Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1275 WrightIn Re: Bob Wright 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- 055 -C2 Order No. 1275 4/4/03 4/18/03 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. 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Robert Wright, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township, Fulton County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his office for a private pecuniary gain of himself and /or a member of his immediate family and /or a business with which he and /or a member of his immediate family is associated, by participating in actions of the township, including but not limited to authorizing the use of a truck and trailer owned by him and /or his wife to perform duties for the township; and when this use, which was in excess of $500 was awarded without an open and public process; and when Wright participated in approving payments to his wife. II. FINDINGS: 1. Bob Wright has served as a Supervisor of Licking Creek Township since January 6, 1992, having been elected in November, 1991. a. Wright was appointed to that position by the board of supervisors. 2. Bob Wright was elected to a full -term as Supervisor of Licking Creek Township on November 15, 1997. 3. Bob Wright has served as a full -time Roadmaster of Licking Creek Township since January 5, 1998. a. Wright was appointed Roadmaster of Licking Creek Township by the board of supervisors. 1. Wright participated in the vote appointing him to the position. b. Supervisor Donald Swope was also appointed Roadmaster during this meeting. c. Wright is the full -time Roadmaster while Swope works part -time. 4. The township does not employ a full -time road crew. a. Work is performed on an as- needed basis by Wright and Swope. b. Part -time road workers are utilized for snow removal. 5. There is no written job description for the duties of the roadmaster of Licking Creek Township, or for Bob Wright. a. Wright performs the duties as Roadmaster, including maintenance of roads and purchasing of materials for road projects. 6. Wright, in his capacity as Roadmaster, sets his own work schedule. 7. Lane Metals, located in Bedford, PA, manufactures and sells culvert storm drainage pipe for use by private individuals, state governments, and local municipalities. a. Lane Metals sells high quality culvert storm drainage pipe. b. Lane Metals also sells damaged or surplus "seconds" of culvert storm drainage pipe at a reduced rate in comparison to their higher quality pipe, which is more expensive. c. Lane Metals will offer "seconds" to individuals, states, or municipalities on a first Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 3 come, first served basis. 8. Licking Creek Township Supervisors have purchased "seconds" of culvert storm drainage pipe at a lower rate from Lane Metals for township projects such as bridge work, road work, driveway work, and right -of -way projects, rather than paying a premium price for high quality storm pipe. a. Traditionally, Licking Creek Township will purchase small to medium sized quantities of "seconds" culvert storm drainage pipe in lengths varying from 16 to 25 feet when needed, and when available from Lane Metals. 9. Lane Metals does not, under normal circumstances, deliver pipe unless it constitutes a three - quarter to fully loaded tractor trailer. a. Lane Metals charges approximately $1.15 per mile to haul pipe. b. Lane Metals has never made a delivery of culvert storm drainage pipe to Licking Creek Township. 10. Licking Creek Township does not own equipment capable of hauling large lengths of culvert storm drainage pipe. 11. Since 1999 Wright has hauled pipe from Lane Metals to Licking Creek Township. a. Wright has performed this service with the knowledge of the other members of the board of supervisors. b. There has been no vote of the board authorizing Wright to haul the pipe. 12. The township did not seek official quotes from any other trucking companies for the hauling of the pipe. a. No documentation to substantiate any quotes for transporting pipe from Lane Metals appear in the official meeting minutes of Licking Creek Township. 13. Bob Wright owns jointly with his spouse, Joyce Wright, a 1991 Blackhawk Utility Trailer, purchased in April of 1991, with a vehicle identification number (VIN) of 1749643 and a license plate bearing XC50602, and a Dodge Ram Truck, purchased in August of 1998, with a vehicle identification number (VIN) of 1 B7KF23Z5WJ238426 and a license plate bearing ZF72264. 14. Wright has charged the township $1.00 per mile to haul culvert pipe from Lane Metals in Bedford, PA, to Licking Creek Township Municipal Building, utilizing his personal truck and utility trailer. a. No documentation exists confirming any quote from Wright. b. No records or vote to substantiate the awarding of a hauling contract to Wright appear in the official minute book of Licking Creek Township. c. Township supervisors were aware that Wright would be transporting the pipe. 1. Board members believed that Wright would be charging less than other trucking companies. 2. Richard Walter, Plant Manager of Lane Metals quoted a price of $1.15 per mile with use of a full tractor - trailer. Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 4 15. Wright has hauled pipe from Lane Metals to Licking Creek Township on at least ten (10) occasions between July 1999 through 2002. a. Wright has made the decision when pipe was needed based, in part, on his position as roadmaster. 16. Wright, upon completing a trip to Lane Metals, would invoice Licking Creek Township for mileage traveled with his personal equipment, submitting an invoice in the name of his wife, Joyce Wright. a. Wright's submission of invoices for payment in the name of his wife created the illusion that she was actually performing the hauling duties utilizing vehicles and equipment jointly owned by both of them. 17. Joyce Wright has never hauled any culvert pipe, supplies or equipment for Licking Creek Township. a. Joyce Wright does not accompany her husband on trips to haul pipe for the township. b. Joyce Wright has never provided Licking Creek Township with any quotes for the transporting of pipe. c. Joyce Wright does not possess a CDL license and does not perform hauling services. 18. Invoices and bills submitted to the Licking Creek Township Board of Supervisors for approval are circulated among the supervisors during a regularly scheduled board meeting. a. Approvals or denials are not made by formal board action recorded in the minutes. b. Bill lists are not generated for supervisor review at township meetings. c. Invoices and checks are passed to each supervisor, at which time a supervisor will sign the check, approving the payment. d. All bills are reviewed at the same time as a whole, and minutes of township meetings confirm that approval of bills has been sporadic during Wright's years of service as a township supervisor. 19. Checks issued to vendors by the township require the signature of at least two supervisors and the township secretary. a. All three township supervisors have signature authority on township checking accounts. b. Bob Wright has regularly signed township checks issued to vendors. 20. Bob Wright was present at township meetings when invoices submitted by him in the name of his wife, Joyce Wright, were circulated among the supervisors by the township secretary. a. Wright did not abstain from reviewing any of the invoices. Check Number Check Amount Payable To Joyce Wright Signed By Bob Wright 7897 $300.00 7976 $555.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8119 $224.34 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8361 $100.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8497 $230.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8647 $100.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8773 $160.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8801 $345.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8837 $ 70.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 8860 $330.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright 9275 $145.00 Joyce Wright Bob Wright Total $2,559.34 Check Date Total Check Amount 07/14/99 $300.00 10/28/99 $555.00 01/28/00 $224.34 07/28/00 $100.00 02/14/00 $230.00 02/28/01 $100.00 02/14/01 $160.00 07/05/01 $345.00 07/27/01 $70.00 08/14/01 $330.00 07/12/02 $145.00 Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 5 b. There was never a formal vote at any township meeting approving the Joyce Wright invoices. 21. Wright submitted eleven (11) invoices to the township in the name of his wife, which included fees for the hauling of pipe. 22. Bob Wright, in his capacity as a Licking Creek Township Supervisor signed all eleven (11) checks made payable to his wife as follows: 23. Joyce Wright received checks issued to her from Licking Creek Township without ever performing any duties or services for them. a. Joyce Wright never received 1099 subcontractor wage tax statements or W2 wage and tax statements from Licking Creek Township for income received. 24. Joyce Wright cashed checks from Licking Creek Township at the Fulton County National Bank, located in McConnellsburg, PA. a. Joyce Wright in turn received cash from the bank and utilized the funds for vacation, excess bills, and holiday spending. 25. Yearly payments made by the township to Bob Wright, in the name of Joyce Wright, for hauling totaled: 1999 $855.00 2000 $540.00 2001 $555.00 2002 $145.00 Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 6 26. Wright received total payments of $2,559.34 from the township through 2001 for transporting pipe and reimbursement for expenses. a. $464.34 was reimbursement of expenses incurred. b. Net payments for pipe transporting totaled $2,095.00. 27. Wright billed the township $1.00 per mile for transporting pipe from Lane Metals to the township. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Robert Wright, hereinafter Wright, 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 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 Wright, as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township, Fulton County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the Township, including but not limited to, authorizing the use of a truck and trailer owned by him and /or his wife to perform duties for the township; contracted with the township for the use of the truck and trailer in excess of $500 without an open and public process; and participated in approving payments to his wife. Pursuant to Section 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 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 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 office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 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 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting. Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 7 Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides: Section 1103. Restricted activities (f) Contract. - -No public official or public employee or his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated or any subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official or public employee is associated, unless the contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded. In such a case, the public official or public employee shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or subcontract. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f). Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act specifically provides in part that no public official /public employee or spouse or child or business with which he or the spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body valued at five hundred dollars or more or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with which the public official /public employee is associated unless the contract is awarded through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure. 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. Wright has served as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township (Township) since January 1992 and as a full -time Roadmaster for the Township since January 1998. Wright and his spouse hold the titles to a 1991 Blackhawk Utility Trailer and a Dodge Ram Truck. From 1999 through 2002, Wright has utilized the trailer and truck to haul culvert storm drainage pipe purchased by the Township from Lane Metals, a culvert storm drainage pipe manufacturer located in Bedford, Pennsylvania, to the Township. The Township does not own equipment capable of hauling large lengths of culvert storm drainage pipe. Although the Board Members were aware that Wright was hauling drainage pipe in his personal vehicles for the Township, they never authorized such activity. Further, the Board never sought quotes from anyone, including Wright, to haul pipes for the Township. The Township's minute book does not reflect that the Township ever awarded a hauling contract to Wright. Lane Metals offered a quote for hauling pipe of $1.15 per mile with use of a full- tractor trailer. Wright charged the Township $1.00 per mile using his personal truck and trailer. Wright submitted invoices in his spouse's name to the Township for mileage traveled using his truck and trailer even though his spouse never performed any hauling for the Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 8 Township. The invoices in Wright's spouse's name, like other invoices submitted to the Township for payment, were circulated among the supervisors for review. Wright did not abstain from reviewing the invoices or signing the 11 checks made payable to his spouse. For the ears 1999 through 2002, Wright's spouse received a total of $2,559.34 from the Township for transporting pipe and for expense reimbursements. 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 sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act by Wright when, in his capacity as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township, he participated in decisions of the Licking Creek Township Supervisors authorizing him to haul pipe, and participated in actions of the board of supervisors authorizing the payment of invoices submitted in the name of his wife, Joyce Wright; no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act by Wright because the amounts of the individual hauling did not exceed $500.00; and an agreement by Wright to make payment in the amount of $750.00 through this Commission to Licking Creek Township within 30 -days of the issuance of this Order. As to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, the allegation is that Wright: (1) participated in actions of the township authorizing the use of a truck and trailer owned by him and /or his wife to perform duties for the township; and (2) participated in approving payments to his wife. With regard to the first part of the allegation, there is a matter for factual clarification in that Fact Finding 11 b states, "There has been no vote of the board authorizing Wright to haul the pipe "; however, the parties in the Consent Agreement provide for a violation based upon their agreement that Wright participated in decisions of the Board of Supervisors authorizing him to haul pipe. We will resolve this issue in favor of the Respondent and therefore find no violation as to this part of the allegation. As to the second part of the Section 1103(a) allegation, the Findings reflect that after Wright submitted the 11 hauling invoices in his spouse's name to the Township, he failed to abstain from reviewing those invoices or signing the 11 checks made payable to his spouse. See, Fact Findings 20a; 22. Respondents participation in this regard constituted uses of authority of office which resulted in a private pecuniary gain to his spouse. Accordingly, we hold that Respondent violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he reviewed invoices submitted to the Township in his wife's name and signed all 11 checks made payable to his spouse. As to the Section 1103(f) allegation, the parties in the Consent Agreement propose no violation on the basis that each contract was under $500. In our review of the 11 listed transactions, 10 are indeed under $500. One transaction on October 28, 1999 is listed at $555. We must therefore assume that the Investigative Division, in its prosecutorial discretion, chose not to pursue the case as to that one particular transaction. Hence, we find no violation of Section 1103(f) as to the 10 transactions in that they are all less than $500. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties with the above noted modification 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, Wright is directed to make payment in the amount of $750.00 through this Commission to Licking Creek Township within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 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: Wright 02- 055 -C2 Page 9 1. Robert Wright (Wright), as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township (Township), a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 98. 2. Wright did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the allegation that he participated in decisions of the Township Board of Supervisors authorizing him to haul pipe for the Township in that there was never a vote by the Township Board of Supervisors authorizing Wright to haul the pipe. 3. Wright violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in approving the payment of invoices submitted in the name of his spouse. 4. Wright did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he contracted with the Township to perform hauling services in that of the 10 contracts in issue, none were in excess of $500. In Re: Bob Wright ORDER NO. 1275 File Docket: 02- 055 -C2 Date Decided: 4/4/03 Date Mailed: 4/18/03 1. Robert Wright (Wright), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Licking Creek Township (Township), did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act astothe allegation that he participated in decisions of the Township Board of Supervisors authorizing him to haul pipe for the Township in that there was never a vote by the Township Board of Supervisors authorizing Wright to haul the pipe. 2. Wright violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in approving the payment of invoices submitted in the name of his spouse. 3. Wright did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when he contracted with the Township to erform hauling services in that of the 10 contracts in issue, none were in excess of $500. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Wright is directed to make payment in the amount of $750.00 through this Commission to Licking Creek Township. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair