Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1282 KellerIn Re: Laurence Keller File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair Daneen E. Reese Frank M. Brown Donald M. McCurdy 01- 077 -C2 Order No. 1282 6/23/03 7/8/03 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 investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. A Joint Stipulation of Findings was submitted in lieu of an administrative hearing. 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 Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending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. Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Laurence Keller, a (public official /public employee) in his capacity as Mayor of New Hope Borough, Bucks County, 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 accepting payment and fees for performing marriage services and depositing those funds into a personal account. Section 1103. Restricted activities. (a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) Section 2. 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 . §1102 II. FINDINGS: A. Joint Stipulation of Findings by the Parties 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Laurence Keller 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 October 31, 2001. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On December 6, 2001, a letter was forwarded to Laurence Keller, 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 3785. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Laurence Keller, with a delivery date of December 10, 2001. Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 3 5. On April 17, 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 May 2, 2002, granting the ninety day extension. 7. On June 25, 2002, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed for a second ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 8. The Commission issued an order on July 1, 2002, granting the ninety day extension. 9. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Laurence Keller in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising him of the general status of the investigation. 10. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on November 19, 2002. 11. Laurence D. Keller has served as Mayor of the Borough of New Hope, Bucks County, from January 4, 1998, to the present. 12. The Borough of New Hope has a total population of less than 2,500 people. 13. As Mayor, Keller receives annual compensation as allowed by the Borough Code. 14. The Borough Code, Section 1025, provides that the salary of a borough mayor shall be set by ordinance and shall not exceed, in boroughs with a population of less than five thousand, a maximum of two thousand five hundred ($2,500) dollars a year. 15. The mayor has received a salary as authorized by the Borough Code. 16. Keller has received the following compensation from the Borough of New Hope for performing the duties of mayor: Year Annual Salary 1998 $2,000.00 1999 $1,500.00 2000 $2,500.00 2001 $2,000.00 17. Keller has performed marriage ceremonies as Mayor of New Hope. a. Borough mayors, under Pennsylvania law, are authorized to perform marriage ceremonies. 18. Shortly after Keller took office in 1998, he was approached by couples who requested that he perform their marriage ceremonies. a. Many of the requests were directed to the mayor through the Borough office. b. Keller was, on occasion, directly contacted. 19. Keller informed the couples he would perform the marriage ceremonies and requested, in return, that they provide him with the sum of $150.00, which he would later donate to a local non - profit organization or charity. a. Approximately 1/3 of the weddings that Mr. Keller performed were performed either in his own home or, weather permitting, outside in the garden of his residence. There was no charge, fee or extra donations for weddings performed at Mr. Keller's residence. Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 4 20. From 1998 through 2001, Keller collected donations from couples for whom he performed marriage ceremonies. a. Payments were to Keller in both cash and by check. 1. Payments made by check were made payable to Laurence Keller. b. Generally, couples made $150.00 payments; although some couples could not afford this amount, while others agreed to a higher amount for donation. 21. All money paid to Keller in connection with performing marriage ceremonies was deposited in a savings account maintained and controlled by Keller, that is PNC Savings Account Number 8995323460. a. No monies collected by Keller for performing marriage ceremonies were turned into the Borough Treasury as "fees and costs." 22. Prior to 1998, Keller maintained a personal savings account, number 8995323460, at the PNC Bank. a. On or about April 20, 1998, Keller withdrew substantially all of the funds from this savings account. b. Keller retained the minimum required balance to keep the account open. c. The savings account was to be used exclusively for donations that he received in connection with wedding ceremonies. d. Keller never declared this money as income on his personal tax return. 23. Since 1998, Keller has used account number 8995323460 solely to deposit monies received from couples being married by him as Mayor. 24. Savings account register for PNC account no. 8995323460 confirms the following transactions occurred during the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Date De 04/20/98 $ 1,000.00 05/19/98 $ 300.00 06/08/98 $ 600.00 06/29/98 $ 850.00 08/24/98 $ 625.00 09/14/98 $ 450.00 09/28/98 $ 250.00 10/12/98 11/08/98 $ 450.00 11/13/98 $ 250.00 11/16/98 12/07/98 12/15/98 $ 150.00 12/31/98 06/01/99 $ 350.00 06/21/99 $ 600.00 06/21/99 07/09/99 $ 450.00 09/09/99 $ 400.00 Withdrawal $ 50.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,250.00 Balance $ 1,000.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1,900.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 3,450.81 $ 3,900.81 $ 4,150.81 $ 4,100.81 $ 4,550.81 $ 4,300.81 $ 3,800.81 $ 3,300.81 $ 3,450.81 $ 2,950.81 $ 3,300.81 $ 3,900.81 $ 2,697.81 $ 3,147.81 $ 3,561.43 Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 5 11/01/99 $ 300.00 $ 3,872.13 11/08/99 $ 2,250.00 $ 1,622.13 11/23/99 $ 300.00 $ 1,922.13 01/09/00 $ 300.00 $ 2,222.13 Date Deposit Withdrawal Balance 02/15/00 $ 600.00 $ 2,832.08 04/18/00 $ 450.00 $ 3,290.43 04/18/00 $ 300.00 $ 3,590.43 05/22/00 $ 350.00 $ 3,940.43 05/22/00 $ 400.00 $ 3,440.43 06/01/00 $ 250.00 $ 3,190.43 06/23/00 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,500.35 06/25/00 $ 350.00 $ 4,150.35 06/26/00 $ 1,000.00 $ 3,150.00 06/26/00 $ 175.00 $ 2,975.35 06/26/00 $ 250.00 $ 2,725.35 06/26/00 $ 300.00 $ 3,025.35 06/26/00 $ 250.00 $ 2,775.35 06/26/00 $ 500.00 $ 2,275.35 10/03/00 $ 1,000.00 $ 325.00 $ 2,682.64 10/30/00 $ 150.00 $ 350.00 $ 2,486.54 11/24/00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,486.54 12/04/00 $ 450.00 $ 1,936.54 12/05/00 $ 150.00 $ 2,086.54 01/23/01 $ 300.00 $ 2,386.54 01/23/01 $ 600.00 $ 1,786.54 05/01/01 $ 480.00 $ 2,266.54 05/21/01 $ 900.00 $ 3,166.54 06/11/01 $ 260.00 $ 2,926.54 07/02/01 $ 300.00 $ 450.00 $ 2,776.54 07/20/01 $ 265.00 $ 2,511.54 07/20/01 $ 150.00 $ 2,661.54 09/04/01 $ 390.00 $ 2,271.54 09/10/01 $ 250.00 $ 2,021.54 09/16/01 $ 100.00 09/16/01 $ 1,000.00 10/15/01 $ 50.00 10/15/01 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,843.54 11/02/01 $ 600.00 $ 2,443.54 11/23/01 $ 300.00 $ 2,744.42 12/20/01 $ 250.00 12/27/01 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,503.09 Total Deposits: Total Withdrawals: 25. All of the above deposits to PNC account number 8995323460 were payments received from couples for whom Keller performed the marriage ceremonies. 26. Withdrawals from the above PNC account by Keller were deposited into his personal checking account at PNC Bank. 27. Keller wrote checks from his personal checking account from 1998 through 2001 to various non - profit or charitable agencies in the New Hope area as follows: FACT $16,805.00 $15,015.00 Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 6 Lambertville - New Hope Rescue Squad New Hope Eagle Fire Company New Hope Arts Commission Solesbury PBA Negron Carol School Fund New Hope Free Library SPCA New Hope Chamber of Commerce Steve Buck Memorial Concordia Players P.I.P. Friends for Friends Family Services NHS Baseball Association 28. Cancelled checks drawn on the personal bank account of Laurence Keller confirm the following payments to organizations in the New Hope Area: Check No. Pay To Amount Date 5147 New Hope Eagle Fire Co. $ 500.00 10/08/98 5174 Lambertville /New Hope Rescue Sq. $ 500.00 11/12/98 5175 Partners in Progress $ 500.00 11/16/98 5192 New Hope Arts Commission $ 500.00 12/05/98 5339 Hepatitis B. Foundation $ 250.00 05/19/99 5367 Artsbridge $ 500.00 06/09/99 5372 F.A.C.T. $ 500.00 06/19/99 5507 New Hope Eagle Fire Co. $ 500.00 10/25/99 5512 F.A.C.T. $ 250.00 10/31/99 5526 Lambertville /New Hope Rescue Sq. $ 1,000.00 11/05/99 5527 New Hope Eagle Fire Co. $ 500.00 11/06/99 5722 New Hope Arts Commission $ 50.00 05/05/00 5733 Solesbury P.B.A. $ 100.00 05/16/00 5734 Negron- Carroll Scholarship Fund $ 150.00 05/16/00 5735 Hello Gorgeous $ 100.00 05/20/00 5744 New Hope /Solesbury Free Library $ 250.00 05/23/00 5763 Bucks Co. S.P.C.A. $ 100.00 06/23/00 5764 New Hope Chamber of Commerce $ 150.00 06/23/00 5767 New Hope Chamber of Commerce $ 100.00 06/24/00 5771 Steve Buck Memorial $ 100.00 06/28/00 5777 Lambertville Rescue Squad $ 500.00 07/10/00 5784 F.A.C.T. $ 250.00 07/14/00 5792 New Hope Historical Society $ 250.00 07/17/00 5791 F.A.C.T. $ 75.00 07/16/00 5796 New Hopes Arts Commission $ 250.00 07/28/00 5806 Riverside Symphonia $ 500.00 08/08/00 5807 PIP /Concordia Chamber Players $ 250.00 08/08/00 5837 P.I.P. $ 175.00 09/11/00 5841 Winter Festival $ 100.00 09/18/00 5856 Lambertville Ramblers $ 50.00 10/05/00 5872 Hepatitis B. Foundation $ 250.00 11/01/00 5886 Eagle Fire Company $ 750.00 11/22/00 5940 Friends for Friends $ 100.00 02/03/01 5946 New Hope /Lambertville Rescue Sq. $ 250.00 02/09/01 5949 Family Service Association Bucks Co. $ 250.00 02/11/01 5954 South County Cobras $ 100.00 02/20/01 5955 NHS Baseball Association $ 285.00 02/19/01 Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 7 6056 Track 2002 6063 Concordia Chamber Players 6064 S.P.C.A. 6070 Concord Fine Arts 6083 Concord Fine Arts Check No. 6084 6087 6094 6135 6143 6177 6168 6185 6227 6248 Total Pay To Possums Mary Leese New Hope Arts Commission Riverside Symphonia New Hope /Lambertville AIDS Walk New Hope Eagle Fire Company Track 2002 Roxey Ballet Company Artsbridge New Hope /Lambertville Rescue Sq. $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 140.00 Amount $ 100.70 $ 50.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 250.00 $ 1,000.00 $15,225.70 06/08/01 06/18/01 06/18/01 07/01/01 07/14/01 Date 07/15/01 07/16/01 07/28/01 09/05/01 09/14/01 10/11/01 10/14/01 10/31/01 12/19/01 12/26/01 29. Contributions made to the organizations were listed as donations from Lawrence Keller. a. When contributions were made from Keller, various press releases confirmed the donations were from Keller as the result of his receiving monies for performing wedding ceremonies. b. When Keller made the donations, news media coverage was arranged to publicize Keller's contributions toward the organizations' fund raising efforts. 30. New Hope Borough voters became aware of Mayor Keller's donations through the publicity generated by the recipient organizations' fund raising efforts. 31. A Notice of Investigation was mailed to Keller on December 6, 2001. a. The notice of investigation was signed for by Keller on December 10, 2001. b. Subsequent to receipt of the Notice of Investigation, Keller continues to solicit money from couples for whom he performs marriage ceremonies. c. Keller now directs the couples to make donations by cash or check payable directly to the individual local charitable or non - profit organization. 32. Keller received a total of $16,805.00 in donations that related to performing marriage ceremonies between April 1998 and December 2001. a. Keller performed the marriage ceremonies in his capacity as Mayor of New Hope Borough. b. Keller deposited the funds into a bank savings account he controlled. c. Keller made the decisions as to how these funds would be distributed. d. Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty -five dollars and seventy cents ($15,225.70) was withdrawn and donated to charitable, service or non - profit agencies in the New Hope area. Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 8 e. These funds were never intended to be turned over to the borough treasury for the benefit of the borough. f. A balance of $1,503.09 remains in Keller's PNC savings account undistributed since the instant investigation became known to Keller. 33. Keller neither reported any of the donation monies as income on his state or federal income tax returns, nor claimed deductions for charitable contributions of the donations made to local charities of monies received through the performance of marriage ceremonies. 34. The balance in the PNC savings account in the amount of $1,503.09 is the account balance as of the commencement of the date of investigation. As a result of Keller's discussions with Ethics Commission investigators and legal counsel, Keller agreed to leave the money in the account and not donate it to local organizations until the conclusion of the investigation. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Laurence Keller, hereinafter Keller, 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 allegation is that Laurence Keller, as Mayor of New Hope Borough, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he accepted payments and fees for performing marriage services and deposited those funds into a personal account. 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. 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. Having noted the issues and applicable law, we shall now summarize the relevant facts. Since January 4, 1998, Keller has served as Mayor of New Hope, a borough with a population of less than 2,500 people. For a borough with that population, Section 1025 of the Borough Code provides that the salary of the borough mayor is to be set by ordinance, not to exceed $2,500 per ear. The annual salaries that Keller received as mayor for the years 1998 through 2001 are detailed in Fact Finding 16. Since borough mayors are authorized to perform marriages under Pennsylvania law, Keller began performing such ceremonies shortly after he took office in 1998. Couples typically made their marriage requests through the mayor's office in the New Hope Borough Building, but on occasion through direct contact with Keller. Keller advised such couples that he would perform the marriage ceremonies in return for $150 which he would donate to a local non - profit organization or charity. The amount for performing marriage ceremonies varied in that some couples could not afford $150 while others agreed to higher amounts. All of the money received by Keller for performing the marriage ceremonies was deposited by him into a personal savings account at the PNC Bank. None of the monies that Keller received was turned over to the borough treasury as fees and costs. Keller never Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 9 declared the money as income on his personal tax returns. The record reflects that Keller made deposits of $16,805.00 into the account and withdrew $15,015.00. Keller issued checks to various organizations in the New Hope area, as delineated in Fact Finding 28, totaling $15,225.70. The current balance in Keller's PNC savings account is $1,503.09 which has been undistributed since the commencement of the investigation in this case. Keller has agreed to leave the money in the account as a result of discussions with the Commission investigators and his legal counsel pending the conclusion of this matter. The Investigative Division in its brief proffers the following arguments: Keller used the authority of office when he solicited /accepted "donations" to provide nuptial services; Keller received a private pecuniary benefit when he deposited such funds into his personal bank account rather than the borough treasury; Keller received fees for performing marriage ceremonies which constituted income rather than gifts; Keller chose to donate the marriage fees and got the credit /recognition for such action rather than the couples who paid Keller to perform the nuptial services; and Keller received compensation in excess of the statutory amount set for him as mayor. Keller in his brief asserts the following: he did not use the authority of his office because marriage ceremonies are not a necessary part of performing the duties and responsibilities unique to the position of mayor, as per the definition of "authority of office or employment" in the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1102; the Domestic Relations Code authorizes many different groups of individuals to perform marriage ceremonies; a mayor may function in office without performing marriage ceremonies; a mayor marrying a couple compares to a mayor acting at a ribbon cutting ceremony; he did not receive a private pecuniary benefit because he donated the money to charities; any possible violation of the Borough Code does not impact on the question of a conflict under the Ethics Act; the fees given by the couples to him created a "resulting trust," so that monies could not be used for his personal use; he did not receive a private pecuniary benefit from "receiving ... donations "; his donations of the marriage fees constituted a de minimis economic impact; and the class /sub -class exclusion to conflict applies because his subsequent donations of the fees affected the general public to the same degree. In applying Section 3(a)/1103 (a) of the Ethics Act to the instant matter, there were uses of authority of office on the part of Keller. But for the fact that Keller was Borough Mayor, he could not have been in a position to perform the marriage ceremonies and receive payments for doing so. See, Juliante, Order 809. That such payments were pecuniary benefits to Keller himself is to state the obvious. The question reduces to whether the pecuniary benefit was private. If there is an authorization in law to receive such payments, then the pecuniary benefits would not be private. However, if there is no such authorization in law, then the receipt of those payments would be contrary to law and private pecuniary benefits. See, Hessinger, Order 931 affirmed in part TW, a public official, v SEC, 673 A.2d 1004 (1996). On this question, the Borough Code must be reviewed. Section 46025 of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. § 45101 et seq., provides as follows: § 46025. Salary of mayor limited The salary of the mayor shall be established by ordinance and shall not exceed, in boroughs with a population of less than five thousand, a maximum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2500) a year; in boroughs with a population of five thousand or more but less than ten thousand, a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5000) a year; in boroughs with a population of ten thousand or more but less than fifteen thousand, a maximum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7500) a year. In any borough with a population in excess of fifteen thousand, the salary of the mayor shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500) Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 10 per annum per thousand population or fraction thereof, the population to be determined by the latest official census figures. Such salaries shall be payable monthly or quarterly for the duties imposed by the provisions of this act. Benefits provided to the mayor under section 1202(37) shall not be considered p ay, salary or compensation; but payment for all or a part of the premiums or charges for the benefits shall be in accordance with section 1202(37). 53 P.S. § 46025. Further, Section 46104 of the Borough Code provides in pertinent part as follows: § 46104. Appointments; incompatible offices Unless there is incompatibility in fact, any elective or appointive officer of the borough shall be eligible to serve on any board, commission, bureau or other agency created by or for the borough, or any borough office created or authorized by statute and may accept appointments there under, but no mayor or member of council shall receive compensation therefor. 53 P.S. § 46104. The Borough Code sets the maximum compensation for a mayor in a borough with a population of less than 2,500 persons at a maximum of $2,500 with the actual compensation set by ordinance. The mayor may not receive any additional compensation for any other public service in the borough. However, Keller received compensation for performing marriage ceremonies and deposited such payments into his personal bank account. These payments, being unauthorized in law, constituted private pecuniary benefits to Keller. Consequently, Keller violated Section 3(a )/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he performed marriage ceremonies and received payments which he deposited into his personal bank account. See, Costello, Order 724. The arguments against a finding of violation raised by Keller are unavailing. As to the assertion that Keller did not use the authority of office because marriage ceremonies may be performed by many individuals and such action is not necessary for the performance of the duties and responsibilities unique to a mayor, we have held that taking action by virtue of being in a given public position constitutes a use of authority of office. See, Juliante, supra. The argument that a possible violation of the Borough Code does not impact on the issue under the Ethics Act is erroneous. It is necessary to review the Borough Code to determine whether Keller received compensation that was authorized in law and that question impacts upon whether there is a violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act. See TW a public official, v SEC, supra. As to the assertion that the fees Keller collected from the couples created a "resulting trust" has no merit since Keller took the fees and placed them into his own personal bank account over which he had exclusive control. Keller could then have used those funds for whatever purposes he chose. See, Zwick, Order 1062. The argument that Keller did not receive private pecuniary benefits because he subsequently donated the fees to charities is unavailing. Keller received financial gains when he deposited the funds into his personal bank account and then obtained political gain when he donated the monies to charities with Keller getting the credit /recognition for so doing. The controlling elements are the performance of marriage ceremonies by Keller followed by the deposit of the fees into his personal bank account when there was no authorization in law for Keller 01- 077 -C2 Page 11 him to do so. Such actions by Keller violated the Ethics Act. The subsequent actions by Keller to make payments to various charities did not retroactively undo the Ethics Act violation. See, Richardson, Opinion 93 -006. Keller's argument that his subsequent donations of the $150 marriage fees constituted a de minimis economic impact is baseless. Such fees which ranged in value from $50 to $1,000 per marriage ceremony are not de minimis. See, Schweinsberq, Order 900. Finally, the assertion that the class /sub -class exclusion to conflict applies because the fees affected the general public to the same degree has no merit. The action before us concerns the use of authority of office by Keller to collect the marriage fees; the after the fact donation of varying amounts to different charities is totally irrelevant to the issue of conflict. Section 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. Restitution is warranted in this case. Because Keller collected marriage fees in the amount of $16,805.00 which went into his personal account, the private pecuniary benefit that Keller received in violation of Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act was that amount. Although there is certainly a legal basis for imposing restitution of $16,805.00, we will in the exercise of our discretion limit the payback by Keller to the amount of collected fees that remain in his personal bank account, $1,503.09, the balance left after the various payments to the charities. Accordingly, Keller is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make payment of $1,503.09 through this Commission to New Hope Borough. 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. Lastly, Keller is reminded that as to any future fees received for marriage ceremonies, such amounts must be deposited into the borough treasury. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Keller, as a Mayor of New Hope Borough, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Keller violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as mayor, received payments for performing marriage ceremonies and deposited those funds into his personal bank account. In Re: Laurence Keller ORDER NO. 1282 File Docket: 01- 077 -C2 Date Decided: 6/23/03 Date Mailed: 7/8/03 1. Keller, as a Mayor of New Hope Borough, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as mayor, received payments for performing marriage ceremonies and deposited those funds into his personal bank account. 2. Keller is directed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order to make payment of $1,503.09 through this Commission to New Hope Borough. 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