HomeMy WebLinkAbout1277 MadukaIn Re: Godfrey C. Maduka
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
01- 043 -C2
Order No. 1277
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 filed and a hearing was held. 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Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11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.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 2
I. ALLEGATION:
That Godfrey C. Maduka, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Sanitary
Engineer III, Division of Drinking Water Management, Department of Environmental
Protection, 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 of himself and /or a business with
which he is associated through the use of Commonwealth facilities, for the Obosi
Development Association, a non - profit organization where he serves as President and MAKA
World Travel, a travel agency he owns and operates; when he failed to disclose on Statements
of Financial Interests income received from Manor Care Health Services where he is
employed as a nursing assistant; and when he utilized sick leave from his employment during
days he was working at a part -time job.
Section 3/1103. 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 2/1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official
or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or
any confidential information received through his holding public
f
of ce or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself,
a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or
"conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de
minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a
class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of
an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public
official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is
associated.
65 P.S. § 402/65 Pa.C.S. §1102.
Section 5/1105. Statement of financial interests.
(b) Required information. - -The statement shall include the
following information for the prior calendar year with regard to the
person required to file the statement.
(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:
A. Pleadings
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 3
1.
2.
3.
The Commission issued an order on November 15, 2001, granting the ninety -day
extension.
The Commission issued an order on March 21, 2002, granting the ninety -day
extension.
On March 25, 2002, a letter was forwarded to Godfrey Maduka, by the Investigative
Division of the State Ethics Commission, through his counsel, Elliot A. Strokoff,
Esquire, informing him that the investigation of him [sic] was being amended to include
additional allegations.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7000 1670 0005 2766 5170.
b. The domestic return receipt confirmed a delivery date of March 26, 2002.
4. On July 19, 2002, a letter was forwarded by the Investigative Division of the State
Ethics Commission, through his counsel, Elliot A. Strokoff, Esquire, informing him that
the investigation of him [sic] was being amended to include additional allegations.
a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail no. 7001 1940 0001 2179 5384.
5. Godfrey Chibuzo (Uzo) Maduka has been employed by the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) as a Sanitary Engineer since June 27, 1988.
6. Maduka has held the following positions while employed by DEP.
Date
06/27/88
08/24/89
01/22/92
to the present
7. Maduka has been assigned to work a 37.5 hour work week during his
the Department of Environmental Protection.
a. Maduka's scheduled hours of work .... are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.
lunch, and two fifteen minute breaks, one in the morning
afternoon.
b. Prior ... [thereto]... Maduka's hours of work were 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
8. MAKA World Travel is a travel agency stated [sic] by Maduka in March 1995.
a.
Fictitious Name:
Nature of Business:
Address of Business:
Interested Individuals:
Authorized Agents:
Position
Sanitary Engineer I
Sanitary Engineer 11
Sanitary Engineer III
employment with
m. with one hour
and one in the
On March 21, 1995, Maduka filed an Application for Registration of Fictitious
Name with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State, which
listed as follows:
MAKA World Travel Services
Independent Travel agency with no ARC bonding
186 Meadowlark Place, Harrisburg, PA 17104
Godfrey C. Maduka
Godfrey Chibuzo Maduka
9. Maduka's supplementary employment request was approved by DEP's
Personnel Office on February 27, 1995, with the following provisions:
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 4
a. "This approval is granted on the condition that the supplementary
employment does not interfere with regular work hours or job
performance or violate the provisions of the Governor's Code of
Conduct and subject to the following restriction.
Solicitations for work in connection with the employee's supplementary
employment cannot be made during working hours or at Commonwealth
facilities."
10. Maduka earned the following as operator of MAKA World Travel Services:
1997
1998
1999
2000
$2,836.00
$4,758.00
$6,279.00
$6,181.00
11. Maduka completed an application for employment with Manor Care on which he listed
his employment with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
a. On the block questioning whether Manor Care could contact his current
employer, Maduka answered "No."
12. W -2 Wage and Tax Statements issued to Maduka by Manor Care confirm gross
income as follows:
1998
1999
2000
2001
$6,736.91
$6,617.26
$8,820.54
$11,671.44
13. As a Sanitary Engineer Maduka filed Statements of Financial Interests with DEP as
follows:
Calendar Year Dated Filed
1997 04/29/98
1998 04/27/99
1999 05/01/00
2000 04/23/01
2001 04/26/02
14. Maduka also filed Code of Conduct forms required of employees under the Governor's
jurisdiction.
Calendar Year Date Filed
1998 04/29/98
1999 04/27/99
2000 05/01/00
2001 04/23/01
15. In January 2001, Maduka became the subject of an investigation by the Office of
Inspector General in relation to allegations that he used Commonwealth equipment for
his personal benefit or for the benefit of a private business.
15. During the course of that inquiry, Maduka's employment with Manor Care became
known to investigators for the Office of Inspector General.
17. Maduka was interviewed by investigators of the Office of Inspector General on
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 5
February 14, 2001, in reference to various issues, including his supplemental
employment.
a. After questioning regarding his status as a certified nursing assistant, Maduka
confirmed that he was licensed as such by the Pennsylvania Department of
Health.
b. Maduka then admitted to being employed for two years by Manor Care Health
Services.
c. Maduka admitted to not submitting a supplementary employment request
claiming employment with Manor Care was not a conflict with his
Commonwealth position.
d. Maduka admitted that he did not disclose on Statements of Financial Interests
income he received from Manor Care.
18. Beginning with his Statement of Financial Interests filed on April 23, 2001, for the 2000
calendar year, Maduka began disclosing Manor Care as a direct or indirect source of
income.
19. Maduka disclosed Manor Care Health Services as a source of income only after he
was questioned about his employment there by the Office of Inspector General.
20. Statements of Financial Interests filed by Maduka for the 2000 and 2001 calendar
years include the following:
2000 Calendar Year
Dated:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office /Directorship or
Emp. in any Business:
Financial Interest
in any Business:
All Other Financial Interests:
2001 Calendar Year
Dated:
Direct /Indirect Income:
Office /Directorship or
Emp. in any Business:
Financial Interest
in any Business:
Creditors:
4/23/01 on SEC Form 1/01.
MAKA World Travel, 186 Meadowlark Place,
Harrisburg, PA.
Manor Care Health Services, 90 Tuck Street,
Lebanon, PA.
MAKA World Travel — Travel Consultant.
Manor Care Health Services — Critical Care
Assistant.
MAKA World Travel — Owner.
None.
4/26/02 on SEC Form 1/02.
MAKA World Travel, 186 Meadowlark Place,
Harrisburg, PA.
Manor Care Health Services, 90 Tuck Street,
Lebanon, PA.
MAKA World Travel — Travel Consultant.
Manor Care Health Services — Critical Care
Assistant.
MAKA World Travel — Owner.
PSECU car loan 7.49%
Citibank — MasterCard 9.9%
Discover Card 12.9%
Wachovia Bank Visa 8.49%
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 6
All Other Financial Interests: None.
a. Maduka did not disclose DEP as a source of income on his 2000 and 2001
calendar years filings.
21. In an undated memo during the period following April 2001 to Renata Moseley,
Manager, Employee Relations and Safety Division, Bureau of Human Resources,
DEP, Maduka advised of his intention to file (an) amendment to his 1999 Statement of
Financial Interests for income earned from Manor Care (Health) Services in 1998 in
the amount of $6,800.00.
a. Maduka requested that his records be adjusted to include his income.
22. Maduka did not file amended Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 1998
and 1999 disclosing income received from Manor Care.
23. Maduka never received approval from the Department of Environmental Protection to
conduct Supplemental Employment at Manor Care Health Services, Inc., before he
obtained that employment.
a. Maduka was aware of the procedure for requesting supplementary employment
approval based on his receipt of that approval in relation to MAKA World Travel
Services.
24. Maduka submitted a Supplemental Employment Request to DEP in regard to his
employment at Manor Care Health Services on February 26, 2001.
a. Maduka submitted the Request after he was questioned by the Office of
Inspector General about his employment at Manor Care Health Services.
25. While employed by Manor Care, Maduka never informed his supervisors at DEP of the
part -time position.
26. Maduka worked .... for Manor Care during weekdays when he worked for the
Commonwealth.
a. Maduka began his weekday shifts by 5:00 p.m. in 1998 and 1999 and 6:00
p.m. in 2000 and 2001.
27. Maduka has been associated with the Obosi Development Association since at least
1999.
a. Maduka has served as President of the Obosi Development Association since
May of 1999.
28. The Obosi Development Association (ODA) is an association of people of Obosi who
live in the United States.
a. Objectives are identified in the Constitution of ODA adopted 05/23/98, as follows:
Provide an avenue for members to express their views in all matters
affecting Obosi and the community where they reside;
Embark on programs within its financial resources for the benefit of
Obosi;
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 7
- Serve as an avenue for the promotion of cultural activities;
- Promote cooperative relationship between its members and members of
the communities in the United States.
b. Membership is open to all indigenes and Nwadianis of Obosi.
c. Members pay annual dues to belong to local associations, or if no local
association exists, to ODA directly.
1. ODA is made up of autonomous associations of Obosi indigenes in the
U.S.
2. ODA is independent of all other organizations.
29. The Obosi Development Association of USA, Inc., P.O. Box 741871, Riverdale, GA
30274, was incorporated with the George [sic] Department of State on 10/10/95.
a. The registered agent is identified as Emeka Onuorah, 537 North Cedar Court,
Riverdale, GA 30274.
b. Corporate officers listed include Uzo Maduka, 186 Meadowlark Place,
Harrisburg, PA 17104.
1. Uzo Maduka and Godfrey Maduka are one in the same.
c. ODA is funded through annual dues, donations and fundraising.
30. The ODA was granted non - profit corporation status under the Georgia Non - Profit
Corporation Act, in 1999.
a. Information on file with Georgia Corporation reflects that ODA is a civic
organization committed to improving the lots of its members, helping one
another and attending to the needs of the less fortunate members of the
society.
b. As a non - profit corporation, ODA does not pay dividends or other corporate
income to its directors or officers or otherwise accrue distributable profits or
permit the realization of private gain.
1. This is stipulated in ODA's amended Articles of Incorporation, filed
10/08/99.
31. Maduka's duties as President of ODA included:
Act as the Chief Executive Officer of Obosi Development Union
Convene and preside over general, executive, emergency and other ODA
meetings;
Present and monitor annual operations budgets
Present an account of stewardship at the annual national convention of ODA-
USA.
32. Maduka became the subject of an investigation conducted by the Office of Inspector
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 8
General regarding allegations that he used Commonwealth telephones and other state
equipment, for non - Commonwealth purposes, in January 2001.
33. The Office of Inspector General reviewed Maduka's long distance telephone usage ...
a. Maduka was assigned telephone number (717) 783 -7088.
34. On June 1, 2001, Maduka was reprimanded by John Wroblewski, his immediate
supervisor at DEP.
a. The reprimand included making restitution of $106.29 for use of the telephones
for personal use.
b. Maduka was also charged with 2.75 hours leave without pay (LWOP) for time
spent using the telephones for personal use.
35. Maduka issued personal check #574 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the
amount of $106.29 on August 21, 2001.
a. Annual leave of 2.75 hours was deducted from his leave balance.
36. Maduka signed the Commonwealth Internet /E -Mail User Agreement on December 8,
2000, which provided guidelines restricting the use of the Internet for personal
purposes.
37. Maduka received e-mail from Godfrey C. Okafor on 09/11/00, consisting of minutes of
an ODA Executive Teleconference meeting held on August 27, 2000.
a. Okafor sent the minutes to Maduka to review for their content.
b. The minutes were seven pages long.
38. Maduka responded to Okafor by e-mail on 09/13/00 indicating that he had reviewed the
minutes and that he made changes and additions which he indicated in bold type,
underlined, or put in brackets.
a. The e-mail to Okafor was sent at 9:28 a.m.
b. The e-mail to Okafor was sent from Maduka's Commonwealth e-mail account.
c. Maduka advised that his slow response to Okafor was due to some priority
reports he had due on 09/12/00.
d. Maduka re- transmitted the same e-mail to Okafor at 9:34 a.m.
1. Maduka had not included the meeting minutes in his first e-mail to
Okafor at 9:28 a.m.
39. On September 29, 2000, Maduka forwarded a three page e-mail from himself to his
personal e-mail address.
a. The subject of the e-mail was "Presidential Dialogue."
b. The e-mail generated by Maduka contained information on the visit of President
Olusegun Obasanjo to Atlanta, Georgia in September 2000.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 9
c. Information relating to the conferences including registration; lodging;
transportation and dialogue topics was included.
B. Testimony
40. Robert Caruso is the Deputy Executive Director and Director of Investigations of the
State Ethics Commission (SEC).
a. A preliminary inquiry was begun on motion of the Executive Director based
upon a request that was received from the Office of Inspector General.
(1) The preliminary inquiry was authorized on June 6, 2001.
b. The Executive Director authorized a full investigation on July 31, 2001.
c. Maduka was notified by certified mail on July 31, 2001, that he was under
investigation by the State Ethics Commission.
(1) Maduka, through his counsel, was notified of additional allegations by a
second letter of March 25, 2002.
(2) Another additional notice of investigation was sent to Maduka's counsel
by letter dated July 19, 2002.
d. The Investigative Division received on November 15, 2002, a 90 -day extension
based upon its request.
(1) A second 90 -day extension was granted on March 21, 2002, to the
Investigative Division.
e. 90 -day extensions were requested by the Investigative Division due in part to
the loss of an investigator.
f. The Investigative Complaint was issued on July 25, 2002.
41. John Wroblewski is the Chief in the Technology Section in the Division of Drinking
Water Management in the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP).
a. As a supervisor, Wroblewski reviews /approves leave requests by DEP
employees who work under his supervision.
(1) Maduka would have to get leave approved from Wroblewski.
b. Supplementary employment is employment outside of DEP which requires prior
approval.
(1) Wroblewski was unaware of any supplementary employment by
Maduka.
c. An investigation of Maduka resulted in his paying back telephone usage and
leave time.
(1) Some telephone calls made by Maduka were not official Commonwealth
calls.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 10
(2) As to calls that Maduka disputed, Wroblewski gave Maduka credit for
such calls.
d. Wroblewski had no knowledge of Maduka's involvement with Obosi
Development Association ( Obosi).
e. Wroblewski became aware of Maduka's ownership of MAKA World Travel as a
result of the investigation by the Inspector General.
f. Wroblewski has been Maduka's supervisor for approximately 14 years.
(1) In the last five years, Wroblewski's cubicle has been within 20 feet of
Maduka's work area.
42. George Frill is the administrator of the Lebanon facility of Manor Care Health Services
(Manor Care).
a. Maduka is an occasional employee of Manor Care who works as a Certified
Nurse Assistant (CNA).
(1) The Manor Care facility must be staffed by CNA's 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
b. Maduka as a flex employee had to work a specified number of hours and
alternating weekends.
c. Maduka had to punch in and out on a time clock when working at Manor Care.
43. Renhea E. Moseley is the manager of the Employee Relations and Safety Division,
Department of Human Resources in DEP.
a. One of the functions of her office is to remind those covered individuals of the
SFI filing requirement.
b. Moseley's Division also reviews or approves requests for supplemental
employment by DEP personnel.
(1) The Governor's Code of Conduct requires employees who seek to have
activities outside of Commonwealth employment to file supplementary
employment requests.
(2) Employees should fill out supplemental employment requests for even
voluntary activities, if there is a perception of conflict.
c. Maduka filed a request for supplementary employment as to MAKA World
Travel.
(1) Maduka received approval in February of 1995.
d. When Maduka was asked for an update as to supplemental employment, he
responded in November of 2000 that he was still working for MAKA World
Travel.
e. Maduka included Manor Care as a source of income on his 2000 and 2001
calendar years SFI's.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 11
f. DEP crosschecks SFI's with requests for supplemental employment of its
employees.
g. Maduka never challenged the requirement that he had to file SFI's.
h. Maduka did not submit a request for supplemental employment as to Manor
Care until a few years after he began working there.
44. Mark Schmelz is an employer relations specialist with DEP.
a. Schmelz's duties and responsibilities include working with management level
employees on service hearings, investigating EEOC complaints, and EPHRC
complaints, consulting with managers as to disciplinary actions against
employees, and overseeing information technology (IT) investigations.
b. Schmelz was involved in an IT investigation as to Maduka.
c. Telephone records as to Maduka's usage at DEP were obtained from DEP's
Bureau of Office Systems and from the Office of Inspector General.
d. A Commonwealth employee's usage of Commonwealth equipment for
nongovernmental purposes would be more problematic if it were for private
business purposes.
45. Richard Musko is a Special Investigator III in the Office of Inspector General.
a. Musko was involved in the investigation by the Office of Inspector General as to
Maduka.
b. A list of telephone numbers that Maduka called on the Commonwealth
telephone were received from General Services.
(1) Musko and other investigators called the numbers to determine whether
the calls were Commonwealth related.
(a) Maduka was contacted and asked about phone calls which were
believed to be personal or business.
1. As to calls made to a travel agency, Maduka stated that
the calls did not relate to his business but a personal trip
for himself.
c. In a first interview, Maduka only identified MAKA as outside part -time
employment.
(1) In another interview after a second complaint was received against
Maduka with a photocopy of literature about Obosi in the Commonwealth
photocopier, Maduka admitted he was president of the non - profit
organization.
(2) When questioned as to supplemental employment, Maduka stated that
his only employment was with MAKA.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 12
(a) When confronted with statements from Manor Care, Maduka
then admitted that he did work there part -time and did not submit
a request for supplemental employment as to Manor Care.
d. Maduka may have asked for his telephone call list but the policy is not to
provide it to the employee.
e. Following the investigation as to the phone calls Maduka placed on the
Commonwealth telephone, a chart was prepared (ID49) which details
information of such calls.
f. As to the calls Maduka made on the Commonwealth telephone, Musko and four
or five other investigators called the numbers to obtain details as to why
Maduka made the calls.
g.
Commonwealth employees are allowed reasonable personal use of
Commonwealth telephones for local calls provided it does not interfere with their
work.
46. Mary Albert is a special investigator with the State Ethics Commission.
a. As to the Maduka investigation, attendance records were obtained to compare
work times at DEP and Manor Care.
(1) There were instances where Maduka took sick leave right before or after
he worked at Manor Care.
(2) In one instance, Maduka took a partial sick day, returned to DEP for
work, and then worked that evening at Manor Care.
(3) There is no evidence that Maduka worked at Manor Care while on sick
leave for the Commonwealth.
(4) In another instance, Maduka worked many hours at Manor Care on a
Saturday and Sunday and reported to work at DEP on Monday.
b. Telephone calls made by Maduka on the DEP telephones were reviewed as to
Georgia and Texas relative to Obosi which is located in Atlanta and individuals
associated with Obosi in Texas.
47. Maduka has been an employee of DEP for over 14 years.
a. Obosi's purpose is to raise money to assist children of the Obosi region in
Nigeria.
(1) There is an IRS exemption number for Obosi as a charitable
organization.
(2) In 1999, Maduka was elected president of Obosi.
(3) Obosi membership includes family and friends.
b. MAKA World Travel is owned and run solely by Maduka.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 13
(1) Since Maduka /MAKA does not have "ARC" membership, Maduka
cannot issue travel tickets which are purchased through a wholesaler,
Skylink Travel.
c. Maduka is a CNA, working at Manor Care.
d. Maduka states that he never took false sick time, days, or hours, on a theory
that he was too tired to go to work at DEP.
(1) Maduka testified that he never left DEP early to go to work at Manor
Care.
e. Maduka states that he did not list Manor Care on his SFI because it was
unrelated to his state job.
f. Maduka admits making long distance personal calls using DEP telephones to
friends.
g.
(1) Because Maduka's friends live outside the Harrisburg area, the
telephone calls were long distance to which toll charges applied.
(2) Maduka asserts that over 40 calls, which were listed as personal calls,
were in fact for official Commonwealth business.
Four telephone calls were made by Maduka to the Sheraton Hotel in Atlanta.
(1) These calls were treated as four personal calls by Maduka.
(2) Maduka made these calls for a Commonwealth meeting as to a water
treatment conference.
h. Maduka made approximately $4,758 at MAKA in 1998, $6,279 in 1999, and
$6,181 in 2000; and $6,737 at Manor Care in 1998, $6,617 in 1999, $8,821 in
2000, and $11,671 in 2001.
The Inspector General's Office gave Maduka an opportunity to review his call
list using the DEP telephone but not to take the list home.
(1) Maduka was not able to identify all of the telephone calls at the time.
C. Documents
48. ID1 consists of photocopies of a referral by the Office of General Counsel to the SEC
concerning Godfrey C. Maduka and the Investigative Report by the Office of Inspector
General.
49. ID2 is a memo of the Executive Director of the SEC dated 6/2/01 authorizing the
initiation of a preliminary inquiry as to Maduka.
50. ID3 is a memo of the Executive Director of the SEC dated 7/31/01 authorizing the
initiation of a full investigation as to Maduka.
51. 1 D4 consists in part of photocopies of notices to Maduka dated 7/31/01, a modification
of notice dated 3/25/02 and another modification of notice dated 7/19/02.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 14
52. ID5 consists of photocopies of two ninety -day extensions by the Investigative Division
dated 10/9/01 and 3/14/02 and two orders of the SEC dated 11/15/01 and 3/21/02,
approving the extensions.
53. I D7 consists of photocopies of 90 -day status letters as to the investigation of Maduka.
54. The Investigative Division complied with the statutory time requirements of the Ethics
Act as to completion of the preliminary inquiry, investigation, notices, and issuance of
the Investigative Complaint.
55. ID8 consists in part of photocopies of files from Manor Care Health Services as to
Maduka.
a. ID8, p9, reflects that Maduka is a flextime employee who works hours beyond
the job requirements.
56. ID9 consists of photocopies of Maduka's record of absence from DEP for the period
from 1/1/98 to 7/12/02.
a. There are whole or partial day absences, as sick or sick family leave, taken by
Maduka on the same days, prior days, or subsequent days when he worked at
Manor Care.
(1) Leave records crosschecked with Maduka's leave records at Manor
Care do not reflect any instance where Maduka was on sick leave while
simultaneously working at Manor Care. See, Fact Finding 46.a.(3).
57. ID10 consists of photocopies of an employment application with Manor Care by
Maduka and letter of Manor Care dated 2/25/98 confirming his hiring.
a. In Maduka's application, he indicated that he did not want the Commonwealth
contacted regarding his employment application with Manor Care.
b. Maduka's employment with Manor Care began on 4/4/98.
58. ID13 -16 consists of photocopies of W -2's and logs of hours worked by Maduka at
Manor Care, between 1998 and 2001.
a. Maduka's gross income from Manor Care was $6,736.91 in 1998, $6,617.26 in
1999, $8,820.54 in 2000, and $11,671.44 in 2001.
b. The work hours log for Maduka at Manor Care crosschecked with Maduka's
leave records at DEP reflect no instance of Maduka simultaneously working at
Manor Care while on sick leave with DEP. See, Fact Finding 46.a.(3).
59. ID26 is a photocopy of a job description of Maduka.
a. Maduka performs in part the following functions: updates and revises technical
design standards; develops procedures, guidelines and forms for processing
applications and issuing permits; provides technical guidance and assistance;
develops a technical report to analyze water treatment plant wastewater
recycling practices; develops standards for the design and operation of filtration
units; drafts certain amendments and design standards to the Public Water
Supply Manual; reviews public water supply permit applications; prepares a
technical engineering report and makes recommendations on the issuance or
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 15
denial of a permit; and reviews proposed changes in certain regulations, notice
and permit procedures.
60. ID27 is a photocopy of a classification specification for the position of a sanitary
engineer 3.
a. The position is defined as "advanced professional or minor supervisory in
sanitary engineering."
(1) The employee reviews complex applications, independently selects and
interprets applicable guidelines and makes technical decisions.
(2) The employee assists higher level sanitary engineers and prepares
complex technical engineering reports on permit applications.
The employee advises the general public, engineers and public officials
as to the promotion of public health and water pollution control.
(4) The employee inspects complex projects during and after construction to
assure adherence to plans and specifications.
(3)
61. ID28 is a photocopy of a letter of Manor Care dated 7/18/02 identifying Maduka as a
flex employee required to work a minimum of 16 scheduled hours per month.
62. I D29 consists of photocopies, inter alia, of a memo of John Wroblewski dated 5/17/01,
with attachment, reflecting action of DEP in applying certain times as Leave Without
Pay as to Maduka.
a. The above relates to the usage by Maduka of the DEP telephone for
personal /business purposes during Commonwealth work hours.
63. ID31 consists of photocopies of a memo of John Wroblewski dated 6/7/01 with
attachments reflecting payment by Maduka of $106.29 as to reimbursement to the
Commonwealth for (non - governmental) use of DEP telephones.
64. ID35 consists of photocopies of toll calls made by Maduka on his Commonwealth
telephone for the period 1/01 through 3/02.
a. The toll call log provides the number called, the time of the call, the duration of
the call and the charge for the call.
(1) As to some calls, the destination of the call as to city and state is also
delineated.
b. The total cost for the delineated calls was $7.81.
65. ID37 is a photocopy of the Constitution of the Obosi Development Association, Inc.
( Obosi):
a. The objectives of Obosi are as follows:
ARTICLE I. OBJECTIVES
Section 1: Promote unity and progress among the people of Obosi
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 16
Section 2: Provide an avenue for ODA members to express their
views in all matters affecting Obosi and the community
where they reside.
Section 3: Embark on programs within its financial resources for the
benefit of Obosi.
Section 4: Serve as an avenue for the promotion of cultural activities.
Section 5: Promote cooperative relationship between its members and
members of other communities in the United States.
b. The amended Articles of Incorporation provides that Obosi is a non - profit
(domestic) corporation.
66. ID38 is a photocopy of the State of Georgia website for its Department of State:
a. Maduka is the CEO of Obosi.
67. ID40 through ID -43 consists of photocopies of the tax returns for Maduka and his
spouse for the calendar years 1997 -2000.
a. MAKA Travel had gross sales receipts of $2,855 in 1997, $4,870 in 1998,
$6,723 in 1999, and $6,315 in 2000.
68. ID44 consists of photocopies in part of bank records of MAKA Travel.
a. MAKA is a sole propriety business of Maduka d /b /a MAKA World Travel.
69. ID45 is a photocopy of a memo from John Wroblewski to Mark Schmelz dated 6/1/01
concerning Maduka.
a. Maduka received an oral reprimand for the misuse of Commonwealth property
in making non -work related long distance telephone calls.
(1) Maduka was required to reimburse the Commonwealth $106.29 for the
cost of the long distance personal calls.
(2) Maduka was required to reimburse the Commonwealth for work time
used in making the long distance personal calls.
(a) Maduka was charged 2 hours and 43 minutes as leave without
pay.
70. ID46 consists in part of photocopies of Statement of Financial Interests (SFI's) and
Governor's Code of Conduct forms completed and filed by Maduka for the calendar
years 1998 -2001.
a. For the 1998 and 1999 calendar year SFI's, Maduka listed MAKA World Travel
and DEP as sources of income and MAKA World Travel as a financial interest
in any legal entity in business for profit and office, directorship or employment in
any business.
(1) Maduka did not list Manor care as a source of income
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 17
(2) Maduka did not list Obosi under office, directorship, or employment in
any business.
b. For the 2000 and 2001 calendar year SFI's, Maduka listed MAKA World Travel
and Manor Care as sources of income and as office, directorship or
employment in any business and MAKA World Travel as a financial interest in
any legal entity in business for profit.
(1)
(2)
Maduka did not list DEP as a source of income.
Maduka did not list Obosi as an office, directorship or employment in any
business.
71. ID47 consists of photocopies of a Supplementary Employment Request for Maduka
dated 2/3/95 for MAKA World Travel with accompanying approvals by the Department
of Environmental Resources, now DEP.
a. The request was granted subject to the following provisions:
"This approval is granted on the condition that the supplementary
employment does not interfere with regular work hours or job
performance or violate the provisions of the Governor's Code of Conduct
and subject to the following restriction.
Solicitations for work in connection with the employe's supplementary
employment cannot be made during working hours or at Commonwealth
facilities."
72. ID48 is a photocopy of a response by Maduka to a status request by DEP as to
supplementary employment of 11/7/00.
a. The request seeks the status of Maduka's current supplementary employment.
b. The request inquires as to any employment that has not been approved: "If you
are engaged in supplementary that is not represented by an approved SER,
please complete an SER at your earliest opportunity."
c. Maduka responded to the status request as follows: "I am currently working in
this business as approved."
73. I D49 consists of photocopies of logs of certain telephone calls made by Maduka using
a Commonwealth telephone:
a. The log was prepared by the Office of Inspector General.
b. Some of the telephone calls on the chart were personal calls by Maduka.
c. The log delineates calls made by Maduka in the timeframe of 4/00 to 12/00.
d. The log provides no indication as to the specific nature or content of telephone
conversations.
e. Some of the telephone calls were made to travel agencies and the following
individuals associated with Obosi:
Travel Agencies Dates
Length of Call
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 18
Up & Away Travel 04/03/2000 1 minute
07/20/2000 2 minutes
09/06/2000 6 minutes
Worldwide Travel 12/08/2000 4 minutes
Individuals
Anthony Obiajulu 04/24/2000 23 minutes
06/22/2000 9 minutes
07/13/2000 15 minutes
08/03/2000 33 minutes
Shedrack lkwueme 11/02/2000 6 minutes
Freedom lkedionwu 08/08/2000 20 minutes
Morris Efobi 05/22/2000 3 minutes
05/23/2000 1 minute
06/07/2000 19 minutes
Emeka Onuorah 10/02/2000 1 minute
04/19/2000 1 minute
05/31/2000 15 minutes
06/12/2000 38 minutes
07/06/2000 20 minutes
07/14/2000 4 minutes
08/01/2000 1 minute
08/10/2000 39 minutes
74. ID50 is a photocopy of Management Directive 515.18 (amended) of the Governor's
Office issued on 7/7/98.
a. The policy provides in part:
"a. All full -time employes who work for compensation or
remuneration in any capacity outside of their Commonwealth
employment ...
b. Approval for supplementary employment must be obtained
prior to accepting such employment for current employes and prior to
employment with the Commonwealth of prospective employes.
c. Supplementary employment is considered secondary to
Commonwealth employment and any conflicts arising out of
supplementary employment will be resolved in favor of the
Commonwealth."
75. R9 consists of photocopies of certain request leave slips submitted by Maduka for the
time period 3/00 to 9/01.
a. The leave relates to sick or sick family leave for partial or full 7.5 days.
76. R16 is a photocopy of a list prepared by Maduka, listing 41 long distance telephone
calls made by him using DEP telephones, which calls he asserts were classified as
personal calls when the calls were pursuant to Commonwealth official business.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 19
III. DISCUSSION:
At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Godfrey Maduka, hereinafter
Maduka, has been a 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 se as codified by
the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65Pa.C.S. § 1101
et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act."
The allegations are that Maduka, as a Sanitary Engineer III, in the Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP), violated Sections 3(a)/1103(a) and 5(b)(5)/1105(b)(5) of the
Ethics Act when he: used Commonwealth facilities, including telephones for personal /private
business long distance telephone calls rather than for official DEP business; failed to disclose
on Statements of Financial Interests (SFI's) income received from Manor Care Health
Services where he is employed as a nursing assistant; and utilized sick leave from his
employment at DEP during times he was working at Manor Care.
Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act quoted above, a public official/
public employee is prohibited 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, ora
business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 5(b )/1105(b) of the Ethics Act requires that every public official /public
employee and candidate list the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income
totaling in the aggregate of $1,000/$1,300 or more.
Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts.
Maduka has been employed by DEP since 1988. Although DEP initially hired Maduka
as a Sanitary Engineer I, he currently holds the position of a Sanitary Engineer III. Maduka's
main job responsibilities involve oversight of the out -of -state bottled water program including
issuing permits to vendors seeking to sell bottled water within the Commonwealth. In a private
capacity, Maduka has various outside business interests. First, Maduka owns and operates
MAKA World Travel (MAKA), a business in which he books travel for clients. Second,
Maduka is the President of the Obosi Development Association (Obosi), a non - profit domestic
corporation chartered in Georgia, which provides aide to the residents of the Obosi Region of
Nigeria. Third, Maduka works as a part -time employee of Manor Care which provides various
types of nursing services to assisted care /convalescent residents.
DEP has a policy that requires its employees to seek and obtain approval for any
supplementary private employment. Maduka submitted a supplementary employment request
for MAKA which was approved by DEP in February of 1995 with the proviso that the outside
employment could not interfere with his DEP job performance and no solicitations could be
made during the Commonwealth working hours or at the Commonwealth facilities. For the
relevant time period, Maduka did not submit a request for supplementary employment as to
either Obosi or Manor Care.
After the Office of Inspector General received allegations that Maduka was using
Commonwealth equipment and facilities for personal /private business purposes, an
investigation was commenced in January of 2001. As to the allegations before us, there is the
charge as to the use of DEP facilities and telephones for personal /business purposes as well
as two additional charges: the usage by Maduka of Commonwealth sick time relative to his
work times at Manor Care; and Maduka's failure to disclose income from Manor Care on his
SFI's.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 20
As to the matter of the usage by Maduka of the DEP telephones for personal /business
purposes, the policy of DEP for telephone usage is for official Commonwealth business. No
private business calls are allowed. A reasonable amount of personal telephone calls are
permitted if they are not long distance and if there is no interference with Commonwealth work
activity.
MAKA is a travel booking business which is solely owned and operated by Maduka out
of his home. As noted, Maduka obtained approval for supplementary employment as to
MAKA and also reported his financial interests in that business on his SFI's. The Inspector
General's Office reviewed whether Maduka utilized DEP office and telephones in furtherance
of his business, MAKA. The Inspector General obtained logs as to long distance calls that
Maduka made for the relevant time period which logs reflect the date, time, duration, and
telephone numbers called by Maduka during Commonwealth working hours. A review of the
telephone logs for the relevant time periods reflect that Maduka made calls to some travel
agencies. However, Maduka testified that he did not use Commonwealth telephones in
furtherance of MAKA and that he performed all such work at his home using his own
telephone. Maduka further testified that any calls made on the DEP telephone to travel
agencies were in furtherance of his own personal travel arrangements. Lastly, Maduka
testified that since he could not purchase tickets for MAKA clients, he had to do that through a
travel agency and used Skylink for that purpose. Skylink is not listed on the telephone log that
was prepared by the Inspector Generals Office as to Maduka's long distance calls.
Maduka also has a connection with Obosi in that he has been Chief Executive
Office /President of that entity since 1999. Maduka's conduct was reviewed as to Obosi
relative to his usage of DEP telephones for personal /business purposes. A review of the
telephone logs as to Maduka's calls reflects that certain calls were made by Maduka to
officers /persons involved with Obosi throughout the United States. There is no indication of
record as to whether such calls to these individuals were for Obosi business, social purposes
or some other reason. However, as noted, DEP telephone usage policy does not allow for
either long distance personal calls or business calls.
Several investigators in the Inspector General's Office took the telephone logs of
Maduka's DEP telephone usage and called the numbers to discern whether the calls were for
official Commonwealth purposes. After all the telephone numbers were called and inquiries
were made, a determination was made and the calls were grouped as Commonwealth official
business, personal /business, or uncertain. The Inspector General's Office during an interview
with Maduka showed him the list of the telephone usage and asked for his commentary.
However, Maduka was not permitted to take the telephone logs home for study or review.
Following completion of the investigation by the Inspector General, DEP directed Maduka to
pay $106.29 as reimbursement for the long distance calls and debited some time from
Maduka's Commonwealth leave for the time spent in making such calls.
After the Investigative Division supplied Maduka with the documents that would be
used at hearing, Maduka reviewed the telephone logs which were part of those documents
and prepared a list of approximately 40 calls which he asserts were listed as
personal /business but were in fact for official Commonwealth business. Maduka testified
about several telephone calls he made to the Sheraton Inn in Atlanta, Georgia, which were
listed as business /personal but were in fact related to Commonwealth official business
concerning a water treatment conference.
Regarding Maduka's part -time employment with Manor Care, he was hired in April of
1998 after he completed a nurse's aide training course. Maduka worked part -time at Manor
Care during evenings and weekends. As noted, Maduka did not submit a request for
supplementary employment for his employment at Manor Care. Maduka finally submitted
such a request in February 2001 after being questioned by the Inspector General's Office
concerning his employment at Manor Care. Maduka did not list Manor Care as a source of
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 21
income, even though he received compensation in excess of the reporting threshold, for the
calendar years 1998 and 1999. Maduka listed Manor Care as a source of income for the SFI
calendar years 2000 and 2001.
During the investigation, records were obtained both as to Maduka's sick leave from the
Commonwealth as well as his work times at Manor Care. A crosscheck of those times did not
reflect any instance where Maduka was on sick leave with the Commonwealth and at work at
Manor Care at the same time. See, Fact Finding 46.a.(3). However, a comparison of both
sets of records reflects several instances where Maduka took partial or full day sick leave
either before or after working at Manor Care. However, in one instance Maduka worked many
hours at Manor Care on a weekend and then reported to work at DEP on Monday without the
utilization of sick leave.
Maduka in filing his SFI's did not list Obosi as a financial interest under the category of
office, directorship or employment in any business entity. Although Maduka listed DEP as a
source of income for the calendar years 1998 and 1999, he did not do so for the SFI calendar
years 2000 and 2001. As noted, Maduka did not list Manor Care as a source of income in his
SFI's for calendar years 1998 and 1999 but did so for calendar years 2000 and 2001.
The Investigative Division raises the following arguments in its brief: Maduka meets
the Ethics Act definition of a public employee required to file SFI's; Maduka failed to list Manor
Care as a source of income for calendar years SFI's 1998 and 1999 when his income
exceeded the reporting threshold; Maduka acted intentionally as to the non - disclosure of
Manor Care as a source of income, given his failure to comply with DEP's process as to
supplemental employment which could have resulted in disciplinary action against him;
Maduka's intentional action in concealing financial interests warrants a referral with a
recommendation for criminal prosecution; Maduka violated the conflict of interest provision by
using DEP facilities, including telephones, for personal /private business purposes; Maduka
made a significant number of long distance telephone calls on DEP telephones related to
Obosi; Maduka lost 2.75 hours of leave at DEP for such telephone calls with no payback for
an additional 17 hours of work time spent on DEP telephones for personal/business purposes;
Maduka used sick leave on the same, prior, or following days that he worked at Manor Care;
the Investigative Division complied with all time limitations and notice requirements imposed by
the Ethics Act; and the Commission should impose a payback plus treble penalty against
Maduka in the total amount of $7,870.92 ($1,967.73 + $5,903.19).
Maduka has chosen not to file a brief, and relies on a closing statement made at the
conclusion of the hearing. Maduka raises the following arguments in his closing statement: he
is not a public employee required to file an SFI, based upon his actual job performance; the
implication of the Investigative Division that Maduka's sick leave at DEP around the time he
was working at Manor Care was for sleeping, is not a violation of the Ethics Act because
Maduka never worked at Manor Care at the same time he was on DEP sick leave; DEP's
review of Maduka's telephone calls was in -depth and was thought to have concluded the
matter; there is no evidence that Maduka used DEP telephones to make calls related to his
business, MAKA; Obosi is not a business but a non - profit charitable organization; the matter
of the personal telephone calls and failure to list financial interests on his SFI's are de minimis;
and as to Obosi, telephone calls were made in part to friends and relatives as personal calls.
Prior to addressing the allegations in this case, it is necessary for us to review
Maduka's status under the Ethics Act since he is challenging that he is a 'public employee."
Since January of 1992, Maduka has been employed as a Sanitary Engineer III in DEP.
Maduka's duties and responsibilities as per his job description are delineated in part in Fact
Finding 59.(a). The classification specification for that position appears in Fact Findings
60.(a).
Under the Ethics Act, the term "public employee" is defined as follows:
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 22
§ 211102. Definitions
"Public employee." Any individual employed by the
Commonwealth or a political subdivision who is responsible for
taking or recommending official action of a nonministerial nature
with regard to:
(1) contracting or procurement;
(2) administering or monitoring grants or subsidies;
(3) planning or zoning;
(4) inspecting, licensing, regulating or auditing any
person; or
(5) any other activity where the official action has an
economic impact of greater than a de minimis nature on
the interests of any person.
The term shall not include individuals who are employed by this
Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof in teaching as
distinguished from administrative duties.
65 P.S. §402/65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Status as a "public employee" subject to the Ethics Act is determined by applying the
above definition and criteria to the position held. The focus is necessarily upon the position
itself, and not upon the individual incumbent in the position, the variable functions of the
position, or the manner in which a particular individual occupying the position may carry out
those functions. See, Phillips v. State Ethics Commission, 470 A.2d 659 Pa. Commw. Ct.
1984); and Mummau v. Ranck, 531 Fed. Supp. 402 (E.D. Pa. 1982). Furthermore, the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has directed that coverage under the Ethics Act be
construed broadly and that exclusions under the Ethics Act be construed narrowly. See,
Phillips, supra.
Maduka's duties and responsibilities fall within the criteria of subparagraph 4 and 5 of
the definition of public employee as well as the Regulations of this Commission. See, 51
Pa.Code §11.1. Maduka is a public employee subject to the provisions of the Ethics Act and
the SFI filing requirements.
Having concluded that Maduka is a public employee under the Ethics Act, we shall now
address the three allegations in this case which concern the utilization of sick leave by
Maduka while being a part -time employee at Manor Care, the use by Maduka of DEP
telephones for personal /private business calls, and the failure to list Manor Care as a source
of income on Maduka's SFI's. These issues will be addressed seriatim.
In applying the above facts to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, the Investigative
Division must establish "by clear and convincing proof" (65 Pa.C.S. §1108(g) ) that Maduka
has violated the Ethics Act. The phrase "clear and convincing evidence" has been judicially
defined: "Clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and
convincing as to enable the trier of fact come to a clear conviction without hesitancy of the
truth of the precise facts in issue." See, Matter of Chiovero, 524 Pa. 181, 187, 570 A.2d 57
(1990).
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 23
In order to sustain a violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) regarding the utilization of sick
leave, it is necessary to establish by clear and convincing proof that Maduka used the
authority of office to obtain a private pecuniary benefit for himself through the use of
Commonwealth sick leave. There was a use of authority of office on the part of Maduka as to
the sick leave. But for the fact that Maduka was a DEP employee, he would not be in a
position to take sick leave for those partial or full days that are in issue. The question now
becomes whether Maduka used those sick leave hours or days for a private pecuniary benefit.
If Maduka took sick leave while simultaneously working at Manor Care, clearly such actions
would be unauthorized, and a private pecuniary benefit. See, Holt, Orders 1153 and 1153 -R,
affirmed Memorandum Opinion of Commonwealth Court filed at No. 1582 C.D on 3/30/01.
See also, Williams, Order 734.
However, this is not a case where Maduka was working at Manor Care while on
Commonwealth sick leave. See, Fact Finding 46.a.(3). The Investigative Division argues a
violation on a theory that when Maduka had certain work shift(s) at Manor Care, he utilized
sick leave when he was not sick, given that the sick leave was either before or after the work
shifts at Manor Care. Maduka argues that the sick leave taken was for illness or medical
appointments. Maduka further notes that there was one instance when he worked many
hours during the weekend at Manor Care and then reported on the following Monday for a full
day of work at DEP.
In applying Section 3(a)/1103(a) to this particular allegation, the record does not
establish any instance where Maduka worked at Manor Care at the same time he took sick
leave at DEP. Fact Finding 46.a.(3). Further, a review of the record does not show a pattern
whereby Maduka was taking partial or full day sick leave either before or after working at
Manor Care for a purpose other than illness or a medical appointment. Therefore, based upon
the above facts, we do not find that there is clear and convincing proof that Maduka utilized
Commonwealth sick leave for a private pecuniary benefit. Although the legal theory proffered
by the Investigative Division may be sound in theory, we need not address it, given that there
is not a basis factually to support the underlying premise that there was an improper use of
sick leave, that is, the use of sick leave taken at DEP in relation to certain hours worked at
Manor Care. Accordingly, Maduka did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when
he took hours or days of sick leave at the DEP before or after, but not during, the times he
worked at Manor Care.
Turning to the matter of Maduka's use of the DEP telephones for personal /private
business purposes, the policy for telephone usage at DEP is that Commonwealth telephones
may not be used for business purposes or for long distance personal calls. A reasonable
amount of local personal calls is permitted provided they do not interfere with the employee's
job performance. The record reflects that the Inspector General's Office obtained a printout of
Maduka's long distance calls during the relevant time period and requested Maduka to
delineate those long distance calls which were official Commonwealth business and those
which were not. Although Maduka requested a copy of the list to take home for review, that
request was denied. Maduka then attempted to delineate those calls which he could
remember were for Commonwealth business. DEP charged Maduka $106.49 for the
telephone calls which were considered personal /private business. Although Maduka asserts
that some of the "personal /business" calls for which he was charged were for Commonwealth
business, he nevertheless paid the $106.49. Prior to hearing, Maduka received a copy of the
telephone logs and subsequently reviewed them and proffered that other calls, approximately
40 in number, which were attributed as personal /business were for Commonwealth business.
Maduka has established that some of the calls were indeed for Commonwealth business calls
as, for example, the calls to the Sheraton Inn in Atlanta, Georgia for the conference on water
treatment.
As to the personal long distance calls, we find a violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the
Ethics Act. Maduka has admitted that there are some long distance calls which were personal
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 24
in nature. DEP's policy is that neither long distance personal calls nor private business calls
are permitted. Hence, Maduka's use of the DEP telephones for long distance personal calls
was not authorized. Maduka received a private pecuniary benefit in making such calls in that
he had no out -of- pocket expenses in making those calls on the DEP telephone. In this regard,
Maduka testified that such calls would have generated long distance charges. Maduka
consequently used the DEP telephones to make such long distance calls. Accordingly,
Maduka violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) when he utilized the DEP telephones during
Commonwealth working time to make long distance personal calls.
The Investigative Division seeks a payment by Maduka in the amount of $475.54
C (exclusive of $1,492.19 sought as to sick leave usage) as to his utilization of his
ommonwealth work time and DEP telephone to make such long distance calls. We are not
inclined to order such payback. It is a fact, as admitted by Maduka, that he made personal
long distance telephone calls on DEP telephones. However, questions remain as to whether
some of the calls attributed as long distance personal /private business calls by Maduka were
in fact Commonwealth related. We recognize that it was difficult in an investigative interview to
recollect the circumstances of a long list of telephone calls that Maduka saw for the first time,
especially when such calls were made months earlier. And, as has been demonstrated in this
case, what may appear at first instance to be personal /private business calls may in fact be
official Commonwealth calls as was the case with the calls to Atlanta, Georgia involving the
water treatment conference.
In our review of the record, we find that there is not clear and convincing proof that all
of the telephone calls that are still claimed to be non - Commonwealth related were in fact long
distance business /personal calls. Further, we note that DEP has charged Maduka for such
calls as well as Commonwealth leave while making those calls. Based upon the above
reasons and circumstances in this case, we will not impose any additional payback.
As to the third allegation concerning the SFI's, Maduka failed to list Manor Care as a
source of income for calendar years 1998 and 1999. Maduka is a part -time employee of
Manor Care. The record reflects that Maduka for the relevant time period received income in
excess of the reporting threshold for the calendar years 1998 and 1999. Maduka
nevertheless failed to list Manor Care as a source of income. Hence, Maduka violated
Section 5(b)/1105(b) of the Ethics Act when he failed to list Manor Care as a source of income
for his 1998 and 1999 calendar year SFI's.
As to Obosi, Maduka failed to disclose that entity on his SFI's. Even though the
corporation has a charitable status under the Internal Revenue Code, it is a business as
defined under the Ethics Act:
Section 211102. Definitions
"Business." Any corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, firm, enterprise, franchise, association,
organization, self - employed individual, holding company, joint
stock company, receivership, trust or any legal entity organized
for profit.
65 P.S. §402/65 Pa.C.S. §1102.
First, the definition of the term "business" as set forth in the Ethics Act is very broad.
Novak, Opinion No. 91 -009. As a corporation, Obosi is clearly within that definition. Moreover,
the fact that Obosi is a non - profit corporation would not disqualify it as a "business." The word
"or" toward the end of the definition of "business" is disjunctive, and the repeated use of the
word "any" precludes any interpretation that the final phrase "legal entity organized for profit"
modifies the initial word "corporation ": "Any corporation, ... or any legal entity organized for
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 25
profit." The clear and unambiguous statutory language is that any corporation, including a
non - profit corporation, is a "business." Soltis - Sparano, Order No. 1045 at 31 (Citing,
Confidential Opinion, No. 89 -007; McConahy, Opinion No. 96 -006). Obosi isa "business "as
that term is detined in the Ethics Act.
Obosi is clearly a business in which Maduka is Chief Executive Officer /President. The
term "business with which he is associated" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
Section 211102. Definitions
"Business with which he is associated." Any
business in which the person or a member of the person's
immediate family is a director, officer, owner, employee or has a
financial interest.
65 P.S. §401/65 Pa.C.S. §1102
Thus, Obosi is a business with which Maduka is associated as that term is defined under the
Ethics Act. Accordingly, Maduka should have listed Obosi as a business in which he is an
officer, director, or employee in a business entity on his SFI's for 1998 -2001 but failed to do
so.
In addition, Maduka listed DEP as a source of income for the calendar years 1998 and
1999 but then failed to list DEP as a source of income for the calendar years 2000 and 2001.
Although we find no violation as to the failure to list DEP and Obosi on his SFI's, in that they
are not part of the allegations, we shall direct Maduka to file amended SFI's listing such
financial interests.
Although the Investigative Division requests that we refer this matter with a specific
recommendation for a criminal prosecution against Maduka, we do not find that such action is
warranted in this case. However, Maduka is directed within 30 -days of the date of mailing of
this order to file amended SFI's for the calendar years 1998 -2001 as to the deficiencies noted
above, listing Obosi, Manor Care and DEP under the appropriate categories of financial
interests on his SFI's. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with
no further action by this Commission. Non - Compliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action against Maduka.
Lastly, Maduka is reminded that as a current employee of DEP of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, he must comport his conduct generally to ensure that he follows both the
letter and spirit of the Ethics Act, and specifically as to the utilization of DEP facilities and
equipment for official Commonwealth business and as to properly completing and filing SFI's.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. Maduka, as a Sanitary Engineer III, Division of Drinking Water Management for the
Department of Environmental Protection, isa public employee subject to the provisions
of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998.
2. Maduka did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he took hours or
days of sick leave at DEP before or after, but not during, the times he was working
part -time at Manor Care.
3. Maduka violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) when he utilized the DEP telephones during
Commonwealth work time to make long distance personal calls.
Maduka 01- 043 -C2
Page 26
4. Maduka violated Section 5/1105 of the Ethics Act when he failed to list Manor Care as
a source of income for his 1998 and 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial
Interests.
In Re: Godfrey C. Maduka
ORDER NO. 1277
File Docket: 01- 043 -C2
Date Decided: 4/4/03
Date Mailed: 4/18/03
1. Maduka, as a Sanitary Engineer III, Division of Drinking Water Management for the
Department of Environmental Protection, did not violate Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the
Ethics Act when he took hours or days of sick leave at DEP before or after, but not
during, the times he was working part -time at Manor Care.
2. Maduka violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) when he utilized the DEP telephones during
Commonwealth work time to make long distance personal calls.
3. Maduka violated Section 5/1105 of the Ethics Act when he failed to list Manor Care as
a source of income for his 1998 and 1999 calendar year Statements of Financial
Interests.
4. Maduka is directed within 30 -days of the date of mailing of this order to file amended
Statements of Financial Interests for the calendar years 1998 through 2001 listing
Obosi, Manor Care or DEP under the appropriate categories of financial interests.
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