.
b. Swissvale Borough Ordinance 97 -6 set Council's annual salary at $3000.00.
1. The ordinance specified that payments were to be made in $250.00
monthly installments.
2. The ordinance went into effect on January 1, 1998.
8. Swissvale Borough utilizes Automated Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) to generate
borough payroll checks for employees and Council members.
a. ADP is a payroll processing company.
9. The borough also maintained the ability to issue checks from the payroll account for
various reasons, including employee vacation advances.
a. The borough manager maintained and generated in -house borough payroll
checks.
10. Payroll checks issued in -house did not require council's pre - approval.
a. All payroll checks, including ADP payroll checks, were not approved by council
at monthly meetings.
b. Payroll is considered approved upon passage of the annual budget.
11. The Borough payroll account for the period 1996 through 2000 delineates the following
in -house payroll checks that were issued to Schlanger in the years noted:
1994 Date Check No. Amount
1/31/94 Check No. 2675 $ 88.40
2/9/94 Check No. 3001 $ 461.00
4/19/94 Check No. 2961 $ 442.00
Total for 1994 $ 991.40
1995 10/31/94 Check No. 2978 $ 1 060.80
Date Check No. Amount
1996 12/19/95 Check No. 3346 $ 1,061.28
2/12/96 Check No. 3461 $ 531.12
3/23/96 Check No. 3459 $ 531.12
Total for 1996 $ 2 123.52
1997 10/16/96 Check No. 3685 $ 1,062.24
10/29/96 Check No. 3761 $ 1,062.24
Total for 1997 $ 2 124.48
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 4
1998 and 1999 1/2/97 Check No. 3980 $ 1,125.60
1/6/97 Check No. 3979 $ 1,062.24
1/24/97 Check No. 3971 $ 1,062.24
1/31/97 Check No. 3970 $ 1,062.24
11/28/97 Check No. 4489 $ 531.30
12/18/97 Check No. 4485 $ 531.30
Total $ 5 374.92
2000 11/5/99 Check No. 5170 $ 2 480.30
2001 12/23/99 Check No. 5161 $ 1,240.15
12/28/99 Check No. 5160 $ 1,240.15
Total $ 2 480.30
2002 1/18/00 Check No. 5494 $ 1,240.17
2/14/00 Check No. $ 1,240.17
Total $ 2 480.34
2003 3/1/00 Check No. 5462 $ 2 480.30
a. 1996:
b. 1997:
Date Check No. Amount
096 3461 $531.12
02 -23 -96 3459 531.12
10 -16 -96 3685 1,062.24
10 -29 -96 3761 1,062.24
Total: $3,186.72
Date Check No. Amount
01 -02 -97 3980 $1712761)
01 -06 -97 3979 1,062.24
01 -24 -97 3971 1,062.24
01 -31 -97 3970 1,062.24
11 -28 -97 4489 531.30
12 -18 -97 4485 531.30
Total: $5,374.92
c. 1999:
Date Check No. Amount
11 -05 -99 5170 $2,4$ 0
12 -23 -99 5161 1,240.15
12 -28 -99 5160 1,240.15
Total: $4,960.60
d. 2000:
Date Check No. Amount
01 -18 -00 5494 $1,240.1/
02 -14 -00 5474 1,240.17
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 5
03 -01 -00 5462 2,480.30
Total: $4,960.64
e. Borough records do not reflect any payments to Schlanger in 1998 for
councilman duties.
1. Schlanger would have been entitled to $3,000 in 1998 ($2,719.14 net).
12. Schlanger received compensation in excess of the amount allowable by law per year as
follows:
Year
1996
1997
1999
2000
Maximum
Allowable
Compensation
$2,123.52
$2,124.48
$2,480.30
$2,480.34
Compensation
Received
$3,186.72
$5,374.92
$4,960.60
$4,960.64
Total:
Overpayment
$1,063.20
$3,250.44
$2,480.30
$2,480.30
$9,274.24
a. The amounts shown above are net amounts after taxes and withholdings.
13. Schlanger directed Thomas Esposito, Borough Manager, to issue in -house borough
payroll checks to Schlanger in excess of the amount allowable by law.
14. Schlanger, as a council member, was one of Esposito's immediate supervisors.
15. Schlanger signed all sixteen (16) in -house payroll checks issued to him as an
authorized signatory for the borough.
a. The borough manager co- signed these checks.
16. Schlanger never received approval from council to receive compensation in excess of
the amount allowable by law.
a. Council discovered overpayments to Schlanger in July /August 2001 as a result
of the independent audit.
17. Schlanger received notification of an investigation by the State Ethics Commission, on
or about October 5, 2001, outlining allegations of overpayment.
a. Twenty -five days later Schlanger issued check no. 1128 dated October 30,
2001 in the amount of $2,481.26 from his personal checking account (account
no. 570 -1498) at Mellon Bank payable to Swissvale Borough.
b. Jean Rosenquest issued check no. 80437 payable to Swissvale Borough,
dated January 4, 2002 in the amount of $2,372.88 from an account at Sears
National Bank, on Schlanger's behalf.
18. Schlanger's actions of directing excess payments be made to him and his subsequent
signing of checks issued to him resulted in a financial gain of $9,274.24.
a. Schlanger made restitution totaling $4,854.14.
b. Schlanger was entitled to $2,719.14 (net) for 1998.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 6
c. Schlanger realized a net private gain of $1,700.96 ($9,274.24 minus $4,854.14
and $2,719.14).
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION OF SCHLANGER'S
CONVERSION OF AN AMUSEMENT MACHINE TAX CHECK FOR PERSONAL USE.
19. Swissvale Borough has enacted ordinances requiring fees for licensing and permitting
of amusement and /or vending machines in operation in the borough.
20. Swissvale Borough Ordinance No. 97 -3, entitled, An ordinance of the Borough of
Swissvale, Allegheny County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, amending Ordinance
No. 92 -8, and establishing a new schedule of fees with respect to the licensing and
permitting regulations for the ownership and operating of amusement devices, sets the
amount of yearly fees that establishment owners in the borough who operate
amusement devices are required to pay the borough.
21. Ordinance No. 97 -3 sets the following yearly fees:
a. Mechanical Amusement Device /Electronic Game: $325.00
b. Music Box: $150.00
c. The above listed fees would be half if the machines were installed after July 1st
of the permit year.
d. Although not specifically noted in Ordinance No. 97 -3, the Borough also
assesses a fee of $100.00 per year for the operation of electronic dart
games /machines.
22. In the fall /winter of each year, borough officials visit borough establishments to
determine if the establishment has amusement machines and is required to pay a
permit fee.
23. The borough subsequently notifies establishment owners by letter of the amount of the
amusement permit fee to be paid.
24. The borough requires that the establishment owner pay the amusement permit fee by a
specific date, typically near the end of the year for the upcoming year, to avoid being
cited.
25. MoBell's restaurant /bar (aka Marty's Place), 2031 Monongahela Avenue, Swissvale,
Pa has been in operation in Swissvale for approximately ten years.
a. MoBell's is owned by MPM 226 Sunset, Inc.
b. Martin Matgouranis is the sole interested party of MPM 226 Sunset, Inc.
26. MoBell's has had various amusement machines available for use during its existence.
a. MoBell's amusement machines have included cigarette machines, electronic
dart machines, jukebox machines, and video -poker machines.
27. Swissvale Borough has required MoBell's to pay an amusement permit fee on an
annual basis.
a. Matgouranis has paid the amusement permit fee by both cash and check in the
past.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 7
28. Schlanger and Matgouranis have known each other for approximately fifteen years.
a. Matgouranis was aware that Schlanger served as a Councilman for Swissvale
Borough.
29. Schlanger has borrowed money from Matgouranis during the term of their friendship.
30. Schlanger assisted Matgouranis in everyday living situations in the months preceding
the surgery while Matgouranis was ill.
31. Schlanger drove Matgouranis to various appointments, places, etc.
32. Schlanger served as a "runner" between MoBell's and Matgouranis regarding mail,
documents, etc.
33. On May 10, 1999, a business check from MoBells Bar, check number 831, in the
amount of $900.00 was deposited into Schlanger's personal checking account at
Mellon Bank.
a. The check was made payable to James Schlanger.
b. The memo section of the check specifies, "Machine Tax Payment."
c. The check was endorsed "For Deposit Only."
34. In a sworn Statement to Commission investigators on February 27, 2002, Matgouranis
stated that the $900.00 check was written for payment of MoBell's amusement permit
fees.
35. No payments were made from Schlanger's bank account in the amount of $900.00 to
the borough for Mobell's amusement permit fee for 1999.
36. Borough records reflect no payment of Mobell's 1999 amusement permit fee by
Schlanger, Matgouranis, or any other source.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT SCHLANGER FAILED
TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE
SOURCES OF INCOME
37. Schlanger was required to file Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) by May 1 of
each year for the previous calendar year in his position as a Borough Councilman.
38. Schlanger failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the following years:
a. Schlanger failed to file a SFI by May 1 1998, for calendar year 1997.
b. Schlanger failed to file a SFI by May 1 2000, for calendar year 1999.
c. Schlanger failed to file a SFI by May 1 2001, for calendar year 2000.
1. Schlanger filed a SFI for calendar year 2000 on November 30, 2001,
after receiving his Notice of Investigation from the State Ethics
Commission.
39. During the years that Schlanger was in office and did not file Statements of Financial
Interests, he collected compensation set by ordinance as follows:
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 8
1997 $2,124.48
1999 $2,480.30
2000 $2,480.34
Total: $7,085.12
40. Schlanger filed a[n] SFI for calendar year 1998 on March 5, 1999.
a. Schlanger failed to disclose income received from Arnheim & Neely on his 1998
calendar year SFI.
1. Schlanger was employed on a part -time basis in 1998 by Arnheim &
Neely.
2. Schlanger was paid a net total of $3,197.50 in 1998 by Arnheim &
Neely.
b. Schlanger filed an amended SFI for calendar year 1998 on November 30,
2001, disclosing income from Dithridge House (formerly Arnheim & Neely).
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, James Schlanger, hereinafter
Schlanger, 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 Schlanger, as a Swissvale Borough Councilman, violated
Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 4(a)/1104(a) and 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he: participated
in the issuance of payments resulting in compensation to himself in excess of the amount
allowable by law; converted for his personal use a check given to him as payment of a
borough amusement machine tax; failed to file Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's) with
Swissvale Borough for the 1997, 1999 and 2000 calendar years; and failed to disclose on his
SFI for the 1998 calendar year all sources of income in excess of $1,300.
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
"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
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 9
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 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/$1,300 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.
Schlanger served as a Swissvale Borough Council Member from May 1991 until
March 20, 2002, when he resigned. In addition, Schlanger was a member of the finance
committee from January 1996 through December 1997 and January 2000 through
July /August 2001. Schlanger served as chairman of the finance committee from January
through June of 2000.
Swissvale Borough consists of a council with seven members and a mayor. The
council president, vice president, finance committee chairman, and borough manager have
signature authority over the borough payroll account which requires two signatures for payroll
checks.
Regarding the compensation for borough council members, Borough Ordinance 95 -12
established in 1995 that council members would receive an annual salary of $2,400 paid in
$200 monthly installments. A new Ordinance, 97 -6, which went into effect in January 1,
1998, increased the annual salary to $3,000 with monthly payments of $250. For payroll
checks issued for employees and council members, the borough did not require council's
approval for such checks which were generated in- house.
The payroll records for Schlanger's compensation for the period 1994 forward are
delineated in Fact Finding 11. For the years 1996 through 2000, Schlanger received
$9,274.24 (net) in excess of the amount allowed by law for his compensation. See, Fact
Finding 12. Schlanger obtained such amounts by directing the borough manager to issue in-
house borough checks payable to Schlanger in excess of the amount allowed by law.
Schlanger was able to give such directions to the borough manager because Schlanger, as a
council member, was one of the manager's immediate supervisors. All such checks issued to
Schlanger were co- signed by Schlanger and the borough manager. Schlanger did not obtain
approval from council to receive such excess compensation.
Approximately one month after Schlanger received notification of the investigation by
this Commission, he made a payment of $2,481.26 from his personal checking account
payable to Swissvale Borough. Two months later, another check was issued on Schlanger's
behalf in the amount of $3,272.88 payable to Swissvale Borough. The two payments equaled
$4,854.14. Schlanger was entitled to $2,719.14 (net) for 1998 which he had not received. If
the foregoing amounts are credited to the debit of $9,274.24, the net remaining financial gain
received by Schlanger amounted to $1,700.96.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 10
Turning to the second allegation in this case, Swissvale Borough has an ordinance
which requires the payment of licensing fees for amusements or vending machines that are
operated within the borough. Borough officials, on a yearly basis, visit borough establishments
to determine if there are any amusement machines that require permit fees. The borough then
notifies the owners by letter as to the amount of amusement permit fees that are due.
MoBell's Restaurant /Bar, which is owned by MPM 226 Sunset, Inc. of which Martin
Matgouranis is the sole interested party, has operated in the borough and has various
amusement machines. Schlanger and Matgouranis have known each other for many years.
Schlanger has on occasion borrowed money from Matgouranis and in turn, has assisted
Matgouranis in certain everyday situations. Schlanger has also served as a "runner" between
MoBell's Restaurant /Bar and Matgouranis regarding various mail and documents.
On May 10, 1999, a business check from MoBell's Restaurant /Bar in the amount of
$900 was deposited into Schlanger's personal checking account. The check was made
payable to Schlanger with a memo notation, "Machine Tax Payment." Matgouranis states
that the $900 check was written for the payment of MoBell's amusement permit fees. There
are no payments in the amount of $900 from Schlanger's bank to the borough for MoBell's
amusement permit fee. The borough records do not reflect any payment by MoBell's for its
amusement tax for that particular year.
The last allegation concerns Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's). As a borough
councilman, Schlanger was required to file SFI's on a yearly basis. The record reflects that
Schlanger failed to file SFI's for the calendar years 1997, 1999 and 2000. During each of
those years, Schlanger's compensation as a borough council member exceeded the $1,300
income reporting threshold. In addition, Schlanger filed his 1998 calendar year SFI but did not
disclose Arnheim and Neely as a source of income. Schlanger has filed an amended SFI for
that calendar year disclosing such income.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
find:
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution that this Commission
a. That a violation of 3(a) /Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Schlanger
used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by participating in the
issuance of payments, including signing checks, resulting in compensation to him in
excess of the amount allowable by law;
b. That Schlanger violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) when he failed to disclose on his
Statement of Financial Interests for the 1998 calendar year all sources of income in
excess of $1,300;
c. Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) when he failed to file Statements of Financial
Interests with Swissvale Borough for the 1997, 1999, and 2000 calendar years; and
d. That no violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding
Schlanger's actions in using a check given to him as payment of a borough
amusement machine tax for his personal purposes in that there was no use of the
authority of office to obtain the payment.
In addition, Schlanger agrees to make payment of $5,000 to the Commonwealth and
file SFI's for the calendar years 1997, 1999, and 2000 within 30 days of the date of mailing of
this Order.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 11
As to the allegation regarding Schlanger's use of office to obtain excess compensation,
Schlanger directed the borough manager to issue such checks to himself as well as cosigned
those checks. But for the fact that Schlanger was a borough council member, he could not
have been in the position to take such action. Such actions were uses of authority of office.
See, Juliante, Order 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted in pecuniary benefits to
Schlanger consisting of the compensation he received. Further, the pecuniary benefits were
private in that they were financial gains other than provided for by law. Specifically, there was
a borough ordinance which limited the amount of yearly compensation for a council member.
Schlanger took action to receive payments in excess of the compensation as provided for by
law. As such, the financial gains that inured to Schlanger were private pecuniary benefits.
Accordingly, Schlanger violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) when he took action to receive
compensation as a borough council member in excess of that which was allowed by law. See,
Hessinger, Order 931, affirmed in part R.H. v. SEC, 673 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Commw. 1996).
As to the SFI allegations, the record reflects that Schlanger failed to file SFI's for the
calendar years 1997, 1999, and 2000. Accordingly, Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b)
of the Ethics Act when he, as a borough council member, failed to file SFI's for the calendar
years 1997, 1999, and 2000.
The record also reflects that Schlanger, in filing his SFI for the 1998 calendar year,
failed to list Arnheim and Neely as a source of income. Schlanger subsequently filed an
amended SFI listing Arnheim and Neely (now Dithridge House) as a source of income.
Accordingly, Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely
list that source of income on his SFI for the calendar year 1998.
Concerning the allegation regarding the borough amusement machine taxof$900from
MoBell's, as per the consent agreement of the parties, we find no violation of Section
3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act. We reach such a result based upon the unique circumstances
as set forth in the stipulated findings of the parties. Since the findings are stipulated, there is
no basis for us to draw any factual inferences or make any derivative fact findings. Under
these very limited facts, we accept the parties' stipulation of no use of authority of office.
Commonwealth Court has held that without a use of authority of office, there can be no
violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See, Marchitello & McGuire v. SEC, 657
A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. 1995).
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, Schlanger is directed to make
payment of $5,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30
days of the mailing date of this Order. In addition, Schlanger is directed to file SFI's for the
calendar years 1997, 1999, and 2000 with Swissvale Borough with one copy filed with this
Commission for compliance verification within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order.
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. Schlanger, as a Councilman for Swissvale Borough, was a public official subject to the
provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Schlanger violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) when he took action to receive compensation
as a borough council member in excess of that which was allowed by law.
3. Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he, as a borough
council member, failed to file SFI's for the calendar years 1997, 1999, and 2000.
Schlanger 01- 066 -C2
Page 12
4. Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely list
sources of income on his SFI for the calendar year 1998.
5. Schlanger did not violate the Ethics Act regarding his actions in using a check given to
him as payment of a borough amusement machine tax for his personal purposes in that
there was no use of the authority of office to obtain the payment.
In Re: James Schlanger
ORDER NO. 1257
File Docket: 01- 066 -C2
Date Decided: 12/4/02
Date Mailed: 12/16/02
1. Schlanger, as a Councilman for Swissvale Borough, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a)
when he took action to receive compensation as a borough council member in excess
of that which was allowed by law.
2. Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he, as a borough
council member, failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years
1997, 1999, and 2000.
3. Schlanger violated Section 5(b)/1105(b ) of the Ethics Act when he failed to timely list
sources of income on his Statement of Financial Interest for the calendar year 1998.
4. Schlanger did not violate the Ethics Act regarding his actions in using a check given to
him as payment of a borough amusement machine tax for his personal purposes in that
there was no use of the authority of office to obtain the payment.
5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Schlanger is directed to make payment of
$5,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through this Commission within 30 days
of the mailing date of this Order.
6. Schlanger is directed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years
1997, 1999, and 2000 with Swissvale Borough with one copy filed with this
Commission for compliance verification within 30 days of the mailing date of this Order.
7. Compliance with paragraphs 5 and 6 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