Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1260 ReavesIn Re: Charles Reaves 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 00- 049 -C2 Order No. 1260 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Charles Reaves, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Manager of the Business Development Center for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(a), (b)(5 -10) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1101 et seq. when he used the authority of his office and /or confidential information received through holding public office for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or Treasury Services Group, a business with which he is associated, by entering into or attempting to obtain private contracts as Treasury Services Group with business seeking funding from the URA loan assistance program administered by the Business Development Center. II. FINDINGS: 1. Charles Reaves was employed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh as the Manager of the Business Development Center from July 22, 1996, until September 6, 2000. a. Reaves resigned on September 6, 2000. 2. Reaves held various positions in the URA Business Development Center from June 1, 1993, through July 21, 1996, when he was named Manager of the Business Development Center including: a. Business Development Specialist (June 1, 1993 to February 9, 1995). b. Senior Business Development Specialist (February 10, 1995 to February 4, 1996). c. Economic and Industrial Development Corporation Coordinator (February 5, 1996 to July 21, 1996). 3. Reaves is the sole owner /operator of Treasury Services Group. a. Treasury Services Group is Reaves' home - based, management consulting business. b. Treasury Services Group has been in existence since at least April 22, 1994. c. Treasury Services Group existed while Reaves was employed at the URA. 4. The URA was created in 1946 under the Urban Redevelopment Law. a. The URA is an independent agency but is considered a political subdivision of the state. 5. The URA is primarily involved in the development (or redevelopment) of areas in the city of Pittsburgh and the elimination of blight. a. The URA pursues its goals through the issuance of loans and grants. b. The availability of loans and grants depends on the specific program and funding source involved. 6. The Jurisdiction of the URA is limited to the area encompassed by the city limits of Pittsburgh. a. The URA does not issue loans or grants for business development outside the Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 3 city of Pittsburgh. 7. A key mission of the URA is to help Pittsburgh businesses start, expand, and grow by assisting in the following: a. Acquiring and preparing real estate for development. b. Providing assistance and counseling for start -up companies. c. Providing financing assistance for established businesses. 8. The Business Development Center is one of five major divisions of the URA. 9. The URA's economic development programs are coordinated by the Business Development Center (BDC). a. Major financing programs available include the Pittsburgh Development Fund, the Pittsburgh Business Growth Fund, and the Urban Development Fund. 10. There is no existing ob description at the URA for the position of Business Development Center Manager. 11. Job duties /responsibilities of the Business Development Center Manager include, among others, the following: a. Management and oversight of the Business Development Center; b. Departmental and program budgeting; c. Generation of funding applications to raise funds for departmental programs. 12. The application procedure regarding loans issued by the URA for business development is as follows: a. Contact with a URA Business Development Center loan officer (a.k.a. Business Development Specialist) by the organization /individual interested. b. Obtain and review of all client information to ensure that all loan requirements are met. c. Completion and submission of a written application by the loan applicant to the assigned loan officer. d. Completion of a project summary by the loan officer. e. Presentation of the project packet (including the loan application, project summary, and various financial documents) to the Business Development Center manager for review. 13. Reaves, as manager of the Business Development Center, participated in the compiling of loan applications /project packets as needed. a. Reaves had access to information submitted by businesses seeking loans which was not available to the public, including loan applications, project summary and company financial documents. 1. The only information made public by the URA is the loan recipient and Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 4 amount of the loan. 14. If complete and in the best interest of the URA, the application is presented by the Business Development Center manager to the Executive Director of the URA for review. a. Reaves, as the Business Development Center manager, typically discussed the applications with the Executive Director and made recommendations. b. Upon approval of the Executive Director, the application is presented to the URA Business Loan Review Committee (LRC). 15. The Loan Review Committee is composed of several, non -URA employees (i.e. bankers, financial analysts, etc.). a. The LRC currently meets approximately once per month regarding URA business. b. The LRC critiques loan applications from a financial standpoint. c. The LRC is advisory in nature. 16. Reaves, as the Business Development Center manager, attended Loan Review Committee meetings along with loan officers and other URA personnel. a. The loan officers present the project packet to the Loan Review Committee and answer any questions the Committee has regarding the applications. b. Loan applications were not typically presented by Reaves as the Business Development Center manager. 1. The Business Development Center manager presents loan applications only if the assigned loan officer is absent from the meeting. c. Minutes of LRC meetings confirm Reaves' presence at Loan Review Committee meetings during the period from June 1996 to September 2000. 17. Disposition of projects presented to the Loan Review Committee is determined by a "show of hands" vote. a. Neither the Business Development Center manager nor other URA employees participate in the vote. b. Once the URC completes its review of a loan application, the matter is forwarded to the URA Executive Director for further action. 18. Loans issued by the URA require additional approval of the Executive Director and the URA Board of Directors after Loan Review Committee approval dependent upon the program from which the loan is issued. a. Loans issued through the Pittsburgh Development Fund require additional approval. b. Loans issued through the Pittsburgh Business Growth Fund do not require additional approval unless the loan request is beyond program guidelines. 19. The Business Development Center Manager presents the recommendation of the Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 5 Loan Review Committee to the Executive Director for final approval. a. The Executive Director decides whether to follow the recommendation of the Loan Review Committee. 1. If approved, the loan officer generates a commitment letter to the client which is signed by the Business Development Center manager. 2. If denied, the applicant may revise and re- submit the project to the Loan Review Committee at a later date. 20. After the Loan Review Committee and Executive Director approve a loan, the loan officer generates a commitment letter to the client, which is reviewed and signed by the Business Development Center Manager. a. If the loan is denied, the applicant may revise and re- submit the project to the Loan Review Committee at a later date. 21. Closing of the loan is typically carried out by the loan officer assigned to the project. a. The Business Center Manager may participate, if the assigned loan officer is unavailable. 22. An Internal Audit and Compliance Division within the URA verifies that URA clients comply with the non - financial terms and conditions of loans issued. a. The Internal Audit and Compliance Division is responsible for exposing violations of loan terms and conditions to the Loan Disposition Committee (LDC). 1. The LDC makes determinations whether loans should be placed in default status. b. The Internal Audit and Compliance Division monitors compliance throughout the life of the loan. c. Reaves, as Manager of the Business Development Center, also shared responsibility for compliance. 23. The URA Finance Department verifies that URA clients comply with monetary (financial) terms and conditions of loans issued. a. The Finance Department is also responsible for exposing violations of loan terms and conditions to the Loan Disposition Committee. b. The Finance Department monitors compliance throughout the life of the loan. c. Reaves, as Manager of the Business Development Center, also shared responsibility for compliance. 24. The Loan Disposition Committee is composed of the Business Development Center Manager, various loan officers, associates of the Internal Audit and Compliance Division, the Finance Department, and a URA legal representative. a. The Loan Disposition Committee meets to review loans which may be subject to default status and provide options to the client other than placing the loan in default. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 6 b. The URA employee discovering the default typically presents the information to the Loan Disposition Committee. c. Reaves, as the Business Development Center manager, was a member of the Loan Disposition Committee. d. Reaves, as Manager of the Business Development Center, also shared responsibility for compliance. 25. Decisions regarding loans presented to the Loan Disposition Committee are discussed by the committee and agreed upon by group consensus. a. No specific roll call vote occurs regarding the decisions. b. As a member of the Loan Disposition Committee, Reaves participated in the discussions regarding loan applications. 26. Ronald Hightower is the sole shareholder and chief executive officer of Hightower, Inc. a. Hightower, Inc. is a general contracting company. b. Hightower, Inc. has been in existence since approximately March 1991. 1. Hightower, Inc. was originally incorporated under the name Rebuilders, Inc. 27. In the late summer of 1999, Hightower spoke to Reaves at the URA building regarding the possibility of obtaining a loan through the URA. a. Hightower saw Reaves in the URA lobby and informally spoke with Reaves about a possible loan. b. Hightower had known Reaves since at least 1996. c. Reaves and Hightower met on at least nine occasions in 1999 regarding Hightower applying for funding through the URA. 28. Hightower subsequently contacted the URA and inquired about a minority business enterprise loan. a. John Burke, a loan specialist supervised by Reaves, was assigned to the Hightower application. b. Burke completed the majority of the application based on information supplied by Hightower. 29. Reaves discussed the Hightower loan package, among others, with Mulugetta Birru, the URA Executive Director, on September 29, 1999. a. Reaves initially sought authorization to present the loan package for Hightower, Inc. in the amount of $150,000.00 to the LRC on October 6, 1999. b. Birru and Reaves discussed the application with Birru directing that the loan amount be reduced to $50,000.00. 1. This was communicated by way of five E -mail transmissions between Birru and Reaves between the times of 11:13 a.m. and 2:51 p.m. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 7 30. On September 30, 1999, URA Senior Business Development Specialist John Burke sent the application for a Pittsburgh Business Growth Fund loan to Hightower for signing and completion of additional information. a. Hightower completed the application and requested $150,000.00 in working capital financing from the URA to aid in company expansion. 31. On October 6, 1999, a Business Loan Review Committee meeting was held at the URA. a. Seven committee members were present at the October 6, 1999, meeting. b. Reaves was present and presented the Hightower, Inc. application to the committee for review although Burke was the assigned loan officer because Burke was not present for the meeting. c. The Hightower, Inc. loan application was approved in the amount of $50,000, with several conditions, by a vote of 7 -0. 32. On October 7, 1999, Reaves sent a commitment letter to Hightower stating the terms and conditions of the $50,000.00 loan granted to Hightower, Inc. a. Hightower signed the commitment letter on October, 7, 1999. 33. On October 8, 1999, Reaves completed a URA Request For Check form requesting a check from the Pittsburgh Business Growth Fund be issued to Hightower, Inc. a. The URA Finance department issued check #62367 in the amount of $50,000.00 on October 19, 1999. b. Check# 62367 was received at the Business Development Center office on October 19, 1999, and was maintained in the office vault. 34. Prior to November 5, 1999, Hightower, Inc.'s loan application through the URA was completed. a. Terms of the loan were for five years with the maturity date of November 5, 2004. b. Reaves, in his capacity as Business Development Center Manager, completed the closing and disbursed the $50,000 check to Hightower. c. Reaves' participation in the closing was at the express request of John Burke and Stanley Horn. 35. Between September and December 1999, Reaves and Hightower had various conversations while the Hightower loan application was processed and after the loan was approved. a. During one of the conversations Reaves informed Hightower of Treasury Services Group and its services performed outside his employment at the URA. b. Reaves asserts this conversation occurred after Hightower's loan closed on November 5, 1999. c. Hightower and Reaves had discussions about Hightower, Inc. contracting with Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 8 Treasury Services Group during this time period. 1. No decisions were made prior to December 31, 1999. 36. In December 1999, Hightower had the opportunity to acquire several businesses out - of -state that would substantially increase his business opportunities. a. Reaves and Hightower discussed the opportunity and the need for a financial plan. b. Reaves and Hightower discussed a contract with Treasury Services Group for development of the financial plan. c. The arrangement was discussed approximately one month after Reaves participated in the closing of the Hightower loan with the URA. 37. On December 31, 1999, approximately two months after disbursing the $50,000 URA loan to Hightower, Reaves submitted to Hightower a proposal letter /contract regarding the development of a business plan and proposed financing. a. Reaves' proposal included a consultant fee of $3000.00, payable in two $1500.00 installments. b. The proposal letter /contract was said to be valid for five days from the 12/31/99 date on the letter. 38. Hightower did not agree to the language of initial letter /contract dated 12/31/99. a. Hightower made several changes to the letter /contract and sent the changes to Reaves requesting that a new contract be generated. b. Reaves did not amend the original contract but subsequently contacted Hightower and offered his services at a reduced rate. c. The consultant fee was ultimately reduced to a total fee of $1,000.00. 39. Hightower never formally signed a written letter of engagement /contract with Reaves d /b /a Treasury Services Group. 40. Reaves and Hightower verbally agreed that Reaves would complete a business plan and financial proposal. 41. On January 7, 2000, Hightower provided Reaves with Hightower, Inc., check # 05 in the amount of $1000.00. a. The check was written to Charles Reaves d /b /a Treasury Services. b. The memo section of said check indicated "Deposit -Loan Package" and "Financial ". c. Reaves asserts he never spent this $1,000 received from Hightower and later returned it. 42. Reaves deposited check no. 05 into Treasury Services Group's designated checking account at National City Bank, account number 649186372, on January 8, 2000. a. The deposit was posted to Reaves account on January 10, 2000. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 9 b. Reaves is the sole signatory on account # 649186372. 43. Reaves d /b /a Treasury Services Group provided no services to Hightower although $1,000.00 had been paid and deposited into the business account. 44. In or about mid - February 2000, Hightower requested Reaves return the $1,000 payment he made to Reaves and /or Treasury Services Group. a. Reaves had not yet completed the contracted business plan and financing proposal. 45. On February 29, 2000, Reaves sent National City Money Order # 108908210 in the amount of $1,000.00 to Hightower with accompanying correspondence on Treasury Services Group letterhead which stated the following: "Dear Mr. Hightower: As you requested, I have enclosed a money order in the amount of $1,000.00 to refund you the retainer you provided me for consulting services to create a business plan and financing proposal. Thus, our contract is terminated. Best regards, Charles Reaves, Owner" 46. Reaves' meeting and cultivation of a business relationship with Hightower outside his public office resulted from his contacts with Hightower gained through the loan approval process through the URA and immediately following the closing on Hightower's URA loan. 47. In or about April /May 2000, an issue arose as to the location of Hightower's principal place of business, which was required to be within the City of Pittsburgh for eligibility for URA loans. a. Hightower's business address had been listed as 300 Burgess St, Pittsburgh, Pa, 15214, on the URA loan application. b. In April and May 1999, the URA received various correspondence on Hightower, Inc. letterhead documenting an address of 665 Rodi Road, Suite 300, Penn Hills, Pa 15235, which is outside the Pittsburgh city limits. 48. Reaves had been contacted from Hightower's 665 Rodi Road address as early as December 1999, after the closing of the URA loan and when Reaves was meeting with Hightower relative to utilizing the services of Treasury Services Group. a. Reaves asserts his post -URA closing proposal to Hightower was proffered in consideration of Hightower's planned development of business possibilities outside Pittsburgh and out -of- state. b. Reaves addressed his 12/31/99 proposal to Hightower at the Penn Hills address. c. Reaves did not disclose any issue regarding the Rodi Road address to anyone at the URA. d. Reaves' disclosure may have jeopardized Hightower's loan at a time when Reaves was contracting privately with Hightower. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 10 e. Reaves asserts he believed the Penn Hills' address to be Hightower's principal place of business for Hightower's out -of -state and outside Pittsburgh business operations. 49. Reaves informed Hightower, in correspondence dated May 15, 2000 and in subsequent personal meetings, that the URA suspected a loan covenant violation of the City residency rule for URA clients. a. Reaves instructed Hightower to produce proof of City residency or pay the loan off. b. Reaves advised Hightower that the loan could be placed in default if he could not provide proof of residency. c. Reaves authored the letter after his Treasury Services Group contract with Hightower was terminated. 50. Reaves did not question Hightower's residency while privately contracting with Hightower as Treasury Services Group. a. Reaves asserts he did not believe there was a residency issue at that time. 51. On June 5, 2000, the Loan Disposition Committee met to discuss URA client issues. a. Hightower, Inc. was listed on the agenda for discussion regarding a discrepancy as to Hightower's business location. b. Reaves was present at the meeting, as the manager of the Business Development Center, presented the information regarding Hightower's possible default to the Loan Disposition Committee. 1. The individual discovering the information typically presents information regarding possible loan defaults. 52. The Loan Disposition Committee (LDC) found Hightower to be in default status because he had relocated the company's main place of business outside the City limits. a. The LDC had the authority to determine "default" status. b. The LDC's decision was based on information submitted by Reaves. c. A default letter was sent to Hightower on June 7, 2000. d. As of September 1, 2001, Hightower's loan had not yet officially been placed in default. 53. Reaves used information obtained from his public position to obtain a consulting contract with Hightower. a. Information relating to Hightower's business interests and need for financial and business consulting was known to Reaves before it became available to the general public. b. Reaves discussed financial planning with Hightower prior to the loan approval and one month after the loan closing. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 11 c. Reaves was only familiar with Hightower and his business needs as a result of his employment with the URA. 54. Reaves and his URA staff participated in the review and administration of the Hightower Loan, including the default process, during the time period when a business with which Reaves was associated was being engaged to provide business consulting services to Hightower. The following Findings relate to Reaves' using information obtained from his URA position to contract with Cathie Billingsley. 55. Cathie Billingsley is a partner of Sterling Business Development, a proposed hotel franchise. a. Sterling Business Development is not currently operational. 56. Sometime prior to May 2000, Billingsley first met Reaves at a meeting held by Hazelwood /Glenwood borough council regarding URA funding for businesses in those areas. a. Billingsley had previously spoken to Reaves via the telephone at the URA regarding possible funding. b. Billingsley approached Reaves after the meeting and provided Reaves with information regarding her proposed business. 57. Billingsley subsequently contacted Reaves at the URA regarding additional loan information. a. Reaves informed Billingsley she was not eligible for a URA loan because her proposed place of business was outside the city limits. 58. Reaves then informed Billingsley that he could help her obtain funding through his private company, Treasury Services Group. a. Billingsley was not aware of Treasury Services Group prior to her conversation with Reaves. b. Reaves supplied Billingsley with a contract for utilization of Treasury Services Group. c. Billingsley was concerned about the propriety of Reaves performing services as Treasury Services Group while employed with the URA. d. Reaves informed Billingsley he could only provide consulting services to individuals or entities who were not actual or potential URA clients. e. Billingsley did not enter into a contract with Reaves at that time. 59. In or about May 2000, Reaves and Billingsley had various telephone conversations and meetings regarding funding sources for her project. a. Reaves advised Billingsley that he could only help her through his private business because her business was located outside the city limits. 60. Reaves supplied Billingsley with a second contract on or about June 13, 2000, to Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 12 prepare a financial proposal for Sterling Business Development in conjunction with Billingsley's existing business plan. a. Billingsley signed the contract on or about June 13, 2000. b. The preparation of the financial proposal was to be completed by Reaves on or before September 12, 2000. 61. Reaves sent correspondence to Billingsley on June 20 and 25, 2000, which stated, in part, "As I communicated to you recently, my work with your team on this project, by virtue of its location outside the city of Pittsburgh automatically forfeits its eligibility for any type of subsidy from my full time employer, the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh or the City of Pittsburgh." a. Reaves emphasized in several conversations with Billingsley between May and June 2000 that he could not help her as a representative of Treasury Services Group if Billingsley obtained a business site within the city limits. b. Reaves informed Billingsley that he could get into trouble working with her if she located a business site within city limits. c. Billingsley felt that Reaves' statement was an attempt to discourage her from locating a site within the city. d. However, Billingsley at this time already had a fairly stable site for her planned hotel business and various interested investors. 62. Reaves' fees charged to Billingsley in association with services performed through Treasury Services Group included: a. An advance retainer of $3,000.00 for consultant fees. b. Two additional consultant fee payments of $1,500.00 respectively. c. Incidental expenses (i.e. copying, telephone bills, overnight travel and lodging, etc.). d. Financing arrangement fee of 1 %. 63. Billingsley made three payments totaling $4,500.00 to Reaves for consulting services as follows: a. On May 9, 2000, Billingsley paid Reaves with personal check # 302 in the amount of $1500.00 made payable to Charles Reaves. 1. The memo section of said check indicates "consult- hotel." 2. Reaves deposited the check into Treasury Services Group's business checking account at National City Bank, account # 649186372, on May 31, 2000. b. On June 1, 2000, Billingsley issued personal check # 272 in the amount of $1500.00 payable to Charles Reaves. 1. The memo section of said check indicates "consulting." 2. Reaves cashed check # 272 on or about June 1, 2000. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 13 c. On July 16, 2000, Billingsley issued personal check # 329 in the amount of $1500.00 payable to Charles Reaves. 1. The memo section of said check indicates "Consult." 2. Reaves deposited the check into Treasury Services Group's business checking account at National City Bank, account # 649186372, on July 19, 2000. 64. There is a dispute as to whether Reaves supplied Billingsley with the services she contracted for although a retainer had been issued and deposited and /or cashed. a. Billingsley claims Reaves supplied her with only a few packets of information on possible lenders. b. Billingsley refused to pay Reaves any further payment required by the contract. c. Reaves claims he performed fully as contracted with Billingsley. 65. Reaves was employed by the URA as the Business Development Center Manager from prior to May 2000 until September 2000, the same time period he was negotiating the contract with Billingsley. a. Reaves became familiar with Billingsley as a result of his position with the URA. b. Reaves contracted with Billingsley after monitoring a meeting hosted by the URA regarding funding availability for businesses in her area and learning that she did not qualify for URA assistance or services. c. Reaves offered Billingsley the services of Treasury Services Group rather than recommending she consider moving her business to the city of Pittsburgh where she would be eligible for funding through the URA. 66. Reaves obtained the contract with Billingsley as a result of information obtained from his public position with the URA, but only after learning that Billingsley was not eligible for URA assistance. The following Findings relate to Reaves' use of URA information and his public position to contract with Terry Long. 67. Terry Long is the sole owner of TL's Food Service. a. TL's Food Service is a food manufacturing and distributing plant. b. TL's Food Service has been in existence since approximately November 1993. 68. Long contacted the URA regarding a loan on or about January 3, 1995. a. Marcus Stramler was the Business Development Specialist (loan officer) assigned to Long's loan. 69. Marcus Stramler supplied Long with a loan application for completion. a. Long completed the application on or about January 13, 1995, and originally requested $120,000.00 from the URA for the purchase of equipment. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 14 b. On January 20, 1995, Long requested an amendment of the original loan amount from $120,000.00 to $150,000.00. 70. Long was approved for the loan by the URA effective April 6, 1995, without the involvement of Reaves in the process. a. Long's loan is scheduled to mature in March 2002. 71. Long did not have a personal or professional relationship with Reaves prior to requesting funding from the URA. a. Through the course of the loan process, Reaves and Long became acquainted and developed a professional and personal relationship that continued after Long's loan was approved. b. Reaves and Long occasionally spoke to one another via the telephone or in person while Reaves was employed as the Business Development Center Manager. 72. Subsequent to the approval of Long's loan, Reaves informed Long about Treasury Services Group. a. Reaves did not attempt to solicit work from Long at this time. 73. After resigning from the URA on September 6, 2000, Reaves informed Long that he was available through Treasury Services Group if T. L.'s had any projects to be addressed. a. Long indicated to Reaves that he could utilize Reaves through Treasury Services Group. 74. After leaving employment with the URA, Reaves provided Long with three proposals for services to be provided by Treasury Services Group. a. Reaves provided Long an original Treasury Services Group proposal on September 8, 2000; an amended proposal on September 14, 2000; and a final proposal on September 18, 2000, regarding the creation of a business plan and financing commitments. b. Long signed the contract on or about September 23, 2000. c. The preparation of the documents and procurement and closing of financing was to be completed on or before December 10, 2000. 75. Reaves' fees in association with services performed through Treasury services Group included: a. An advance retainer of $3000.00. b. Incidental expenses (i.e. copying, telephone bills, overnight travel and lodging, etc.). c. Financing arrangement fee of 3% of financing obtained (less $3000.00 retainer). 76. On September 23, 2000, Long provided Reaves with T. L.'s Inc., check # 6366 in the Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 15 amount of $3000.00 as a retainer. a. The check was written to Charles Reaves, M.B.A. b. Reaves deposited the check into Treasury Services Group's business checking account at National City Bank, account number 649186372, on September23, 2000. 1. The deposit was posted to Reaves account on September 25, 2000. 77. Reaves did not complete the business plan and financing arrangements before the date specified in the contract. a. Reaves informed Long that the initial time requirements were not realistic. b. Reaves suggested the hiring of an additional person to speed up the process. 78. On December 26, 2000, and January 22, 2001, Long provided Reaves with T. L.'s check #'s 6724 and 6811 in the amounts of $1000.00 respectively for Reaves to hire additional help. a. Check # 6724 was written to Charles Reaves d /b /a Treasury Services Group. b. Check # 6811 was written to Charles Reaves. c. Reaves deposited the checks into Treasury Services Group's business checking account at National City Bank, account number 649186372, on December 26, 1999, and January 22, 2001, respectively. 79. Reaves submitted the work product required under the contract to Long in or about the middle of January 2001. 80. There is insufficient evidence that Reaves d /b /a Treasury Services Group contracted with Long as a result of information obtained by Reaves through his public position with the URA rather than his personal relationship developed over time with Long. a. Reaves did not solicit Long during the time when Long's loan was pending approval. b. Reaves was not involved in the processing of the loan. c. Reaves had no information regarding TL's financial status and business needs which was not available to the public during the loan approval process. d. Any business dealings between Reaves and Long and information obtained from Long by Reaves occurred after Reaves left the URA and through their personal relationship which had developed. 81. The URA has a Personnel Policy which is provided to all URA employees as reference material for personnel related questions. a. The policy includes provisions regarding a Code of Conduct and conflicts of interests. b. Reaves was issued a copy of the URA Personnel Policy prior to the events alleged in this matter. Date Filed Calendar Year 04/07/97 1996 04/24/98 1997 04/20/99 1998 04/17/00 1999 04/10/01 2000 Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 16 82. The URA Personnel Policy, Section 1- Policies, Subsection 1 -2: Code of Conduct/Conflictof Interests states that, " No employee, officer, or agent of the Authority may participate in the selection, award or administration of a contract if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when: - The employee, officer, or agent, - Any member of his /her immediate family, - His /her partner, or - 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." 83. On August 30, 2000, Reaves was placed on a paid leave of absence by the URA after the URA became aware of Reaves' business relationship with Hightower, Inc. a. The paid leave of absence was to last until at least September 7, 2000, with the possibility of an extension until December 31, 2000, if Reaves signed a separation agreement and release. b. Reaves resisted the URA's action and believed it unlawful. 84. Reaves resigned his employment with the URA on September 6, 2000. a. Reaves sent a resignation letter to Birru dated September 6, 2000, indicating that his resignation was effective immediately. b. Despite his act of resigning, Reaves asserts his resignation was forced and coerced. 85. Reaves filed Statements of Financial Interests in his position as Manager of the URA Business Development Center as fo lows: a. Reaves omitted URA as a source of income on his Statements of Financial Interests filed for Calendar years 1996 through 2000. b. Reaves disclosed his status as a public employee with URA on his relevant Statements of Financial Interests. c. Reaves omitted Treasury Services Group as a direct or indirect Source of income on his 2000 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests. 1. Reaves received a total of $8,500.00 through Treasury Services Group in 2000. d. Reaves omitted his ownership and financial interest in Treasury Services Group on his 1996 and 1997 calendar year Statements of Financial Interests. 1. Treasury Services Group had no revenues for 1996 and 1997 and therefore Reaves did not receive income or compensation from the business for that time period. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 17 e. Reaves did not complete Section 11 "Gifts" and Section 12 "Transportation, Lodging, and Hospitality" on his 1999 calendar year Statement of Financial Interests. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Charles Reaves, hereinafter Reaves, 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, 6 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegations are that Reaves, as Manager of the Business Development Center for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a) and 5(a), (b)(5- 10)/1105(a), (b)(5 -10) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office or confidential information for the private pecuniary benefit of himself or Treasury Services Group, a business with which he is associated, by entering into or attempting to obtain private contracts as Treasury Services Group with businesses seeking funding from the URA loan assistance program administered by the Business Development Center. 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 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 5/1105. Statement of financial interests (b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the person required to file the statement: (1) Name, address and public position. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 18 (2) Occupation or profession. (3) Any direct or indirect interest in any real estate which was sold or leased to the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions or purchased or leased from the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions or which was the subject of any condemnation proceedings by the Commonwealth, any of its agencies or political subdivisions. (4) The name and address of each creditor to whom is owed in excess of $6,500 and the interest rate thereon. However, loans or credit extended between members of the immediate family and mortgages securing real property which is the principal or secondary residence of the person filing shall not be included. The name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. However, this provision shall not be construed to require the divulgence of confidential information protected by statute or existing professional codes of ethics or common law privileges. (6) The name and address of the source and the amount of any gift or gifts valued in the aggregate at $250 or more and the circumstances of each gift. This paragraph shall not apply to a gift or gifts received from a spouse, parent, parent by marriage, sibling, child, grandchild, other family member or friend when the circumstances make it clear that the motivation for the action was a personal or family relationship. However, for the purposes of this paragraph, the term "friend" shall not include a registered lobbyist or an employee of a registered lobbyist. (5) ( The name and address of the source and the amount of any payment for or reimbursement of actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment where such actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality exceed $650 in the course of a single occurrence. This paragraph shall not apply to expenses reimbursed by a governmental body or to expenses reimbursed by an organization or association of public officials or employees of political subdivisions which the public official or employee serves in an official capacity. (8) Any office, directorship or employment of any nature whatsoever in any business entity. (9) Any financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. (10) The identity of any financial interest in a business with which the reporting person is or has been associated in the preceding calendar year which has been transferred Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 19 to a member of the reporting person's immediate family. 65 P.S. § 405/65 Pa.C.S. § 1105. 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. Reaves was employed by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of Pittsburgh as the Manager of the Business Development Center (BDC) from July 1996 until September 2000 when he resigned from that position. In a private capacity Reaves is the sole owner and operator of the Treasury Services Group, a home based management consulting business. The URA has an operational goal of the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of areas within the city limits of Pittsburgh through the issuance of loans and grants. One of the key functions of the URA is to help Pittsburgh businesses start, expand, or grow by acquiring real estate, providing assistance to start -up businesses, and providing financial assistance for established businesses. The BDC is one of its five major divisions within the URA. The BDC manager provides oversight, departmental and program budgeting, and the generation of fund applications to raise monies for department programs. Reaves, as the BDC Manager, participated in the process as to compiling loan applications and project packets. When applications were received at the BDC, Reaves had discussions with the Executive Director concerning the making of recommendations. After approval was obtained by the Executive Director, the application was then presented to the URA Business Loan Review Committee (LRC). Reaves, as the BDC Manager, attended the LRC meetings along with loan officers and other URA personnel. The disposition of project applications is resolved by the LRC Committee through a vote. Neither Reaves nor any other URA employees participated in the voting process. The loans issued by the URA required an additional approval by the Executive Director and URA Board of Directors after the LRC gave its approval. Reaves, as the BDC Manager, presented the recommendations of the LRC to the Executive Director for his final approval. The Executive Director has discretion as to whether to follow the recommendation of the LRC. If approved, the Loan Officer generates a commitment letter to the applicant which is signed by the BDC Manager. Within the URA there is the Internal Audit and Compliance Division related to non- financial matters as well as the Finance Department relating to financial terms, both of which operate to ensure compliance by the client with the terms and conditions of the loan. The Loan Disposition Committee (LDC) composed of the BDC Manager, various loan officers, and individuals associated with the compliance division and finance department. and a URA legal representative review loans which may be subject to default. The LDC provides options to clients to avoid loan defaults. Reaves, as an LDC member, participated in discussions regarding loan applications. The following relates to several individual cases with which Reaves had involvement. The first case relates to Ronald Hightower, the sole shareholder and CEO of Hightower, Inc., a general contracting company, who spoke to Reaves in the summer of 1999 regarding the possibility of obtaining a loan through URA. After Hightower completed an application with the URA regarding a minority business enterprise loan, Reaves had a discussion about the Hightower loan package with various individuals including the URA Executive Director in September of 1999. At an LRC meeting in October of 1999, Reaves presented the Hightower, Inc. application which was unanimously approved in the amount of $50,000, even though $150,000 was sought. Reaves sent a commitment letter to Hightower stating the terms and conditions of the $50,000 loan. Subsequently, Reaves completed a URA request for a disbursement check which was subsequently received at the BDC. In November, Reaves completed the closing and provided the $50,000 check to Hightower. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 20 Between September and December of 1999, Reaves and Hightower had a number of conversations during the pendency of the loan application and after its approval. During one of the conversations, Reaves informed Hightower about Reaves' business, Treasury Services Group, and the services it provided outside of Reaves' employment at the URA. After Hightower in December of 1999 acquired several out of state businesses that would substantially increase his business opportunities, Reaves discussed a contract between Hightower and Treasury Services Group for the development of a financial plan with Reaves receiving a $3,000 consultant fee. Hightower wanted changes in the proposed contract and Hightower made some changes. Reaves did not amend the original contract but agreed to offer his services at a reduced rate of $1,000. Thereafter, Reaves and Hightower verbally agreed upon a business plan and financial proposal. In January 2000, Hightower provided Reaves with a check in the amount of $1,000. Reaves asserts he never spent the $1,000 and subsequently returned it to Hightower. However, Reaves deposited the check into the Treasury Services Group checking account. Reaves never provided services to Hightower even though the $1,000 had been paid and deposited. In February of 2000, Hightower requested Reaves to return the $1,000 payment. A few weeks later, Reaves sent a money order to Hightower in the amount of $1,000 with a note that it was a refund of the retainer for consulting services together with an acknowledgment of the termination of the contract. The development of the business relationship between Hightower and Reaves occurred as a result of the contacts through the loan application approval process at URA and the activities following the closing of Hightower's URA loan. It is noted that during the pendency of the loan application process, Hightower used a Penn Hills address rather than a Pittsburgh address which would be problematic as to the residency covenant. Reaves addressed correspondence to Hightower at the Penn Hills address but did not disclose the issue to anyone at URA. When the issue surfaced in the spring of 2000 regarding the possibility of Hightower's principal place of business being outside of the city of Pittsburgh, Reaves then informed Hightower that the URA suspected a loan covenant violation of the city residency rule for URA clients. Reaves had not questioned Hightower's residency during their negotiations for the consulting contract but only after the contract between Reaves and Hightower was terminated. In June of 2000, the LDC met to discuss URA client issues. Reaves was present at the meeting and the LDC found that Hightower was in default status because of the relocation of his company's place of business outside of city limits. It is stipulated that Reaves used information obtained from his public position to obtain a consulting agreement with Hightower. Reaves participated in the review process of the Hightower loan during the time when Reaves, in a private capacity, was negotiating to provide consulting services to Hightower through his business, Treasury Services Group. Another client before the URA was Cathie Billingsley, who is a partner in Sterling Business Development, a proposed hotel franchise which is not currently in operation. Billingsley made several contacts with Reaves at URA regarding loan information. Reaves informed Billingsley that she was not eligible because her proposed place of business was outside of the city. However, Reaves informed Billingsley that he could help her obtain funding through his private company, Treasury Services Group. Billingsley was unaware of Treasury Services Group prior to her conversation with Reaves. Although Reaves supplied Billingsley with a contract for utilization of Treasury Services Group, Billingsley expressed concern about the propriety of Reaves performing such services while employed by URA. Billingsley did not enter into a contract with Reaves at that time. In May of 2000, Reaves and Billingsley had other conversations wherein Reaves advised Billingsley that he could only help her through his private business because her business was located outside of city limits. After Reaves supplied Billingsley with a second contract to prepare a financial proposal for Sterling Business Development, she signed the contract in June of 2000. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 21 Reaves, in follow -up correspondence, informed Billingsley that because the project was located outside the city of Pittsburgh, there was no eligibility for any type of subsidy from the URA. Subsequently, Reaves told Billingsley that he could get in trouble if she would locate her business within city limits. Billingsley construed the statement as discouraging her from locating within the city limits. Reaves charged Billingsley an advanced retainer of $3,000, two additional consultant fee payments of $1,500, incidental expenses, and a one percent financing arrangement fee. Billingsley made three payments totaling $4,500 to Reaves for the consulting services. A dispute arose between Reaves and Billingsley regarding whether the contract services were provided. Billingsley refused to pay Reaves any further payments under the contract. It is stipulated that Reaves: became familiar with Billingsley due to his position with the URA; contacted her after he learned that she would not qualify for URA assistance or services; and offered Billingsley the services of his business, Treasury Services Group, rather than suggest that she move her business to Pittsburgh where she might be eligible for URA funding. Another potential client for Reaves was Terri Long, the owner of T. L.'s Food Service, a food manufacturing and distributing plant. After Long contacted URA regarding a loan, he submitted an application for $120,000 which was subsequently amended to $150,000. Long subsequently received a loan approval from URA without involvement by Reaves in the loan process. However, during that process, Reaves and Long became acquainted. After the loan approval, Reaves informed Long about Treasury Services Group but did not attempt to solicit work from Long at that time. When Reaves resigned from the URA in September of 2000, he informed Long the Treasury Services Group was available if T. L.'s had any projects. After Long told Reaves he could utilize Treasury Services Group, Reaves provided Long with three proposals for services. Reaves prepared a contract which was signed by Long in September of 2000. The contract provided for an advance retainer of $3,000 plus expenses and 3% of financing obtained minus the $3,000 retainer. Reaves received a check of T. L.'s which was deposited into the Treasury Services Group checking account. Reaves indicated to Long that an additional person was needed to speed up the process. Long then paid Reaves $1,000 so that Reaves could hire additional help. Reaves submitted the work product under the contract to Long in the middle of January 2000. The Stipulation of Finding reflects that there is insufficient evidence to show that Reaves contracted with Long as a result of information obtained by Reaves through his URA position. The URA has a personnel policy issued to URA employees which provides that an Authority employee may not be involved in any URA matter if a conflict of interest exists. On August 30, 2000, Reaves was placed on a paid leave of absence when the URA became aware of Reaves' business relationship with Hightower, Inc. Reaves then resigned his employment with URA. Although Reaves filed Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's) as Manager of the BDC of the URA, he omitted the URA as a source of income for the calendar years 1996 through 2000, Treasury Services Group as a source of income on his 2000 calendar year SFI and also omitted his ownership and financial interest in Treasury Services Group for the 1996 and 1997 calendar year SFI's. Further, Reaves did not complete Section 11 of the SFI as to Gifts or Section 12 relating to transportation, lodging and hospitality on his 1999 calendar year SFI. 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 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when Reaves used the authority of his office and /or confidential information for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and /or Treasury Services Group to acquire Hightower, Inc., as a client for his private consulting business; no violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) based upon insufficient evidence when Reaves acquired Cathie Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 22 Billingsley d /b /a Sterling Business Development and Terry Long d /b /a TL's Food Service, as clients for his private consulting business; a violation of Sections 5 (a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)/1105 (a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of the Ethics Act when Reaves filed deficient SFI's, specifically: omitting the Authority as a source of income on his SFI's filed for calendar years 1996 through 2000; omitting Treasury Services Group as a source of income on his 2000 calendar year SFI's; omitting his ownership and financial interests in Treasury Services Group on his 1996 and 1997 calendar year SFI's; and not completing Section 11 (Gifts) and Section 12 (Transportation, Lodging and Hospitality) on his 1999 calendar year SFI's. Reaves agrees to make payment in the amount of $2,000 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing of this Order. In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act to the above, Reaves, as Manager of the BDC of the URA, used confidential information and his position to further his private business interests. But for the fact that Reaves was Manager, he would not have been in a position to utilize information and contacts with URA clients to acquire Hightower, Inc. as a client for his rivate consulting business. Such actions were uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office resulted in a pecuniary benefit to Reaves or Treasury Services Group, a business with which Reaves is associated as that term is defined under the Ethics Act, consisting of the consulting fee received. The pecuniary benefit was private because there is no provision in law which would authorize Reaves to use his position for the financial gain to his consulting business and to himself. In fact, such a pecuniary benefit is unauthorized given the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest provisions of the URA. Reaves viewed and considered his public employment as a means to further his private business interests in violation of the public trust. Accordingly, Reaves violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used confidential information and the authority of office for a private pecuniary benefit to himself and Treasury Service Group, a business with which he was associated, to acquire Hightower, Inc. as a client for his private consulting business. See, Metrick, Order 1037. With regard to Reaves' association with Cathie Billingsley and Terry Long, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Reaves violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act in acquiring those two individuals as clients for his private consulting business. The Stipulation of Findings does not establish a use of authority of office on the part of Reaves. 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 and McGuire v. SEC, 657 A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. 1995), No. 2613 and 2614 C.D. 1994. Accordingly, Reaves did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding his association with Sterling Business Development and T. L.'s Food Service as clients for a private consulting service based upon an insufficiency of evidence. Turning to the SFI allegation, we find that Reaves violated Section 5 (a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)/1105(a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of the Ethics Act by filing deficient SFI's: failing to list the URA as a source of income for the SFI calendar years 1996 and 2000; omitting Treasury Services Group, a business with which he was associated, as a source of income on his 2000 calendar year SFI; omitting his ownership and financial interest in Treasury Services Group on his 1996 and 1997 calendar year SFI's and failing to complete Section 11 and 12 regarding gifts, transportation, lodging and hospitality on his 1999 calendar year SFI. Reaves is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to file amended SFI's correcting the deficiencies listed above. 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, Reaves is directed to make payment of $2,000 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this order. Compliance by filing amended SFI's and paying $2,000 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. Reaves 00- 049 -C2 Page 23 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Reaves, as a Manager of the Business Development Center for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, was a public employee subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Reaves violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used confidential information and the authority of office at the Urban Redevelopment Authority for a private pecuniary benefit to himself and Treasury Service Group, a business with which he was associated, to acquire Hightower, Inc. as a client for his private consulting business. 3. Reaves did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding his association with Sterling Business Development and T. L.'s Food Service as clients for private consulting services based upon an insufficiency of evidence. 4. Reaves violated Section 5 (a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)/1105(a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of the Ethics Act by filing deficient Statements of Financial Interests: failing to list the URA as a source of income for the calendar years 1996 and 2000; omitting Treasury Services Group, a business with which he was associated, as a source of income on the 2000 calendar year; omitting his ownership and financial interest in Treasury Services Group on 1996 and 1997 calendar years and failing to complete Sections 11 and 12 regarding gifts, transportation, lodging and hospitality on the 1999 calendar year. In Re: Charles Reaves ORDER NO. 1260 File Docket: 00- 049 -C2 Date Decided: 12/4/02 Date Mailed: 12/16/02 1. Reaves, as a Manager of the Business Development Center for the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used confidential information and the authority of office at the Urban Redevelopment Authority for a private pecuniary benefit to himself and Treasury Service Group, a business with which he was associated, to acquire Hightower, Inc. as a client for his private consulting business. 2. Reaves did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act regarding his association with Sterling Business Development and T. L.'s Food Service as clients for private consulting services based upon an insufficiency of evidence. 3. Reaves violated Section 5 (a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10)/1105(a), (b)(5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of the Ethics Act by filing deficient Statements of Financial Interests: failing to list the URA as a source of income for the calendar years 1996 and 2000; omitting Treasury Services Group, a business with which he was associated, as a source of income on the 2000 calendar year; omitting his ownership and financial interest in Treasury Services Group on 1996 and 1997 calendar years and failing to complete Section 11 and 12 regarding gifts, transportation, lodging and hospitality on the 1999 calendar year. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Reaves is directed to make payment in the amount of $2,000 in settlement of this matter to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within 30 days of the mailing of this Order. 5. Reaves is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to file amended Statements of Financial Interests correcting the deficiencies listed in paragraph 3. 6. Compliance with numbers 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