HomeMy WebLinkAbout1269 O'ConnorIn Re: Kevin O'Connor
File Docket:
X -ref:
Date Decided:
Date Mailed:
Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair
John J. Bolger, Vice Chair
Daneen E. Reese
Frank M. Brown
Susan Mosites Bicket
Donald M. McCurdy
Michael Healey
02- 001 -C2
Order No. 1269
2/27/03
3/5/03
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 not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The record is complete.
Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11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.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That Kevin O'Connor, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Executive
Director of the Luzerne Intermediate Unit violated the following provisions of the State Ethics
Act (Act 93 of 1998) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by
using LIU facilities, including but not limited to a computer lab and related equipment, supplies
and personnel to assist his teaching courses and receipt of compensation from Wilkes College
and Temple University; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1997, and 1999 calendar years by May 1 S of each year; when he subsequently submitted
backdated forms for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999; when he failed to file a Statement
of Financial Interests for the 2000 calendar year by May 1, 2001; and when he failed to
disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for
the 1997, 1998 and 1999 calendar years.
Section 311103. Restricted activities
(a) Conflict of interest. - -No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 P.S. § 403(a)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
Section 211102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through his
holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary
benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated. The term 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 411104. Statement of financial interests required to
be filed
(a) Public official or public employee. - -Each public
official of the Commonwealth shall file a statement of financial
interests for the preceding calendar year with the commission no
later than May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and
of the year after he leaves such a position. Each public
employee and public official of the Commonwealth shall file a
statement of financial interests for the preceding calendar year
with the department, agency, body or bureau in which he is
employed or to which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year
after he leaves such a position. Any other public employee or
public official shall file a statement of financial interests with the
governing authority of the political subdivision by which he is
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 3
employed or within which he is appointed or elected no later than
May 1 of each year that he holds such a position and of the year
after he leaves such a position. Persons who are full -time or part -
time solicitors for political subdivisions are required to file under
this section.
65 P.S. § 404(a)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a).
Section 511105. 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:
(5) 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.
65 P.S. § 405(b)/65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b).
II. FINDINGS:
1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received information alleging
that Kevin O'Connor violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998).
2. Upon review of the complaint the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on
January 4, 2002.
3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days.
4. On March 5, 2002, a letter was forwarded to Kevin O'Connor, by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission informing him that a complaint against him
was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being
commenced.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7001 0360 0001 4061 5093.
b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Kevin O'Connor, with a
delivery date of March 16, 2002.
5. On January 25, 2002, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed
an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation.
6. The Commission issued an order on July 1, 2002, granting the ninety day extension.
7. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Kevin O'Connor in accordance with the
provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation.
8. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on November 27, 2002.
9. Kevin M. O'Connor was employed by the Luzerne Intermediate Unit (LIU) from March
19, 1973, to May 10, 2000.
a. While employed by the LIU, O'Connor held the following positions:
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 4
1. Executive Director - November 14, 1989, to May 10, 2000.
2. Acting Executive Director - September 5, 1989, to November 13, 1989.
3. Assistant Executive Director - December 1, 1976, to September 5, 1989.
4. Director for Non - Public Schools - March 19, 1973, to December 1, 1976.
10. O'Connor's tenure as executive director of the LIU was comprised of three four -year
appointments beginning on November 14, 1989, and two re- appointments by the LIU
board.
a. No formal contract existed between O'Connor and the LIU Board.
11. On May 10, 2000, O'Connor was placed on leave with pay by the LIU board as a result
of matters that had come to the board's attention, including questions whether
O'Connor had provided accurate and timely information to the board.
a. On December 27, 2000, O'Connor entered into a settlement agreement with the
LIU which included a paid leave of absence for the remainder of his contract
with the LIU, which expired on November 13, 2001.
12. The Luzerne County Intermediate Unit No. 18 is one of twenty -nine (29) units
established by the Public School Code to provide planning, instructional and other
special educational services to groups of school districts within a designated
geographic area of each intermediate unit.
a. LIU No. 18 is the intermediate unit for approximately twenty -eight (28) school
districts in Luzerne County.
b. The LIU #18 receives funding from the Commonwealth for services performed
pursuant to and authorized by law.
c. The chief governing board of the LIU is a board of directors chosen from among
members of the boards of school districts which comprise the intermediate unit.
d. The board of directors' responsibilities include the power and duty to appoint an
executive director, adopt a program of services and a budget and to provide for
and conduct services.
13. O'Connor's duties as executive director of LIU #18 included but were not limited to the
following:
a. To administer the intermediate unit program of services.
b. To appoint professional staff subject to the approval of the intermediate unit
board of directors.
c. To employ nonprofessional staff in accordance with employment policies of the
intermediate unit board of directors.
d. To prepare the budget for adoption by the intermediate unit board of directors.
e. To direct expenditures of funds within the budget or other authorization of the
intermediate [sic] board of directors.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 5
f. To appoint such advisory groups as will assist the staff in providing programs of
services for school districts.
g. To provide the Superintendent of Public Instruction with information, reports,
and services.
h. To perform such other duties as may be required by the intermediate unit board
of directors and the regulations of the State Board of Education.
14. Since at least 1995, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, offered graduate school
courses in their [sic] Master of Education and Doctor of Education programs at Kings
College in Wilkes-Barre.
a. Dr. James Powell served as the program coordinator for Temple University.
b. Powell recruited personnel from the various school districts and intermediate
units in the Wilkes -Barre area to teach the courses.
1. The LIU is located in Kingston, PA.
15. In 1995 Powell and O'Connor discussed O'Connor teaching courses for Temple.
a. Powell offered O'Connor a teaching position in the program.
16. Temple University's agreement with O'Connor provided for the university to
compensate O'Connor in the amount of $3,000 for each class he taught.
17. Documentation on file at Temple University confirmed O'Connor entered into contracts
with Temple on the following dates to teach courses for Temple at Kings College:
February 21, 1997
October 8, 1998
February 22, 1999
January 31, 2000
September 22, 2000
February 23, 2001
October 2, 2001
February 13, 2002
18. Classes offered by Temple were held at Kings College which is located in Wilkes -
Barre.
a. Temple University's agreement with Kings College required Temple to
compensate Kings $750, per semester, for the use of each classroom, and
$750, per semester, for administrative work.
19. Kings College assigned classroom space for the following courses O'Connor was
scheduled to teach for Temple University:
Semester Course Description and Number
Spring 1997 Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
Fall 1997 Personnel Administration — EA661
Spring 1998 Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
Fall 1998 Personnel Administration — EA661
Spring 1999 Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
Fall 1999 Personnel Administration — EA661
Spring 2000 Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 6
Fall 2000
Spring 2001
Fall 2001
Spring 2002
20. O'Connor used the facilities, employees, supplies and equipment of the LIU for the
benefit of his teaching position with Temple.
a. O'Connor changed the classroom space from Kings College to rooms at the
LIU.
b. O'Connor directed the use of subordinate LIU personnel and use of LIU
equipment and supplies to perform administrative functions for him in support of
his teaching position.
21. Beginning in 1998, O'Connor taught the first class of the semester at Kings College
and then moved the courses to the LIU facility where O'Connor held classes for the
remainder of the semester.
a. This occurred with every class taught by O'Connor between 1998 and 2001.
b. O'Connor moved the classes to the LIU because he preferred the LIU facilities
to those at Kings.
22. O'Connor never sought, nor was given approval by the LIU board of directors to use
the LIU facilities or staff when teaching courses for Temple.
a.
b.
Personnel Administration — EA661
Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
School Law EA681
Introduction to Administration and Supervision — EA500
LIU policy requires employees to submit a room reservation request when
seeking to use LIU space.
The LIU did not give approval to O'Connor for use of facilities or staff.
23. O'Connor never obtained the approval of the LIU board of directors to teach graduate
courses for Temple.
24. The Public School Code, Section 10 -1007 provides that an executive director of an
intermediate unit may receive compensation for services devoted to the training of
teachers if he is released for such service by the board of directors of the district in
which he is employed.
a. O'Connor never obtained any such release from the LIU Board.
25. Sometime after starting the first course with Temple, O'Connor informed Board
President Ernest Ashbridge that he was teaching the courses for Temple.
a. O'Connor did not seek Ashbridge's or the board's approval prior to starting the
classes.
b. O'Connor did not advise Ashbridge that he was using the LIU facilities to teach
the courses and that he was using employees, supplies and equipment to
perform administrative functions.
26. Susan Stubodzian served as secretary for O'Connor from July 1, 1994, to May 10,
2000.
a. O'Connor used Stubodzian for administrative duties related to his teaching
position on a weekly basis for at least two hours each week.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 7
b. Stubodzian performed these duties during her regular working hours for the
LIU.
c. Stubodzian used equipment and supplies of the LIU when performing these
tasks.
27. Stubodzian was directed by O'Connor to maintain records and to correspond with at
least 187 students, and Temple University, during the time period O'Connor taught the
courses.
a. Stubodzian mailed grades to students, sent letters to students using LIU
stationary, envelopes and postage.
b. O'Connor directed Stubodzian to maintain course files and student information
on the LIU computer in her office.
1. The information entered on and maintained by Stubodzian included
course syllabuses, student information including grades,
correspondence to students containing grades, letters of
recommendation for students, and correspondence to Temple University
in relation to the courses O'Connor taught at the LIU for Temple.
c. Stubodzian was required to enter new information for each semester O'Connor
taught in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.
28. From 1997 until leaving his position with the LIU in May 2000, O'Connor used
Stubodzian's office at the LIU to store documents related to the courses he taught at
the LIU for Temple University.
29. Temple University did not compensate the LIU for use of the facilities, LIU employees
or supplies.
a. O'Connor did not reimburse the LIU for use of space, employees or supplies.
30. During the period from 1997 through the spring of 2000 when she performed duties
related to O'Connor's teaching position, Stubodzian was paid the following hourly rates:
a. 1997
1998
1999
2000
$14.92
$14.92
$16.53
$17.27
31. Stubodzian worked at least two (2) hours each week on matters relating to O'Connor's
teaching position with Temple every semester from 1997 to spring 2000.
a. Each semester lasted 15 weeks.
32. Stubodzian performed administrative duties for O'Connor's private teaching position at
least the following number of hours:
a. 1997: 2 semesters x 15 weeks x 2 hours each week = 60 hours
b. 1998: 2 semesters x 15 weeks x 2 hours each week = 60 hours
c. 1999: 2 semesters x 15 weeks x 2 hours each week = 60 hours
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 8
d. 2000: 1 semester x 15 weeks x 2 hours each week = 30 hours
33. Costs of O'Connor's use of Stubodzian to perform administrative duties related to his
private teaching position totaled as follows:
a. 1997: 60 hours x $14.92 /hour = $ 895.20
b. 1998: 60 hours x $14.92 /hour = $ 895.20
c. 1999: 60 hours x $16.53 /hour = $ 991.80
d. 2000: 30 hours x $17.27 /hour = $ 518.10
Total: $ 3,300.30
34. O'Connor utilized LIU letterhead and envelopes to correspond with students and to
mail grades at the end of each semester.
a. O'Connor mailed grades to at least 187 students from 1997 to 2000.
1. The average cost of postage during this period was $.34.
2. Postage costs to mail student grades totaled at least $63.58 (187
students x $.34).
35. Use of the LIU facilities by O'Connor to teach the graduate courses was at least
$750.00 per semester.
a. Temple paid Kings $750.00 /semester for each class for use of Kings facilities.
b. O'Connor used LIU facilities to teach courses for Temple for at least five (5)
semesters between 1998 and 2000.
c. The LIU classrooms were used exclusively for the benefit of O'Connor.
d. Costs for the use of these facilities would be $3,750.00 ($750.00 /semester x 5
semesters).
36. Wage and Tax Statements on file at Temple University confirm O'Connor was
compensated the following amounts for teaching the courses on behalf of Temple
University.
Year Amount
1997 $ 9,000.00
1998 $ 4,800.00
1999 $ 6,000.00
2000 $ 6,000.00
2001 $ 6,000.00
2002 $ 3,000.00
Total $ 34,800.00
37. O'Connor received a private pecuniary gain of at least $7,113.88 when he used the
facilities, equipment, supplies and employees of the LIU in furtherance of teaching
courses for Temple University.
a. Stubodzian Salary: $ 3,300.30
b. Postage: $ 63.58
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 9
c. Facilities: $ 3,750.00
Total: $ 7,113.88
The following findings relate to O'Connor used [sic] his position to obtain a teaching
position with Wilkes University.
38. In or about October and November 1998, O'Connor was interested in teaching
graduate level courses offered by Wilkes University.
a. The purpose was to develop continuing education credits for teachers within the
intermediate unit as well as obtaining a part -time position for O'Connor.
b. O'Connor wanted the courses to be held at the LIU facilities.
c. At that time, Wilkes University provided graduate level courses at five other
intermediate units in the Wilkes- Barre /Scrantion [sic] area.
39. In November of 1998 O'Connor contacted Joseph Bellucci, Director of Graduate
Teacher Education at Wilkes University, Wilkes- Barre, PA and informed Bellucci that
the LIU was interested in working with Wilkes University in order to offer graduate
courses at the LIU.
40. O'Connor set up a meeting with Bellucci that was held on November 24, 1998, at the
Ramada Inn in Wilkes- Barre, PA.
a. LIU Director of Management Services Lynn Makar and LIU Director of
Instructional Materials Barbara Law attended the meeting along with O'Connor
and Bellucci.
1. Makar and Law, subordinate employees of O'Connor, attended the
meeting at O'Connor's direction.
2. Makar and Law were to serve as instructors for courses requiring the
use of computers.
41. The meeting included a discussion regarding Wilkes being the credit bearing university
of the LIU's graduate continuing education program, as well as O'Connor, Makar and
Law teaching the courses.
a. Bellucci, on behalf [sic] Wilkes, agreed to offer the courses in order to upgrade
the quality of courses offered at the LIU.
1. At this time, the continuing education courses offered by the LIU was
[sic] of poor quality.
b. The curriculum agreed to by Bellucci would include a variety of special staff
development courses, including classroom technology courses, requiring the
availability of computers for use by students in the classroom.
c. The technology courses being offered by the LIU were modified following the
discussion with Bellucci.
d. Also discussed was O'Connor's desire to hold classes at the LIU facilities.
42. O'Connor informed Bellucci during the meeting that he was interested in teaching a
course in school law for Wilkes University at the LIU.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 10
43. During the November 24, 1998, meeting, it was also agreed that O'Connor, Makar and
Law would teach the Wilkes courses offered at LIU facilities.
a. Makar and Law were to teach the computer technology related courses.
b. O'Connor was to teach a school law course.
c. All courses would be held at LIU facilities.
d. Bellucci would not have entered into the agreement with O'Connor to hold
Wilkes classes at LIU if only the school law course were to be taught.
44. Prior to November 1998 the LIU did not have a computer classroom with the computer
capability to provide the technology courses required by Bellucci.
a. Bellucci advised O'Connor that the LIU would need a computer room with
current technology in order to host classes at LIU facilities.
b. O'Connor informed Bellucci that the LIU was upgrading their [sic] computer
room and the new facility would meet the requirements of Wilkes University.
c. O'Connor further informed Bellucci that Law and Makar were capable, and
willing to teach graduate school courses for Wilkes University at the LIU.
45. Approximately one month prior to scheduling his meeting with Bellucci, O'Connor
initiated purchases of computer upgrades for the LIU computer room.
a. O'Connor approved purchase orders for computer purchases beginning in
October 1998.
1. Computers were received beginning in November 1998 at aboutthetime
of O'Connor's meeting with Bellucci.
2. Additional computers were received in December 1998.
46. Payment for these computers was to be made with funds received by the LIU from a
Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) federal grant program pursuant to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Grant (IDEA).
a. IDEA grant funds awarded by PDE are intended for use in programs directly
related to school children with special needs, including children with learning
disabilities.
b. The LIU annually receives IDEA grants.
47. During the 1998 -1999 school year, the LIU received in excess of $2,000,000 in IDEA
grant funds.
a. Approximately $55,000 of those grant funds were used to purchase computers
and related equipment designated as a computer laboratory facility at the LIU.
1. The equipment consisted of 22 computers plus printers, servers,
monitors and software.
48. As a result of the November 24, 1998, meeting a verbal agreement was entered into
between O'Connor and Bellucci.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 11
a. The agreement provided that beginning in the spring of 1999 Wilkes would
begin to offer graduate level classes at the LIU.
1. Costs were to [sic] $100 per credit hour with courses being three credits.
2. Other costs included a $25.00 fee that students would pay to the LIU for
use of the facilities.
b. Bellucci entered into the agreement after being made aware by O'Connor that
computers were available for use in the graduate courses.
c. The computers purchased with grant funds and intended to be used for
students with disabilities were utilized, at least in part, for the benefit of teacher
continuing education credits for which O'Connor was compensated.
49. In a memo to Mike Lennon, Vice President, Academic Affairs, Wilkes University,
Bellucci explained the university's involvement with LIU #18. Bellucci's memo
provides, in part, the following:
"In January 1999 a program began with IU #18 where we would be the credit bearing
University for their [sic] Graduate Continuing Education Credits." I agreed to do this in
order to upgrade the quality of the courses offered at the IU. The IU agreed to pay
Wilkes University $300 /three credit graduate course and they would apply the
instructors' salaries, room charges, advertisement, and any other charges associated
with the classes. The IU actually uses grant money to subsidize the cost of the
courses. Wilkes will receive $15,600.00 for the courses conducted from January to
March.
The students taking these courses are not students who are enrolled in Wilkes or who
would have taken previous Wilkes courses. They are using the credits for salary
increases. With the exception of the courses listed below Wilkes does not offer any
courses with similar titles.
50. Beginning in January 1999 Law and Makar began teaching computer technology
classes at the LIU.
51. O'Connor entered into a contract with Wilkes on July 12, 1999, to teach a school law
course.
a. The course was titled School Law, ED 518.
b. The course dates were from July 6, 1999, to August 5, 1999.
c. The course was held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from 2:30
p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
d. Location of the course is LIU #18 Classroom, Kingston.
e. Contracted fee was $3,600.00.
52. O'Connor scheduled the course to commence 30 minutes after the conclusion of his
work day.
a. Summer hours at the LIU are from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
53. O'Connor entered into a second contract with Wilkes to teach a school law course on
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 12
September 3, 1999.
a. This contract was dated August 30, 1999, and signed by O'Connor on
September 3, 1999.
b. The course was titled School Law ED 518.
c. The course dates were from August 30, 1999, through December 6, 1999.
d. The course location is listed as IU #18, 3 Floor.
e. The course was held on Mondays from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
f. Contracted fee was $7,200.00.
54. O'Connor entered into a third agreement with Wilkes on or about January 14, 2000, to
teach two courses.
a. The contract was dated January 4, 2000, and signed by O'Connor on January
14, 2000.
b. The courses were titled Issues in Education ED 514 and School Law ED 518.
c. ED 514 was scheduled to be held at the LIU, 3 Floor on Thursdays from 4:30
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. during the period from January 13, 2000, through April 27,
2000.
d. ED 514 was scheduled at St. Jude School on Wednesdays from 4:30 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. during the period from January 12, 2000, through April 26, 2000.
e. Contracted amount was $7,200 for both courses.
55. After being placed on leave by the LIU board, on May 10, 2000, O'Connor continued to
contract with Wilkes utilizing LIU facilities to teach classes for which he was
compensated.
a. The contract was dated June 13, 2000, and signed by O'Connor.
b. The course title was School Law, ED 518.
c. The course was scheduled to be held at the LIU Kingston, 3 Floor Room on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from June 27, 2000, through August
1, 2000, during the hours of 2:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
d. The contracted fee was $3,600.00.
56. The LIU board of directors did not authorize O'Connor to use LIU facilities to teach the
Wilkes courses for which he was compensated.
a. O'Connor did not obtain or seek board approval to teach the courses.
b. The board was not aware that O'Connor was receiving compensation from
Wilkes University for his teaching.
57. LIU policy requires that individuals submit room reservation requests forms when
wanting to use LIU facilities.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 13
a. O'Connor did not submit any requests for use of space when teaching courses
in 1999 and 2000.
58. Wilkes University compensated O'Connor as follows for teaching School Law and
Issues in Education courses:
a. 1999: $10,800.00
b. 2000: $10,800.00
Total $21,680.00 [sic *]
59. O'Connor received a private pecuniary gain of $21,680.00 [sic *] as a result of the use
of his public position to obtain contracts with Wilkes University to teach courses using
LIU facilities for class space.
a. O'Connor, in his capacity as LIU Executive Director, and on behalf of the LIU
initiated and authorized the arrangement between the LIU and Wilkes College to
offer graduate courses at LIU and for which he subsequently served as an
instructor, and received private compensation.
b. The contract negotiated by O'Connor was done without LIU board approval and
resulted in a private pecuniary gain to him.
c. O'Connor, as LIU Executive Director, authorized the use of IDEA grant funds to
purchase computers to be used in the continuing education courses.
1. Wilkes University would not enter into a contract with O'Connor without
the necessary computer facilities.
The following findings relate to the allegation that O'Connor failed to file Statements
of Financial Interests and subsequently backdated forms.
60. In December of 2000, investigators of the State Ethics Commission conducted a
Statement of Financial Interests Compliance Review at the Luzerne County
Intermediate Unit.
a. The purpose of the compliance review was to determine whether all covered
public officials and public employees serving the Luzerne County Intermediate
Unit were filing Statements of Financial Interests in accordance with the
requirements of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law.
61. A review of the records of the Luzerne County Intermediate Unit conducted during the
compliance review, indicated that no Statements of Financial Interests were on file for
Kevin O'Connor for the calendar years 1997 (required to be filed by May 1, 1998),
1998 (required to be filed by May 1, 1999) and 1999 (required to be filed by May 1,
2000).
62. As a result of the compliance review a notice was forwarded to Kevin O'Connor, 45
Beech Road, Plains, PA 18705, on February 15, 2001, advising O'Connor of the
Commission's intent to commence a civil penalty proceeding pursuant to the Ethics
Law for his failure to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1997
through 1999 inclusive.
a. O'Connor was advised that as Executive Director of the Luzerne County
Intermediate Unit he was a public official required to file Statements of Financial
Interests in accordance with the Ethics Law.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 14
b. O'Connor was advised of the penalties for failure to file and was also provided a
twenty (20) day grace period within which he could correct the deficiencies by
filing Statements of Financial Interests in accordance with the law.
c. O'Connor was provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests forms for
completion.
63. O'Connor did not file the required Statements of Financial Interests within the twenty
(20) day period of time allotted by the notice of February 15, 2001.
64. On June 28, 2001, copies of Statements of Financial Interests for Kevin O'Connor for
calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999 were received at the offices of the Pennsylvania
State Ethics Commission.
65. Statements of Financial Interests filed with the State Ethics Commission by Kevin
O'Connor at that time include the following information:
a. Calendar year:
Dated:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office, Directorship or
Emp. in any Business:
All other financial interests:
b. Calendar year:
Dated:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office, directorship or
Emp. in any business:
All other financial interests:
c. Calendar year:
Dated:
Position:
Creditors:
Direct /Indirect income:
Office, directorship or
Emp. in any business:
All other financial interests:
1997
05/01/97 on SEC Form 1/01
Executive Director
UFCW, Local 72
Luzerne Intermediate Unit
None
None
1998
05/01/97 on SEC Form Rev. 1/01
Executive Director
UFCW, Local 72
Luzerne Intermediate Unit
None
None
1999
05/01/99 on SEC Form Rev. 1/01
Executive Director
None
Luzerne Intermediate Unit
None
None
66. The Statements of Financial Interests forms received by the State Ethics Commission
from Kevin O'Connor were signed by Kevin O'Connor.
67. The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission contracts the printing of Statements of
Financial Interests annually.
a. The State Ethics Commission contracted with Vanguard Printing, Moore
Business Forms and Digital Ink Printing Co. in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and
2001 respectively.
b. Orders for forms are placed with the printers in December of the preceding year.
c. Forms are received by the Administrative Division of the State Ethics
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 15
Commission the December before or January of the filing year.
d. Forms are then bulk mailed to each municipality in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
68. Statements of Financial Interests forms were annually mailed to the Luzerne
Intermediate Unit No. 18 in 1998, 1999 and 2000 by the Administrative Division of the
State Ethics Commission.
a. In 1998, blank forms SEC -1, Rev. 1/98 were mass mailed to all municipalities in
the Commonwealth, including LIU, on January 26, 1998.
b. In 1999 blank forms, SEC -1, Rev. 1/99, were mass mailed to all municipalities
in the Commonwealth, including LIU, on February 9, 1999.
c. The 2000 forms SEC -1, Rev. 1/00 were bulk mailed to all municipalities in the
Commonwealth, including LIU, on January 21, 2000.
d. The 2001 forms SEC -1, Rev. 1/01 were bulk mailed to all municipalities in the
Commonwealth, including LIU, on or about December 29, 2000.
e. The 2002 forms SEC -1, Rev. 1/2002 were bulk mailed to all municipalities in
the Commonwealth, including LIU, on or about December 14, 2001.
69. Each year when forms are printed a form identification number is listed in the upper left
hand corner of the form.
a. Forms printed in 1998 contained an identification of SEC -1 1/98 while forms
printed in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 contained identification dates of SEC -1
1/99, SEC -1 1/00, SEC -1 1/01 and SEC -1 1/02 respectively.
70. Prior to 2000, blank Statement of Financial Interests forms were mailed by the State
Ethics Commission to the Luzerne Intermediate Unit addressed to Kevin O'Connor,
Executive Director, Luzerne Intermediate Unit 18, 368 Tioga Avenue, Kingston, PA
18704 -0649.
a. O'Connor as the Chief Administrative Officer for the LIU was responsible for
receipt of the blank Statements of Financial Interests forms from the State
Ethics Commission, distribution thereof to covered LIU employees and officials
and general administration of the filing requirements, for the LIU.
b. Blank Statements of Financial Interests were forwarded directly by the State
Ethics Commission to O'Connor in his position as LIU Executive Director since
at least 1989.
c. O'Connor previously opened all mail received at the LIU.
71. The material that was forwarded to O'Connor by the State Ethics Commission each
year not only included the blank Statements of Financial Interests forms but also
included a cover memo advising of the filing procedures and deadlines.
72. Beginning in 2001, blank SFI forms were mailed by the State Ethics Commission
Administrative Division to Michael Ostrowski, Substitute Executive Director, Luzerne
Intermediate Unit, P.O. Box 1649, Kingston, PA 18704 -5423, on the dates noted
above.
a. Instructions for completion are attached to the blank forms.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 16
73. Kevin O'Connor's Statements of Financial Interests forms for the 1997 calendar year
listed the date filed as May 1, 1998.
a. The Statement of Financial Interests dated May 1, 1997, signed by Kevin
O'Connor was on SEC form 1/01 which was not printed and mailed to
municipalities until December 13, 2000.
b. This form was not printed or in circulation on May 1, 1997, the date Kevin
O'Connor purportedly filed it.
c. O'Connor's filing was backdated creating the impression that the form was
timely filed.
74. Kevin O'Connor's Statement of Financial Interests for the 1998 calendar year listed the
date filed as May 1, 1998.
a.
b.
c.
The form, dated May 1, 1998, and signed by Kevin O'Connor was on SEC -1,
Rev. 1/01 which was not mailed to municipalities until December 13, 2000.
This form was not printed or in circulation on May 1, 1998, the date Kevin
O'Connor allegedly filed the form.
The form was backdated giving the impression it was timely filed.
75. Kevin O'Connor's Statement of Financial Interests for the 1999 calendar year listed the
date filed as May 1, 1999.
a. The form, dated May 1, 1999, and signed by Kevin O'Connor was on SEC -1,
Rev. 1/01 which was not mailed to municipalities until December 13, 2000.
b. This form was not printed or in circulation on May 1, 1999, the date Kevin
O'Connor allegedly filed the form.
c. The form was backdated giving the impression it was timely filed.
76. O'Connor was not only aware of the Statement of Financial Interests filing requirement
as a result of the information that he received from the State Ethics Commission on an
annual basis, but he was also aware of the requirement to file Statements of Financial
Interests as a result of his service as a trustee on the Bloomsburg University Board of
Trustees.
a. On January 30, 1996, O'Connor was specifically advised by Jessica S. Kozloff,
President of Bloomsburg University of the filing requirement and was
specifically advised of the procedures applicable for filing Statements of
Financial Interests.
b. O'Connor was advised of such specifically by way of letter dated January 30,
1996, at which time he was provided a blank form for filing.
77. Records of the LIU contained a Statement of Financial Interests for Kevin O'Connor
dated February 12, 1993, which was filed for calendar year 1992.
a. O'Connor was aware of the filing requirement and was aware that he was
required to file a Statement of Financial Interests in his position as Executive
Director of the LIU at least dating back to February 13, 1993.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 17
78. Although Kevin O'Connor was well aware that he was required to file a Statement of
Financial Interests in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law, he failed to file
such forms with the LIU for at least calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
a. O'Connor's failure to file Statements of Financial Interests with knowledge that
he was required to do so, was intentional.
79. O'Connor admitted that he backdated the Statements of Financial Interests.
80. In addition to backdating the Statements of Financial Interests, O'Connor failed to
report either Temple University or Wilkes University as sources of income on the forms
that he forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission for calendar years
1997 -1999.
a. O'Connor was paid as follows by Temple:
1997
1998
1999
$9,000.00
$4,800.00
$6,000.00
b. O'Connor was paid as follows by Wilkes:
1999: $10,800.00
81. O'Connor's failure to report Temple University or Wilkes University on Statements of
Financial Interests forms was an intentional omission which was done in order to avoid
disclosure of his receipt of income from these entities.
a. O'Connor had not received authorization from the LIU board to perform services
for these entities as was required by the board.
b. O'Connor was utilizing LIU facilities, personnel, equipment and materials in aid
of his private employment endeavors with Temple and Wilkes University.
82. O'Connor filed a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2000 calendar year with the
State Ethics Commission on February 8, 2002, nine months after the due date.
a. The form was required to have been filed by May 1, 2001.
b. The form was signed by O'Connor but was not dated.
c. The form was filed after the Investigative Division of the State Ethics
Commission initiated its inquiry of O'Connor.
1. O'Connor did not file until after he was sent a notice of intent to levy civil
penalties for his failure to file on January 25, 2002, by the State Ethics
Commission.
83. The Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Section 1104, Subsection e, provides
that "no public official shall be allowed to take the oath of office or enter or continue
upon his duties, nor shall he receive compensation from public funds, unless he has
filed a Statement of Financial Interests as required by this chapter."
84. During the period of time when he was in non - compliance with the filing requirements
of the State Ethics Act, O'Connor continued to be compensated as an appointed public
official.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 18
School Year Amount
1996 -1997 $84,000
1997 -1998 $88,000
1998 -1999 $90,600
1999 -2000 $92,000
2000 -2001 $92,000
85. O'Connor's use of his public position to obtain teaching contracts and his subsequent
use of facilities, employees, equipment and supplies of the LIU in furtherance of his
private contracts, resulted in a private pecuniary gain of at least $28,793.88 [sic *].
a. Use of personnel, facilities, equipment
Temple Contract $ 7,113.88
b. Teaching contracts
Wilkes University $ 21,680.00 [sic *]
Total $ 28,793.88 [sic *]
We note that there is an $80 disparity in Finding 58 that affects other Findings. We shall
resolve the $80 disparity in favor of the Respondent.
III. DISCUSSION:
In his former capacity as Executive Director of the Luzerne Intermediate Unit,
Respondent Kevin O'Connor (also referred to herein as "Respondent," "O'Connor," or
"Respondent O'Connor ") was a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et
seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11,
65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
The allegations are that O'Connor, as Executive Director of the Luzerne Intermediate
Unit (LIU), violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 4(a)/1104(a) and 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act
when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by using LIU facilities,
including but not limited to a computer lab and related equipment, supplies and personnel to
assist his teaching courses and receipt of compensation from Wilkes University and Temple
University; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1997, 1998 and
1999 calendar years by May 1s` of each year; when he subsequently submitted backdated
forms for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999; when he failed to file a Statement of Financial
Interests for the 2000 calendar year by May 1, 2001; and when he failed to disclose sources
of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 1997, 1998
and 1999 calendar years.
We initially note that in a separate order issued this date, we considered and disposed
of a procedural issue regarding the Respondent's failure to file a timely Answer to the
Investigative Complaint /Findings Report in this case. In this Order, we shall consider the rest
of the case.
Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, a public official /public
employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.
Specifically, 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.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 19
Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above provides 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)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act quoted above requires that a public
official /public employee disclose on his Statement(s) of Financial Interests the name and
address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the facts
pertaining to this case. Given Respondent's failure to file an Answer to the Investigative
Complaint, the facts as averred by the Investigative Complaint are deemed admitted by the
Respondent. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e) 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k).
Respondent O'Connor was employed by the Luzerne Intermediate Unit (LIU) from
March 19, 1973, to May 10, 2000. O'Connor served as Executive Director of the LIU from
November 14, 1989, to May 10, 2000.
O'Connor's duties as Executive Director of the LIU were as set forth in Finding 13.
Such duties included, inter alia: appointing professional staff, subject to the approval of the
LIU Board of Directors ( "LIU Board "); employing nonprofessional staff in accordance with
employment policies of the LIU Board; preparing the budget for adoption by the LIU Board;
and directing expenditures of funds within the budget or other authorization of the LIU Board.
During his employment as Executive Director of the LIU, O'Connor entered into
contracts with Temple University ( "Temple ") and Wilkes University to teach education - related
graduate courses. As set forth more fully below, O'Connor was compensated for teaching all
of these courses.
However, Section 10 -1007 of the Public School Code prohibits an executive director of
an intermediate unit from receiving compensation for providing teaching services except under
certain narrow conditions, which conditions include a requirement that the executive director
be released for such service by the board of directors of the district in which he is employed:
§ 10 - 1007. Not to engage in teaching; exceptions
No executive director of the intermediate unit, district, or assistant
district superintendent or assistant executive director of an intermediate
unit in this Commonwealth shall engage in the business or profession of
teaching in this Commonwealth, unless it is done without any other
compensation than that paid to him as such superintendent: Provided,
That he may receive compensation for services in a summer school,
maintained in a State college or university, or other college or university,
devoted to the training of teachers, or for services rendered evenings or
Saturdays during the school term, to any such college or university, if he
is released for such service by the board of school directors of the
district in which he is employed.
24 P.S.§ 10 -1007 (Emphasis added). O'Connor never obtained such a release from the LIU
Board (Finding 24 a).
The material facts pertaining to O'Connor's teaching for Temple are as follows.
In 1995, Dr. James Powell served as the program coordinator for Temple's Master of
Education and Doctor of Education programs. Powell recruited personnel from the various
school districts and intermediate units in the Wilkes -Barre area to teach the courses. In 1995
Powell and O'Connor discussed O'Connor teaching courses for Temple. Powell offered
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 20
O'Connor a teaching position in the program.
O'Connor entered into contracts on the following dates to teach courses in Temple's
Master of Education /Doctor of Education program(s): February 21, 1997; October 8, 1998;
February 22, 1999; January 31, 2000; September 22, 2000; February 23, 2001; October 2,
2001; and February 13, 2002. From 1997 through 2002, O'Connor was compensated by
Temple in the total amount of $34,800 for teaching these courses (Finding 36).
Sometime after starting the first course with Temple, O'Connor informed LIU Board
President Ernest Ashbridge ( "Ashbridge ") that he was teaching the courses for Temple.
However, O'Connor did not seek Ashbridge's or the LIU Board's approval prior to starting the
classes, and, as noted above, O'Connor never obtained a release from the LIU Board to teach
graduate courses for Temple for compensation.
Additionally, O'Connor used the LIU facilities to teach these courses and LIU
employees, supplies and equipment to perform related administrative functions.
Despite the fact that Temple provided classroom space for O'Connor's courses through
an agreement with Kings College (Finding 19), beginning in 1998, O'Connor taught the first
class of each semester at Kings College and then moved the course to the LIU facility where
O'Connor held classes for the remainder of the semester. This occurred with every class
taught by O'Connor between 1998 and 2001.
LIU policy requires individuals seeking to use LIU facilities to submit room reservation
request forms. However, O'Connor never sought, nor was he given, approval by the LIU
Board to use the LIU facilities to teach courses for Temple.
Additionally, as set forth in Findings 26 -34, O'Connor directed the use of subordinate
LIU personnel and the use of LIU equipment and supplies in support of his teaching position.
O'Connor directed his LIU secretary to perform administrative duties and to maintain records,
course files and student information related to the courses O'Connor taught for Temple. The
secretary performed these duties during her regular working hours for the LIU using LIU
equipment and supplies. O'Connor also used office space at the LIU for storage and LIU
letterhead and envelopes for correspondence related to the courses he taught for Temple.
O'Connor never sought, nor was he given, approval by the LIU Board to use the LIU facilities
or staff in support of his teaching for Temple (Finding 22).
Temple University did not compensate the LIU, and O'Connor did not reimburse the
LIU, for the aforesaid use of LIU facilities, employees and supplies.
From 1997 to spring 2000 O'Connor received a private pecuniary gain of at least
$7,113.88, consisting of his LIU secretary's salary ($3,300.30), postage ($63.58) and facilities
($3,750) used in furtherance of teaching courses for Temple University (Findings 30 -37).
In addition to teaching courses for Temple, in November 1998 O'Connor took actions in
his capacity as Executive Director of the LIU to secure teaching work for compensation
through Wilkes University. O'Connor, in his capacity as LIU Executive Director, initiated and
authorized an arrangement between the LIU and Wilkes University to offer graduate courses
at the LIU for which O'Connor subsequently served as a compensated instructor. This was
done without LIU Board approval.
In November of 1998 O'Connor contacted Joseph Bellucci ( "Bellucci "), Director of
Graduate Teacher Education at Wilkes University, and informed Bellucci that the LIU was
interested in working with Wilkes University to offer graduate courses at the LIU. Such
courses at the LIU would provide continuing education credits for LIU teachers. At that time,
the continuing education courses offered by the LIU were of poor quality, and Wilkes
University was providing graduate level courses at five other intermediate units in the Wilkes-
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 21
Barre /Scranton area.
O'Connor set up a meeting with Bellucci. The meeting was held on November 24,
1998. The meeting included O'Connor; Bellucci; the LIU Director of Management Services,
Lynn Makar; and the LIU Director of Instructional Materials, Barbara Law. Makar and Law
were subordinate employees of O'Connor and attended the meeting at O'Connor's direction.
During the meeting, O'Connor informed Bellucci that he was interested in teaching a course in
school law and that he wanted the classes to be held at the LIU facilities.
The admitted Findings establish that Bellucci would not have entered into an agreement
with O'Connor to hold Wilkes classes at LIU if only the school law course were to be taught.
Bellucci required a curriculum with a variety of special staff development courses, including
classroom technology courses that necessitated having computers in the classroom. Bellucci
advised O'Connor that in order to host classes at LIU facilities, the LIU would need a computer
room with current technology.
O'Connor informed Bellucci that the LIU was upgrading its computer room, and that the
new facility would meet the requirements of Wilkes University. O'Connor further informed
Bellucci that Law and Makar were willing and able to teach graduate school courses for Wilkes
University at the LIU.
During or as a result of the November 24, 1998, meeting, a verbal agreement was
entered into between O'Connor and Bellucci. Per the agreement, Wilkes would begin to offer
graduate level classes at the LIU beginning in the spring of 1999. It was agreed that
O'Connor would teach a school law course, and Makar and Law would teach the computer
technology related courses. All courses would be held at the LIU facilities. Course costs
would include $100 per credit hour and a $25 fee that students would pay to the LIU for use of
the LIU facilities.
Per the admitted Findings, O'Connor was already in the process of upgrading the LIU
computer room prior to his November 1998 contact with Bellucci (Finding 45). Approximately
one month prior to scheduling a meeting with Bellucci, O'Connor initiated purchases of
computer upgrades for the LIU computer room. New computers were received in November
and December of 1998. O'Connor as LIU Executive Director authorized the use of certain
government grant funds (see, Findings 46 -47) to purchase the new computers /equipment.
Without the new computers /equipment, Wilkes University would not have entered into
a contract with O'Connor. The computers /equipment were used, at least in part, for the
Wilkes University courses taught at the LIU.
O'Connor entered into contracts with Wilkes University on July 12, 1999, and
September 3, 1999, to teach school law courses held at the LIU. O'Connor's compensation
for teaching these courses totaled $10,800.
O'Connor entered into a third agreement with Wilkes University on or about January
14, 2000, to teach courses detailed in Finding 54. O'Connor's compensation for teaching
these courses totaled $7,200.
On May 10, 2000, O'Connor was placed on leave with pay by the LIU Board as a result
of matters that had come to the Board's attention, including questions as to whether O'Connor
had provided accurate and timely information to the Board.
Even after being placed on leave by the LIU Board, O'Connor entered into a fourth
contract with Wilkes University, dated June 13, 2000, to teach a course using the LIU
facilities. O'Connor was compensated in the amount of $3,600 under this contract.
O'Connor did not obtain or seek approval from the LIU Board to teach any of the above
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 22
courses or to use the LIU facilities for these courses. The LIU Board was not aware that
O'Connor was receiving compensation from Wilkes University for teaching. Per the admitted
Findings, O'Connor received private pecuniary benefit of $21,600 as a result of the use of
his public position to obtain contracts with Wilkes University to teach courses using LIU
facilities for class space (Finding 59).
The admitted Findings of the Investigative Complaint further establish that O'Connor
intentionally failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1997 -2000
and that he ultimately filed backdated forms for calendar years 1997 -1999.
Additionally, O'Connor failed to report Temple as a source of income for calendar years
1997 -1999 and Wilkes University as a source of income for calendar year 1999. O'Connor's
failure to report Temple or Wilkes University as sources of income on the above Statements of
Financial Interests was an intentional omission which was done in order to avoid disclosure of
O'Connor's receipt of income from these entities (Finding 81).
O'Connor filed a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2000 calendar year with the
State Ethics Commission on February 8, 2002, nine months after the due date of May 1,
2001. The form was signed by O'Connor but was not dated. The form was filed after the
Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission had initiated its inquiry as to O'Connor
and after O'Connor had been notified that civil penalty proceedings would be instituted against
him for his failure to file.
During the period of time when he was in non - compliance with the filing requirements of
the Ethics Act, O'Connor continued to be compensated as Executive Director of the LIU as
set forth in Finding 84.
Having summarized the facts as deemed admitted by Respondent, we shall consider
the factual arguments made by Respondent in his Closing Statement.
Respondent contends:
(1) As to his failure to obtain the approval /release of the LIU Board to teach for
compensation, that he advised the Board President that he had begun teaching
for Temple, such that (a) he was not hiding his activities; (b) he intended to
properly advise the Board of such activities; and (c) he acted appropriately
given that his employment contract itself was oral and not in writing (Closing
Statement for the Respondent at 3 -4);
(2) As to his failure to obtain LIU approval to use LIU classrooms, that there is no
Finding as to (a) whether notifying the LIU Board President was insufficient
permission; (b) how other users of LIU classrooms obtained permission; and (c)
whether Respondent had authority as Executive Director to approve his own
use of facilities "just as he did for any others who asked to use them" (Closing
Statement for the Respondent at 4);
As to the valuation of his use of the LIU classrooms, that the record is defective
in that it: (a) uses as a "benchmark" the value of the King's College facility; (b)
fails to establish whether other courses were taught in the LIU classrooms; and
(c) fails to establish whether other LIU staff members were permitted to use the
classrooms free of charge for courses "within the mission of the LIU" (Closing
Statement for the Respondent at 5 -6);
(4) As to the benefit derived from his use of the LIU classrooms, that the Findings
of the Investigative Complaint conflict given that Paragraph 35 c states, "The
LIU classrooms were used exclusively for the benefit of O'Connor," while other
paragraphs indicate that the LIU "was engaged in support of teaching classes
(3)
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 23
for teachers and that employees other than Respondent O'Connor used the
classrooms at the LIU" (see, Investigative Complaint, paragraphs 35 c, 41 a 1,
22 a; Closing Statement for the Respondent at 6);
As to the value of his use of staff time and other LIU facilities, that the figures in
Findings 33 and 34 of the Investigative Complaint are "suspect" and "should not
be accepted blindly by the Commission as it deliberates this matter" (Closing
Statement for the Respondent at 7);
(6) As to his actions to upgrade the LIU computer facilities, that such actions
predated his first meeting with Bellucci of Wilkes University, so that such
upgrades were not linked to his hiring by Wilkes University and do not support a
finding of a conflict of interest (Closing Statement for the Respondent at 7 -8);
and
(5)
(7)
As to his admitted filing of late and backdated Statements of Financial Interests,
that (a) although he is bound by findings that his failure to file was intentional,
such failure resulted from "sloppiness and inattentiveness" rather than an
intentional concealment of facts as to his activities and income; and (b) the filing
of backdated forms "more clearly illustrates sloppiness and inattentiveness than
a completely irrational and hopeless attempt to fool a Commission which already
had notice of his late filing" (Closing Statement for the Respondent at 9).
As we conduct our analysis of the above factual arguments of the Respondent, we note
that Respondent's failure to file a timely Answer to the Investigative Complaint has resulted in
deemed admissions of key facts that he might otherwise have contested through a hearing
process. Respondent invites us to determine which individual facts and ultimate factual
findings are "supported by the record." (Closing Statement for the Respondent at 2 -3).
Respondent appears to be suggesting that we may ignore facts of record if we determine they
are not "supported by the record." We question whether facts of record may be argued to be
unsupported by the very record of which they are a part. In any event, we are not at liberty to
ignore or rationalize away admissions of the parties. See, Bartholomew v. State Ethics
Commission, 795 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Furthermore, we are not aware of any legal
authority supporting Respondent's suggestion that an admission by default is any less an
admission than a direct admission (see, Closing Statement for the Respondent at 2).
Arguments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 above necessarily fail given Respondent's deemed
admissions that:
(Re: Argument 1)
(a) Respondent never obtained the required release from the LIU Board as to
teaching for compensation (Investigative Complaint, Findings 24, 24 a);
(b) Respondent never obtained the approval of the LIU board of directors to teach
graduate courses for Temple (Investigative Complaint, Finding 23);
(c) Respondent did not obtain or seek LIU Board approval to teach the Wilkes
University courses (Investigative Complaint, Finding 56 a);
(d) The LIU Board was not aware that Respondent was receiving compensation
from Wilkes University for his teaching (Investigative Complaint, Finding 56 b);
( e) Respondent had not received authorization from the LIU Board to perform
services for Temple or Wilkes University as was required by the Board
(Investigative Complaint, Finding 81 a);
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 24
(Re: Argument 2)
(a) Respondent did not advise LIU Board President Ashbridge that he was using
the LIU facilities to teach the Temple courses and that he was using employees,
supplies and equipment to perform administrative functions (Finding 25 b);
(b) Respondent never sought nor was given approval by the LIU Board to use the
LIU facilities or staff when teaching courses for Temple (Investigative
Complaint, Findings 22 and 22b);
(c) The LIU Board did not authorize Respondent to use LIU facilities to teach the
Wilkes courses for which he was compensated (Investigative Complaint,
Finding 56);
(d) LIU policy requires employees /individuals to submit room reservation request
forms when seeking to use LIU space /facilities (Investigative Complaint,
Findings 22 a, 57);
(e) Respondent did not submit any requests for use of space when teaching
courses in 1999 and 2000 (Investigative Complaint, Finding 57 a);
(Re: Argument 3)
(a) Use of the LIU facilities by Respondent to teach the graduate courses was at
least $750.00 per semester (Investigative Complaint, Finding 35);
(b) Costs for the use of the LIU facilities for Respondent's courses through Temple
would be $3,750.00 ($750.00 /semester x 5 semesters) (Investigative
Complaint, Finding 35 d);
(Re: Argument 5)
(a) Costs of Respondent's use of Stubodzian to perform administrative duties
related to his private teaching position totaled as follows:
a. 1997: 60 hours x $14.92 /hour = $ 895.20
b. 1998: 60 hours x $14.92 /hour = $ 895.20
c. 1999: 60 hours x $16.53 /hour = $ 991.80
d. 2000: 30 hours x $17.27 /hour = $ 518.10
Total: $ 3,300.30
(Investigative Complaint, Finding 33);
(b) Respondent utilized LIU letterhead and envelopes to correspond with students
and to mail grades to at least 187 students from 1997 to 2000 (Investigative
Complaint, Findings 34 and 34 a);
(c) Postage costs to mail student grades totaled at least $63.58 (187 students x
$.34) (Investigative Complaint, Finding 34 a 2);
(Re: Argument 7)
(a) Respondent's failure to file Statements of Financial Interests with knowledge
that he was required to do so, was intentional (Investigative Complaint, Finding
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 25
78 a);
(b) Respondent's Statement of Financial Interests forms for calendar years 1997,
1998 and 1999 were backdated giving the impression that the forms were timely
filed (Investigative Complaint, Findings 73 c, 74 c, 75 c); and
(c) Respondent's failure to report Temple or Wilkes University on Statement of
Financial Interests forms for calendar years 1997 -1999 as to Temple and 1999
as to Wilkes University was an intentional omission which was done in order to
avoid disclosure of his receipt of income from these entities (Investigative
Complaint, Findings 80 -81).
As for Respondent's Argument 4 above, Finding 35 c must be read in the context of
Finding 35 as a whole. When Finding 35 c is read in context, it means that the LIU
classrooms when used by Respondent to teach courses for Temple On contrast to the Wilkes
University classes), benefited only the Respondent. In contrast to Finding 41 a 1 regarding
the Wilkes University courses, there was no indication as to the Temple courses of any
purpose of improving the continuing education courses offered at the LIU for LIU teachers.
As for Respondent's Argument 6 above, the relevant Findings of the Investigative
Complaint would appear to be Findings 59 c and 59 c 1. Although the language of these
Findings might be subject to multiple interpretations, we believe that a fair reading of the
position of the Investigative Division would be that Respondent's uses of the authority of his
position to upgrade the LIU computer facilities put him in a position to enter into the contracts
with Wilkes University, which contracts resulted in compensation to him. Neither party
disputes that the upgrades commenced before Respondent met with Bellucci, the Wilkes
University representative. However, Respondent's proffering of the LIU equipmentffacilitiesto
secure contracts with Wilkes University is significant regardless of when the upgrades were
commenced.
We must now determine whether the actions of O'Connor violated Sections
3(a)/1103(a), 4(a)/1104(a) and /or 5(b)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act.
As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process requires that we not depart from
the allegations. Penns v. Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (1991). Based upon our
review of the record, we ind that there is clear and convincing evidence to support numerous
violations of the Ethics Act under the allegations.
Clear and convincing evidence is "testimony that is so 'clear, direct, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the
truth of the precise facts in issue. - In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88,
91 (Pa. 1998) (Citation omitted).
It is alleged that Respondent O'Connor, as Executive Director of the Luzerne
Intermediate Unit (LIU), violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a), 4(a)/1104(a) and 5(b)/1105(b) of the
Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary benefit by using
LIU facilities, including but not limited to a computer lab and related equipment, supplies and
personnel to assist his teaching courses and receipt of compensation from Wilkes University
and Temple University; (2) when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the
1997, 1998 and 1999 calendar years by May 1 of each year; (3) when he subsequently
submitted backdated forms for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999; (4) when he failed to file
a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2000 calendar year by May 1, 2001; and (5) when
he failed to disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial
Interests filed for the 1997, 1998 and 1999 calendar years.
In considering the first allegation involving conflict of interest, we initially observe that
under the clear terms of Section 10 -1007 of the Public School Code, the compensation that
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 26
O'Connor received for teaching courses at Temple and Wilkes University was not authorized
by law. 24 P.S. § 10 -1007. Although this Commission does not have the statutory jurisdiction
to interpret laws other than the Ethics Act, such other laws do become relevant in determining
whether a particular pecuniary benefit is authorized in law and therefore permitted under the
Ethics Act, or is not authorized in law and therefore considered a private pecuniary benefit
which may form the basis for a violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See,
Thompson, Opinion 99 -005, at 3 -4. The compensation that O'Connor received for teaching
graduate courses at Temple and Wilkes University without the authorization of the LIU Board
was compensation that was not authorized by law and was therefore a private pecuniary
benefit.
However, in order for a violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act to be
established as to the teaching itself, there must have been a use of the authority of the public
position to secure the prohibited private pecuniary benefit.
Based upon the facts before us, O'Connor did not use the authority of his public
position to secure the teaching work that he did for Temple. Rather, it appears that O'Connor
was recruited by Powell, the program coordinator for Temple's Master of Education and Doctor
of Education programs, to teach the Temple courses.
However, O'Connor did use the authority of his public position as LIU Executive
Director to secure the teaching work with Wilkes University. O'Connor, in his capacity as LIU
Executive Director, initiated and authorized the arrangement between the LIU and Wilkes
University. O'Connor contacted Bellucci, Director of Graduate Teacher Education at Wilkes
University, and informed Bellucci that the LIU was interested in working with Wilkes University
to offer graduate courses at the LIU. O'Connor set up the meeting with Bellucci. O'Connor
directed his subordinates, Makar and Law, to attend the meeting. O'Connor informed Bellucci
that he was interested in teaching a course in school law and that he wanted the classes to be
held at the LIU facilities. O'Connor informed Bellucci that the LIU was upgrading its computer
room, and that the new facility would meet the requirements of Wilkes University. O'Connor
further informed Bellucci that Law and Makar were willing and able to teach graduate school
courses for Wilkes University at the LIU.
The above uses of the authority of O'Connor's public position as LIU Executive Director
resulted in a private pecuniary benefit to O'Connor consisting of the very compensation he
received for teaching the Wilkes University courses. But for being the LIU Executive Director,
Respondent would not have been able to negotiate an agreement with Bellucci to offer
graduate courses at the LIU through Wilkes University, nor would he have been able to
arrange for other LIU employees to teach technology courses so as to satisfy the
requirements of Wilkes University. The teaching compensation that O'Connor received as the
direct result of these actions was a private pecuniary benefit because he was never given the
statutorily required approval of the LIU Board to teach these courses.
Additionally, for both the Temple and Wilkes University courses, the facts as deemed
admitted by Respondent establish that Respondent used the LIU facilities for the courses he
taught. With regard to the Temple courses, the facts as deemed admitted by Respondent
establish that Respondent also used LIU employees, supplies and equipment in support of his
teaching. These actions by Respondent constituted uses of the authority of his public
position. But for being the LIU Executive Director, Respondent would not have been able to:
(1) circumvent the LIU requirements for obtaining approval to use LIU facilities; (2) direct the
use of subordinate LIU personnel and the use of LIU equipment and supplies in support of his
teaching position; or 3) use office space at the LIU for storage related to his teaching
Respondent never sought, nor was he given, approval by the LIU Board to use the LIU
facilities or staff in support of his teaching for Temple or Wilkes University.
The private pecuniary benefits that Respondent received as the result of the above
actions in his public capacity have been quantified as follows.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 27
First, the private pecuniary benefit that Respondent received as to the Temple courses
totaled $7,113.88 (Findings 32 -35, 37). We note that Respondent has asserted that there are
no credible facts of record establishing the value of Respondent's use of LIU facilities and that
the value of his use of staff was de minimis (see, Closing Statement for Respondent at 10).
We have already rejected Respondent's factual arguments regarding the valuation of
Respondent's use of facilities and staff support based upon the admitted Findings, and so too
we reject Respondent's related legal arguments. There are credible facts of record —
specifically, the Findings of the Investigative Complaint which Respondent is deemed to have
admitted — establishing the values of both Respondent's use of LIU facilities and staff, and
such values are not de minimis.
Additionally, Respondent received a private pecuniary benefit of $21,600 as a result of
the use of his public position to obtain contracts with Wilkes University to teach courses using
LIU facilities for class space (Finding 59). This pecuniary benefit consisted of the
compensation Respondent received for teaching these courses at the LIU without the
statutorily required 'release" of the LIU Board.
Respondent has argued that there is no "linkage" between the upgrade of the LIU
computer facilities and the use of that upgrade and his public employment to obtain the
teaching position with Wilkes University (Closing Statement for Respondent at 10 -11). As
noted above, Respondent repeatedly used the authority of his public position as Executive
Director of the LIU to secure the arrangement with Wilkes University which included his
teaching courses for compensation. The fact that the computer upgrades were initiated prior
to Respondent's contact with Belluci is irrelevant given that Respondent proffered the LIU
facilities and equipment as upgraded to secure the arrangement with Wilkes University and
teaching contracts for himself.
With regard to Respondent's misuse of both LIU classroom space and the LIU
computer facilities, Respondent has asserted that the "class /subclass" exclusion in the
definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest" is applicable such that no conflict of interest
existed (Closing Statement for the Respondent at 6, 10). We reject the argument.
In order for the class /subclass exclusion in the Ethics Act's definition of "conflict" or
"conflict of interest" to apply, two criteria must be met: (1) the affected public official /public
employee, immediate family member, or business with which the public official /public employee
or immediate family member is associated must be a member of a class consisting of the
general public or a true subclass consisting of more than one member; and (2) the public
official /public employee, immediate family member, or business with which the public
official /public employee or immediate family member is associated must be affected "to the
same degree" as the other members of the class /subclass. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. The first
criterion of the exclusion is satisfied where the members of the proposed subclass are similarly
situated as the result of relevant shared characteristics. The second criterion of the exclusion
is satisfied where the individual /business in question and the other members of the
class /subclass are reasonably affected to the same degree by the proposed action. Kablack,
Opinion 02 -003.
In this case, the class /subclass exclusion would not be applicable because the first
criterion would not be met. Respondent, as Executive Director of the LIU, would not be
"similarly situated" to the other staff at the LIU or to any other instructors at the LIU using LIU
classroom space or computer facilities. Thus, there would not be a true subclass consisting of
more than one member. Given that the first criterion would not be met, the second criterion
need not be addressed.
Based upon the above, we find that the Investigative Division has met its burden of
proof as to the first allegation. We hold that Respondent O'Connor, as Executive Director of
the LIU, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his said
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 28
public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself by using LIU facilities, including but
not limited to a computer lab and related equipment, supplies and personnel to assist his
teaching courses and receipt of compensation from Wilkes University and Temple. See,
Sullivan, Order 1245; Aker, Order 1227; Cagno, Order 1204; Rakowsky, Order943. The total
private pecuniary benefit received by Respondent O'Connor in violation of Section
3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act was $28,713.88 ($7,113.88 + $21,600).
We now turn to the second and fourth allegations involving failure to timely file
Statements of Financial Interests. The facts as deemed admitted by Respondent clearly
establish that Respondent failed to timely file Statements of Financial Interests for the 1997,
1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years. We hold that Respondent O'Connor violated Section
4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests as to his
position as LIU Executive Director for the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years by May
1st of 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively.
Respondent's delinquent Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1997-
1999 were admittedly backdated, while the form for calendar year 2000 was not dated at all.
In considering the third allegation involving the filing of backdated Statements of
Financial Interests, we hold that Respondent O'Connor violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the
Ethics Act when he submitted backdated Statement of Financial Interests forms as to his
position as LIU Executive Director for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999. See, e.q.,
Forrest, Order 1230; Draper, Order 1229.
In considering the fifth and final allegation involving the filing of deficient Statements of
Financial Interests, the facts as deemed admitted by Respondent establish that Respondent
failed to report Temple as a source of income for calendar years 1997 -1999 and Wilkes
University as a source of income for calendar year 1999. Respondent intentionally omitted
Temple and Wilkes University as sources of income on the aforesaid Statement of Financial
Interests forms in order to avoid disclosure of his receipt of income from these entities (Finding
81). We hold that Respondent O'Connor violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act
when he failed to disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial
Interests filed as to his position as LIU Executive Director for the 1997, 1998 and 1999
calendar years.
In its Closing Statement, the Investigative Division has requested that we: (1) order
Respondent to pay restitution; (2) refer this matter to an appropriate law enforcement authority
with a recommendation for review as to criminal prosecution; and (3) consider imposing an
additional penalty pursuant to Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act equaling the amount of
compensation Respondent received as Executive Director of the LIU during periods of non-
compliance as to the filing requirements for Statements of Financial Interests. (Section
1104(d) of the Ethics Act, which is not referenced in the Allegations of the Investigative
Complaint, prohibits a public official from taking the oath of office, entering or continuing the
duties of his ublic office, or receiving compensation from public funds unless he has filed a
Statement of Financial Interests as required by the Ethics Act.)
In his Closing Statement, Respondent urges that we: (1) assess minor or no financial
penalties; (2) decline to refer this matter for review by law enforcement officials; and (3)
decline to order a penalty under Section 1104(d) based upon the contention that such a
penalty would be disproportionately severe as to Respondent's admitted failures to file
Statements of Financial Interests, as well as his asserted status as a public employee rather
than a public official. See, Heck, Order 1251.
In considering restitution, we note that Section 407(13)/1107(13) of the Ethics Act
empowers this Commission to impose restitution in instances where a public official /public
employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. We determine that
restitution is warranted in this case, not only as to the $7,113.88 attributable to the use of LIU
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 29
facilities, employees, supplies and equipment for O'Connor's courses through Temple but also
as to the full $21,600 of compensation O'Connor received from Wilkes University for teaching
courses without any release from the LIU Board while using LIU facilities for class space.
Respondent, who taught School Law at the graduate level, blatantly disregarded the
requirements of the Public School Code as they pertained to obtaining a release from the LIU
Board as to his own teaching. O'Connor never obtained the approval of the LIU Board to
teach graduate courses for either Temple or Wilkes University, and therefore the full amount
of compensation that he received for teaching these courses was not authorized in law.
Respondent used the authority of his public position at the LIU to secure for himself the
teaching work through Wilkes University. As to both the Temple and Wilkes University
teaching work, Respondent repeatedly used the LIU facilities without any authorization from
the LIU Board. Finally, Respondent intentionally failed to file Statements of Financial Interests
as required by the Ethics Act and ultimately filed backdated forms for calendar years 1997-
1999, intentionally omitting Temple and Wilkes University as sources of income in order to
avoid disclosing the fact that he had received income from these entities.
Based upon the above, full restitution to the LIU is appropriate. Accordingly, O'Connor
is directed to make payment of restitution to the LIU through this Commission in the amount of
$28,713.88 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order.
Additionally, if O'Connor has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days
of the date of mailing of this Order, amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar
years 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 to reflect the actual date of filing and all reportable sources
of income. The original of each such amended form is to be filed with the LIU, with one copy
sent to the Administrative Division of this Commission for compliance verification purposes.
Based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the relevant
facts and circumstances, we determine that directing Respondent to: (1) pay full restitution to
the LIU in the amount of $28,713.88; and (2) file amended Statements of Financial Interests
for calendar years 1997 -2000 as set forth above, is the appropriate disposition of this case.
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. Respondent Kevin O'Connor ( "O'Connor "), in his former capacity as Executive Director
of the Luzerne Intermediate Unit ( "LIU "), was a public official /public employee subject
to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989,
Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which
Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
2. O'Connor, as Executive Director of the LIU, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics
Act when he used the authority of his said public position for the private pecuniary
benefit of himself by using LIU facilities, including but not limited to a computer lab and
related equipment, supplies and personnel to assist his teaching courses and receipt of
compensation from Wilkes University and Temple University.
3. O'Connor violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests as to his position as LIU Executive Director for the
1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years by May 1 of 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001
respectively.
O'Connor 02- 001 -C2
Page 30
4. O'Connor violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted
backdated Statement of Financial Interests forms as to his position as LIU Executive
Director for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
5. O'Connor violated Section 5(b)(5)/1105(b) 5 of the Ethics Act when he failed to
disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests
filed as to his position as LIU Executive Director for the 1997, 1998 and 1999 calendar
years.
6. Restitution is warranted in this case.
In Re: Kevin O'Connor
ORDER NO. 1269
File Docket: 02- 001 -C2
Date Decided: 2/27/03
Date Mailed: 3/5/03
1. Respondent Kevin O'Connor ( "O'Connor "), a public official /public employee in his
former capacity as Executive Director of the Luzerne Intermediate Unit ('LIU "), violated
Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his said public
position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself by using LIU facilities, including but
not limited to a computer lab and related equipment, supplies and personnel to assist
his teaching courses and receipt of compensation from Wilkes University and Temple
University.
2. O'Connor violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file
Statements of Financial Interests as to his position as LIU Executive Director for the
1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 calendar years by May 1 of 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001
respectively.
3. O'Connor violated Section 4(a)/1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he submitted
backdated Statement of Financial Interests forms as to his position as LIU Executive
Director for calendar years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
4. O'Connor violated 5(b)(5)/1105 (b)(5) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose
sources of income in excess of $1,300 on Statements of Financial Interests filed as to
his position as LIU Executive Director for the 1997, 1998 and 1999 calendar years.
5. O'Connor is directed to make payment of restitution to the LIU through this
Commission in the amount of $28,713.88 within 30 days of the date of mailing of this
Order.
6. If O'Connor has not already done so, he is directed to file, within 30 days of the date of
mailing of this Order, amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years
1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 to reflect the actual date of filing and all reportable sources
of income. The original of each such amended form is to be filed with the LIU, with one
copy sent to the Administrative Division of this Commission for compliance verification
purposes.
7. Compliance with paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Order 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.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair