Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1821 - A, GogolskyPHONE: 717-783-16'10 TO[ 1. FREE: 1­800-932-0936 In Re: Mark Gogolsky, Respondent Nn'4 STATE UHICS C�OMMISSION FINANCE BUILDING 613, NORTH STREET ROOM 309 [1ARRISBURG, PA 17120-0400 File Docket: Order No. Date Decided: Date Mailed: 21-021 182 1 -A 10/4/23 11/13/23 Before: Michael A. Schwartz, Chair Rhonda Hill Wilson, Vice Chair Shelley Y. Simms Paul E, Parsells David L. Reddecliff This is an amended final adjudicationt of the State Ethics Commission, 2 FACSIMILE 717-787..0806 WEBSITE: ±gwww thrics.pa. Qv. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § I 101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. Atthe commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. 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 held. The record is complete, 1. ALLEGATIONS: That Mark Gogolsky, a public official in his capacity as a Member of the School Board of Directors and Board President of the Jeannette Area School District ("School District"), Westmoreland County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(5) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998): (1) When he used the authority of his public position for the private Pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a member of his immediate family when he influenced and/or participated in actions of the School District resulting in early retirement incentive ("ERI") benefits being paid to his spouse, who was an employee of the School District; and I This amended final adjudication is being issued to, address two typographical errors contained oil page 41 and page 42 of the original final adjudication, Order No. 1821. ' Commissioner Robert P. Caruso recused himself ftom this matter and did not participate in tile deliberations involving this case, Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 2 (2) When he failed to disclose all reportable sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests ("SFIs") filed for calendar years 2016 through 2020. II. FINDINGS: A. Relevant Admitted_Pleadinass 1. Upon receiving and reviewing a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Mark Gogolsky ("Gogolsky") violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry on .tune 17, 2021. 2, The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. a. The Commission, through the Executive Director, initiated a full investigation on August 13, 2021. 3. On August 13, 2021, a letter was forwarded to Gogolsky 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. 7019 1640 0000 4362 6959. b. The domestic return receipt bore the initials of WKW, with a delivery date of August 16, 2021. 4. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Gogolsky at least every ninety days in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Act, advising him of the general status of the investigation. 5. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was mailed to Gogolsky on May 10, 2022. a. The Investigative Complaint/Findings Report was issued within 270 days of the initiation of a full investigation. 6. Gogolsky has served as a Member of the Jeannette City School District Board of Directors from December 6, 1993 through the present. Jeannette City School District ("School District") is a third class school district governed by a nine -Member Board of Directors ("Board"). a. The Board holds one agenda (a.k.a. workshop) meeting and one legislative meeting on the second and third Monday of each month respectively except for July and December when one combined monthly agenda/legislative Board meeting is held. i. Voting on School District issues routinely occurs at the legislative meeting but may occur at the agenda meeting if an issue is deemed important, time sensitive, etc., so long as it is advertised as a special meeting open to the public. Ga o lsky, 21-021 Page 3 b. Special meetings are held as needed. The School District utilizes BoardDocs to organize and advertise the meeting agendas and support documents (a.k.a. meeting packet) for the monthly meetings. a. BoardDocs is a paperless meeting management/agenda software system designed for school districts, non -profits, etc. b. Supporting documentation for agenda items include financial reports, grant information, academic information, prior meeting minutes, Superintendent's report (not including personnel issues), etc. c. The School District has utilized the BoardDocs system since approximately 2016. 9. The Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary (who is one person filling both roles) is responsible for entering meeting agenda information into the BoardDocs system. a. The School District Superintendent provides items/information in various formats (email, hard copy documents, handwritten notes, verbally, etc.) to the Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary for placement on meeting agendas. Only the Superintendent and the Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary have access to enter and modify items for the agenda through BoardDocs for the School District. b. Board members and other School District administrators may also provide the Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary with items for consideration of placement on meeting agendas. The Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary personally presents the information directly to the Superintendent for review/consideration on the submitter's behalf or instructs the submitter to present the information directly to the Superintendent. ii. The Superintendent's Secretary/Board Secretary does not place any item A nformat ion on any meeting agendas or within the support documentation without the Superintendent's knowledge and approval. 10. The Superintendent may discuss and/or review the meeting agenda items with the current Board President and/or Vice President approximately one to two business days prior to a regularly scheduled workshop meeting. a. The Superintendent traditionally communicates on a more frequent basis with the Board President (and to a lesser degree the Board Vice President) than with the remaining individual Board members. Go o� lsky, 21-021 Page 4 i. The Superintendent issues a written update to the entire Board every week via email attachment, which summarizes upcoming events and/or topics for discussion regarding the School District, its operation, important dates, etc. ii. The weekly update is composed and distributed by the Superintendent. 11. The agenda for the agenda and legislative meetings goes live on BoardDocs at approximately 12:00 p.m. the Friday prior to the respective Monday meeting. a. Board members and the public may access the meeting agendas through BoardDocs once the agendas are marked live (a.k.a. active). 12. Board members have access to additional information in BoardDocs regarding meeting agendas than the general public can access. Board members have access to the Executive Session section of the agenda in BoardDocs which includes executive/non-public content. Executive content identifies information to be presented/discussed during the executive session, the individual presenting the information, and support documents attached to the executive/non-public content, if any. 13. The Board takes formal action at each legislative meeting via motion and vote to approve the School District financial reports. a. The School District financial reports include a register of bills already paid since the last legislative meeting, a register of bills for approval to be paid, month to date and year to date expense and revenue reports, State subsidy payment reports, earned income tax collection report, etc. b. The School District financial reports are included within BoardDocs as part of the meeting packet generated for the legislative meetings. 14. Signature authority over School District accounts is maintained by the Board President, Board Vice President, and Board Treasurer. a. District checks require the signature of all three signatories. Electronic facsimile signatures of the authorized signatories are generated on all checks issued from the School District General Fund. 15. Staff members employed by the School District have the opportunity to receive pension and other benefits through the Public School Employees Retirement System ("PSERS"). a. PSERS is a governmental, cost sharing, multiple -employer retirement plan into which the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, public school employers, and public school employees (a.k.a. members) contribute. Gog_olsky, 21-021 Page 5 b. The specific plan for which an employee is eligible is dependent upon his/her membership class. i. Available plans based on membership class include a Defined Benefit plan, Defined Contribution plan, or a hybrid with components of a Defined Benefit and a Defined Contribution plan. 16. School District employees who are vested in the Defined Benefit plan are eligible to receive a normal/full monthly retirement benefit from PSERS upon termination of his/her School District employment. a. The applicable vesting requirements are determined by the employee's membership class, 17. The majority of School District employees are members of either the Jeannette Teacher's Education Association ("JTEA") bargaining unit or the Jeannette Educational Support Professional Association ("JESPA") bargaining unit. a. The JTEA includes regular full-time and regular part-time School District employees serving teacher, nurse, or guidance counselor classifications. The JTEA was composed of approximately seventy-nine members during the 2019-2020 school year. b. The JESPA includes regular full-time and regular part-time School District employees serving in secretarial -clerical, custodial -maintenance, and food service classifications. The JESPA was composed of approximately thirty-eight members during the 2019-2020 school year. ii. Positions with clerical duties that operate from the District Central Office are excluded from the secretarial -clerical classifications and are not part of the JESPA bargaining unit with the exception of the payroll and benefits/student services secretary. 18. The contract agreement between JESPA and the School District encompassing the term of July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022 provided specific employment and operational mandates for support employees including, in pant, allowances for support employee receipt of School District provided group insurance coverage as well as retirement benefits beyond receipt of a monthly pension. a. Full-time support employees except for "regular full-time/part-time food service classified employees" were eligible for insurance and prescription insurance (hereinafter "medical insurance"), dental insurance, vision insurance, and life/accident insurance. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 6 i. A regularly scheduled work year for full-time secretarial employees was defined as seven hours per day, five consecutive days per week and fifty-two weeks per year. ii. The cost to the JESPA members for their portion of the medical insurance premium was $100.00 monthly. iii. The School District was responsible for full payment of the premiums due for JESPA members' dental, vision, and life insurance benefits. b. Other than sick leave payout, the contract provided no other retirement benefits for JESPA members. i. The contract did not allow for continuation of medical, dental, or vision insurance benefits through the School District group plan upon member retirement. 19. The COBRA health benefit provision requires that the School District offer temporary continuation of coverage to previously covered employees, former employees, spouses, former spouses, and dependent children when coverage would otherwise be lost due to certain life events. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING CHERYL GOGOLSKY'S EMPLOYMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE OFERED TO MEMBERS OF THE SUPPORT STAFF BARGAINING UNIT IN THE 2019-2020 SCHOOL YEAR, AND GOGOLSKY'S ACTION AND/OR INFLUENCE IN THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 20. Cheryl L. Gogolsky ("Mrs. Gogolsky") is Gogolsky's spouse and a member of his immediate family. 21. Mrs. Gogolsky was employed by the School District in various positions from at least September 17, 1991 through June 30, 2020. a. Mrs. Gogolsky held various positions, all of which were considered support staff, during her tenure with the School District including: i. Cafeteria employee: approximately September 17, 1991 to April 19, 1997. ii. Payroll clerk: Approximately April 19, 1997 to June 3, 2014. iii. Guidance/Athletic Office secretary: approximately June 3, 2014 through June 30, 2020. b. Mrs. Gogolsky retired from School District employment effective June 30, 2020 via acceptance of an early retirement incentive plan. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 7 22. Mrs. Gogolsky was eligible for and received medical and prescription drug benefits, dental benefits, and vision benefits (hereinafter "health insurance benefits") in her position as a full-time School District support staff employee. a. Mrs. Gogolsky maintained health insurance benefits for herself and Gogolsky (e.g. husband and wife plan) at all times from the 2016-2017 school year through the 2019- 2020 school year by means of her School District employment. b. Mrs. Gogolsky's monthly contribution towards the total cost of her health insurance benefits was $100.00. 23. Public school districts, through their respective school boards, have the ability/authority to offer early retirement incentive plans to employees. a. Early retirement incentive plans ("ERIPs") typically are temporary, financially driven programs offered in an effort to offset budget costs by enticing employees to voluntarily retire early. ERIPs are routinely offered to replace higher paid, experienced employees with younger staff and lower salaries to generate financial savings. b. Employees must be willing to and/or be interested in participating in ERIPs in order for ERIPs to be productive and effective. Employee willingness to participate is often directly related to the incentives offered. 24. School District Superintendent Matthew Jones ("Superintendent Jones") identified the subject of an ERIP for the JTEA to the Board and Peter Halesey, the School District Solicitor, in his weekly update dated November 4, 2019 and attached to a November 6, 2019 email. a. Item No. 6 on Superintendent Jones's weekly update documented that; "Jeannette Education" had gathered data in hopes of having an early retirement discussion; ii. Superintendent Jones and (then) School District Business Manager Paul Sroka had reviewed the JTEA's proposal; and iii. Mr. Sroka would be applying monetary values to the proposal for Board review and discussion. 25. The possibility of the ERIP for the JTEA was informally discussed by the Board in an executive session held immediately prior to the November 11, 2019 workshop or the November 18, 2019 legislative meeting. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 8 a. Gogolsky was present at the executive session. b. The specific executive session at which the ERIP for the JTEA was introduced is unclear. 26. Per the executive session discussion, the Board decided not to offer an ERIP to the JTEA during the 2019 — 2020 school year. a. The Board opted not to offer an ERIP as the JTEA was in the first year of a newly ratified CBA and because the retirement incentives desired by those potentially eligible were not financially beneficial to the School District. b. No further consideration was given to an ERIP for the JTEA regarding the 2019 —2020 school year. 27. Mrs. Gogolsky was employed in a full-time capacity as the School District Guidance/Athletic Office Secretary at the beginning of the 2019 — 2020 school year. a. Mrs. Gogolsky was a member of the JESPA (hereinafter "Support Staff Union") throughout her tenure with the School District. Mrs. Gogolsky had twenty-seven years, nine months of credited service with the School District as of July 1, 2019. 28. Mrs. Gogolsky openly declared her desire to retire at the conclusion of the 2019 — 2020 school year to various School District employees in or around the beginning of the 2019 — 2020 school year. a. The School District school year runs from July I" through June 30"'. 29. Gogolsky was aware of his spouse's desire to retire at the conclusion of the 2019 — 2020 school year. a. Mrs. Gogolsky was sixty-two years old as of July 1, 2019. 30. The School District Administrative Office (a.k.a. Central Office) was located at the Jeannette High School Building during the 2019 — 2020 school year. a. Within the School District Administrative Office there were individual desks and workstations in a common area as well as private offices. b. Superintendent Jones and Business Manager Sroka each maintained a private office in the School District Administrative Office. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 9 31. The executive session agenda developed for the January 13, 2020 Board agenda/workshop meeting documented multiple topics for presentation to the Board by Superintendent Jones as well as multiple file attachments. a. Included in the subject listing for presentation by Superintendent Jones, among other items, was the "JCSD Support Staff Early Retirement Incentive." b. Superintendent Jones's ERIP summary document was included as an executive file attachment. 32. The executive session agenda developed for the January 20, 2020 Board legislative meeting documented multiple topics for presentation to the Board by Superintendent Jones as well as multiple executive file attachments. a. Included in the subject listing for presentation by Superintendent Jones, among other items, was "Early Retirement Incentive: For February Board Vote." b. Included as an executive file attachment was an updated copy of the ERIP summary document that Superintendent Jones had presented during the January 13, 2020 executive session. The updated attachment identified the cash value for payout of accrued hours as $7.00 per hour per the CBA. ii. The updated attachment identified the deadline for formal acceptance of the ERIP as April 15, 2020. iii. At that time, Mrs. Gogolsky was the only support employee who was interested in retiring under the ERIP. 33. At the February 17, 2020 legislative meeting, a motion was made by Board member Jeri Rager, seconded by Sarah Parf tt, to approve the ERIP for School District support staff. a. The motion carried via 5-0-1 vote with Gogolsky abstaining. Gogolsky disclosed a conflict of interest as the reason for his abstention. ii. Gogolsky filed a written memorandum with the Board secretary dated February 1.7, 2020, which identified that a member of his family would be eligible for the ERIP. b. The School District had never before offered an ERIP to members of the Support Staff Union. 34. Upon its approval by the Board, Gogolsky signed the ERIP on behalf of the School District in his capacity as President of the Board. Go o lsky, 21-021 Page 10 a. Gogolsky signed the ERIP as the Board President after acknowledging his conflict of interest both verbally and in writing at the February 17, 2020 legislative meeting. b. Gogolsky signed the ERIP in his capacity as the Board President with the knowledge that his spouse intended to participate in the ERIP. 35. Although Mrs. Gogolsky's pending participation in the ERIP provided her with health insurance benefits until she was eligible for Medicare, Gogolsky could not remain on Mrs. Gogolsky's School District benefits after June 30, 2020 per the ERIP's allowance of only individual coverage for the retiree. a. At that time, Gogolsky believed that he was not eligible for Medicare benefits until August 2020. Gogolsky turned sixty-five years old on August 1, 2020. ii. Gogolsky was unaware that individuals born on the first of the month are eligible to receive Medicare benefits on the first day of the month immediately preceding their birthday. aa. Gogolsky did not become aware of his eligibility for Medicare benefits effective July 1, 2020 until receiving notification in the mail in June 2020. b. Gogolsky believed that he would lose his health insurance coverage for the month of July 2020 and/or have to pay for gap coverage through COBRA. 36. On or about March 3, 2020, Superintendent Jones received a letter addressed to him and Mr. Sroka from Mrs. Gogolsky addressing the subject of continuing School District health insurance benefits for Gogolsky. a. The correspondence documented that Mrs. Gogolsky would maintain only single healthcare benefits upon her retirement on June 30, 2020. b. The correspondence specified that Gogolsky would be sixty-five years old on August 1, 2020, at which time he would be eligible for Medicare. c. The correspondence included a request to allow Gogolsky to continue on Mrs. Gogolsky's healthcare benefits as husband and wife for the month of July 2020. d. In the correspondence, Mrs. Gogolsky indicated a willingness to pay the difference in cost between single and husband -wife coverage for the month of July 2020. 37. Superintendent Jones emailed Mrs. Gogolsky's March 3, 2020 correspondence to Solicitor Halesey. Goeolskx, 21-021 Page 11 38. Superintendent .tones, Solicitor Halesey and Business Manager Sroka subsequently discussed Mrs. Gogolsky's request via telephone during which .Halesey provided a verbal opinion against approving the request. a. Halesey subsequently issued Superintendent Jones a written opinion as a follow-up to their conversation which included, among other information, the following: i. Neither the CBA nor the ERIP provided a mechanism by which a retiree could pay the difference between single coverage and spousal/family coverage to maintain the higher coverage level until their spouse became Medicare eligible. aa. A retiree had the option to extend spousal/family coverage under COBRA if desired. ii. Halesey would recommend against the request even if the employee making the request was not related to a Board member as it may open the door to similar requests in the future. iii. Halesey had additional concerns regarding Mrs. Gogolsky's request, including the following: aa. The request originating from a Board member's spouse; bb. The optics of the situation; and cc. His opinion that, "...this is a close call ethically" 39. Prior to the March 9, 2020 agenda/workshop meeting, Superintendent Jones and Solicitor Halesey met with Gogolsky to advise that Gogolsky would not be permitted to remain on Mrs. Gogolsky's School District provided benefits for the month of July 2020 and the reason why this request could not be accommodated. a. Business Manager Sroka was not in attendance at the meeting. b. Mrs. Gogolsky also was not present for the meeting. 40. Mrs. Gogolsky submitted a letter of resignation dated March 12, 2020 regarding her position as Guidance/Athletic Secretary for the School District under the ERIP offered to JESPA members. a. Mrs. Gogolsky's letter of resignation included the following: "I have given considerable thought to this decision. The retirement incentive plan offered by the school district made my decision much easier." 41. At the Board's April 20, 2020 meeting, Board member Myeal Jones made a motion, seconded by Board member Rager, to approve Mrs. Gogolsky's letter of resignation. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 12 a. The motion carried via 8-0-1 vote with Gogolsky abstaining. 42. Shortly before her retirement date, Mrs. Gogolsky verbally affirmed to at least one School District employee that she had intended to retire the first week of July 2020 but the ERIP "came up" which required a June 30, 2020 retirement date. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS OF GOGOLSKY'S/MRS. GOGOLSKV'S FINANCIAL BENEFIT REALIZED AS A RESULT OF MRS. GOGOLSKY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLAN ALLEGEDLY INFLUENCED BY GOGOLSKY AS A MEMBER OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRE, CTORS/BOARD PRESIDENT. 44. Mrs. Gogolsky had planned to/anticipated retiring from her employment with the School District effective shortly after the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year. a. Mrs. Gogolsky had formed the intent to retire from School District employment shortly before or shortly after the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year. i. Mrs. Gogolsky had made statements at the School District of her intent to retire. b. No consideration of an ERIP for the Support Staff Union members existed at the School District at the conclusion of the 2018-2019 school year or the beginning of the 2019- 2020 school year. 45. Without the ERIP approval, Mrs. Gogolsky's retirement shortly after the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year under the existing collective bargaining agreement between the Support Staff Union and the School District would have resulted in the loss of her School District healthcare benefits. a. Mrs. Gogolsky could not have maintained her School District provided healthcare benefits beyond the effective date of her retirement absent the ERIP. b. Mrs. Gogolsky was not eligible for healthcare benefits through Medicare until October 2021. 46. Mrs. Gogolsky would have been eligible for enrollment in COBRA and/or a Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System ("PSERS") Health Options Program ("HOP") Pre-65 Managed Care Plan had she retired shortly after the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year. a. The School District provides no financial assistance to prior employees participating in COBRA continuing coverage. The GogoIskys would have been responsible for the entire monthly cost of Mrs. Gogolsky's healthcare insurance through COBRA from July 2020 to September 2021. Go o 1skX, 21-021 Page 13 b. PSERS provides premium assistance of up to a maximum amount of $100.00 monthly or the actual monthly premium amount if less than $100.00 to retirees who have an out- of-pocket premium from participation in a HOP healthcare plan or retirees with an out- of-pocket premium for continuing healthcare coverage through their school district. The Gogolskys would have been responsible for the entire monthly cost of Mrs. Gogolsky's healthcare insurance from July 2020 through September 2021 via HOP less the maximum amount of up to $100.00 monthly or the actual amount of the monthly premium if less than $100.00. 47. Mrs. Gogolsky only was able to remain on her already established School District healthcare benefits at a single coverage level from July 2020 through September 2021 because of the ERIP. 48. Mrs. Gogolsky individually received healthcare benefits through the School District from July 2020 through September 2021 valued at an approximate minimum total of $9,40.15 as a result of the ERIP offered during the 2019-2020 school year. 49. Pursuant to the terms of the ERIP, Mrs. Gogolsky was required to pay a monthly contribution amount to the School District to be applied towards the total premium due for her continued healthcare benefits. 50. Mrs. Gogolsky issued a total of fifteen checks to the School District totaling $2,192.46 in conjunction with invoices received which documented her personal monthly contribution amounts due for continued medical/prescription benefit coverage for the period of July 2020 through September 2021. Mrs. Gogolsky issued payment to the School District for her personal contribution amount due for continuing healthcare coverage from the Gogolskys' joint checking account at PNC Bank. 51. Although Mrs. Gogolsky issued personal contributions monthly to the School District totaling $2,192.46 for her continued healthcare benefits upon retirement, Mrs. Gogolsky's out-of-pocket cost totaled approximately $692.46 due to her receipt of $1,500.00 from PSERS in premium assistance over the fifteen month span of July 2020 through September 2021. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO ALLEGATIONS THAT GOGOLSKY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE CITY OF JEANNETTE AND PENN BOROUGH AS A SOURCE OF INCOME ON HIS STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FILED FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2O20. 52. Gogolsky was required to file Statements of Financial Interests ("SFIs") by May V annually for calendar years.2016 through 2020 in his position as a Member of the School District Board of Directors. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 14 a. Gogolsky has served on the Board continuously since December 6, 1993. 53. Gogolsky filed SFIs with the School District for calendar years 2016 through 2020. 54. Gogolsky received compensation from the City of Jeannette from at least 2016 through June 2020 in the amount of $300,00 (gross) monthly for participation in a buy-out option associated with his waiver of City health and welfare coverage when he retired. a. Gogolsky received income from the City of Jeannette by individual calendar year from 2016 through 2020 as detailed below: 2016 C.Y. 2017 C.Y. 2018 C.Y. 2019 C.Y. 2020 C.Y.* $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $3,600,00 $3,600.00 $2,100.00 *Through July 2020 due to Gogolsky turning 65 in August 2020 i. Gogolsky's monthly opt -out payment was routinely deposited into the Gogolskys' joint performance checking account at PNC Bank. b. Gogolsky received income from Penn Borough, Westmoreland County, for grass cutting services during the calendar years 2016 through 2020 in excess of the $1,300.00 reporting threshold. 55. Gogolsky failed to disclose the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough as direct/indirect sources of income on his 2016 through 2020 calendar year SFIs as follows: Section 10: Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2016 calendar year SFl identified PMRS (Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System) as Gogolsky's only source of income. i. Gogolsky received income totaling at least $3,600.00 (gross) from the City of Jeannette in the 2016 calendar year. ii. Gogolsky received income totaling at least $1,300.00 (gross) from Penn Borough, Westmoreland County in the 2016 calendar year. b. Section 10: Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2017 through 2020 calendar year SFIs identified PMRS and Social Security as Gogolsky's only sources of income. i. Gogolsky received income totaling at least $3,600.00 (gross) from the City of Jeannette in the 2017, 2018 and 2019 calendar years, as well as income from the City of Jeannette totaling at least $2,100.00 in the 2020 calendar year. ii. Gogolsky received income totaling at least $1,300.00 (gross) from Penn Borough, Westmoreland County in the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 calendar years. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 15 56. On May 4, 2022, Gogolsky submitted amended SFIs to the School District for calendar years 2014 through 2020 on which Gogolslcy disclosed the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough under Section 10: Direct or Indirect Sources of Income. a. Gogolsky Bled the amended SFIs in response to an amended Notice of Investigation letter dated April 20, 2022 and received by Gogolsky on April 22, 2022. b. Gogolsky's amended SFIs contained only the information that he was amending from his prior forms. i. Each of Gogolsky's amended SFIs only included information in Sections 01 (Name), 02 (Address/Telephone Number), 07 (Year) and 10 (Direct and Indirect Sources of Income). B. Testimony 57. Paul R. Sroka ("Sroka") currently is employed as the Business Manager for the Sto-Rox School District, a position he has held for approximately one and a half years. a. Prior to his current employment, Sroka was employed as the Business Manager for the Jeannette City School District for seven years (October 2014 -- June 2021) and as the Business Manager for the Foil Cherry School District for approximately twelve years. Business managers typically handle day-to-day accounting and financial operations of a school district. b. Sroka reported to the Superintendent of the Jeannette City School District, which was Matthew Jones beginning in 2017-2018. c. Sroka regularly attended Jeannette City School Board meetings twice per month. d. Sroka testified that he had experience with school districts offering early retirement incentive packages to personnel, primarily teachers, within a school district. L He testified that the benefit to the school district is directly proportional to the number of individuals who accept it. ii. In his experience, most early retirement packages ask for a minimum of ten participants but the school district will accept five or six. e. Sroka is acquainted with Gogolsky in his role as a Board Member and as President of the Board in or around 2019-2020. i. Sroka testified that he saw Gogolsky in the administrative offices at least weekly. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 16 f. Sroka testified that Superintendent Jones made him aware of the potential for an ERIP for the Support Staff Union immediately following a meeting between Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky in November or December 2019. i. Sroka testified that several support staff employees overheard the conversation between Paul Sroka and Superintendent Jones. ii. Sroka admitted that he had no idea what transpired in the meeting between Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky other than what Superintendent Jones related to him. g. After speaking with Superintendent Jones, Sroka developed the financial framework for the terms of an ERIP, as well as a list of eligible employees. (ID — 3, ID — 5B, ID — 6A, ID — 6B). i. This list consisted of only support staff and included two secretarial staff members and four custodial or cafeteria workers. (ID -- 5B). ii. Mrs. Gogolsky was one of the support staff identified. iii. The terms of the ERIP, specifically the benefits given in return for the acceptance of an ERIP, are within the discretion of the Board. h. Sroka testified that he had concerns regarding an ERIP for the support staff. i. One of his concerns was the perception that an ERIP was only being offered because Gogolsky was Board President and Mrs. Gogolsky would be eligible for the ERIP. ii. Another concern was the lack of individuals eligible for the support staff ERIP and whether it would be financially beneficial to the School District. iii, He expressed the concern about the financial benefit in an email to Superintendent Jones. (ID — 4). i. Sroka testified that he identified two members of the secretarial staff that expressed some desire for an ERIP, Mrs. Gogolsky and Karen Wolfe. j. There would be a net savings to the School District of $26,640.00 if both Mrs. Gogolsky and Karen Wolfe availed themselves of the ERIP. (ID — 2, ID — 6A). i. Sroka testified that this was not a consequential savings to the School District as there generally is a minimum threshold of $100,000.00 to affect any real change in the operational budget. ii. The operational budget for the School District was approximately $19 million in 2019-2020. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 17 k. Sroka testified that despite his concerns, Superintendent Jones placed the support staff ERIP on the executive session agenda for the Board's January 13, 2020 meeting. (ID — 5A, p. 2). i. Sroka testified that he was present for the executive session discussion regarding the ERIP, a discussion that was led by Superintendent Jones. ii. At that point, all information given to the Board indicated that Mrs. Gogolsky was the only support staff member interested in an ERIP. iii. Sroka further testified that Gogolsky excused himself from the executive session meeting when the ERIP was discussed. 1. Sroka testified that the ERIP was discussed at two or three Board meetings. i. Although Sroka put together a packet of information detailing the various scenarios and the projected savings to the School District, he testified that no one, including Superintendent Jones or any Board members, ever asked him about the numbers despite being provided with this information. (ID — 6A). ii. Sroka noted that if only Mrs. Gogolsky accepted the ERIP, then the net savings to the School District would be $12,930.00. (ID — 613). m. Sroka testified that by early February 2020, he had identified only one employee who was interested in an ERIP; that individual was Mrs. Gogolsky. i. Sroka further testified that he advised Superintendent Jones and members of the Board that only one individual was interested in an ERIP. ii. Despite the concerns expressed to Superintendent Jones and the Board, the ERIP was passed by the Board by an 8-0-1 vote, with Gogolsky abstaining. iii. Sroka agreed that his work was merely informative and that for an ERIP to be offered, it must have the approval of the Board. n. Sroka testified that he received a letter dated March 3, 2020 from Mrs. Gogolsky in which she inquired as to whether it would be possible for Gogolsky to remain on her healthcare benefits for one month following her retirement until Gogolsky was eligible for Medicare. (ID- 7). Mrs. Gogolsky offered to pay the difference between individual coverage and husband -wife coverage. ii. The School District Solicitor reviewed the request and issued an opinion as to whether Mrs. Gogolsky's request could be accommodated. Gagolskv, 21-021 Page 18 iii. Sroka testified that the Board ultimately decided not to grant Mrs. Gogolsky's request. Sroka testified that on March 12, 2020, Mrs. Gogolsky notified him, the Board, and Superintendent .Tones that she was resigning her position with the School District effective .Tune 30, 2020. (ID — 8). The Board accepted Mrs. Gogolsky's resignation at its April 20, 2020 meeting. (ID — 9, ID — 10). p. Sroka testified that prior to the 2019-2020 ERIP offered to support staff, there had never been any ER[Ps offered to support staff during his tenure at the School District or while he was at the Port Cherry School District. Sroka acknowledged that a school district within Jeannette City's Consortium for Career and Technology Center Schools had offered an ERIP to support staff a few years earlier. q. Sroka testified that he never spoke to Gogolsky about the ERIP and that Gogolsky excused himself from any meeting in which the topic of the ERIP was raised. 58. Sheila Ramler ("Ramler") has been employed as the Superintendent's secretary and Board secretary by the School District for nearly five years. a. Ramler's duties include taking meeting minutes, collecting documentation needed for agenda items, and putting together the agenda at the direction of the superintendent. Ramler typically takes handwritten notes at the meeting and uses those to draft the meeting minutes. ii. If there is any discussion on an agenda item, the content of the discussion is noted in the meeting minutes. iii. Ramler is not present for executive sessions of the Board. b. If a Board member is going to abstain from voting on a matter, Ramler testified that she generally prepares a document prior to the meeting and then secures the signature of the abstaining member on the date of the meeting. i. Gogolsky signed such a document for discussion and voting on the ERIP in February 2020. (ID —14B, p. 2). c. Ramler testified that during Gogolsky's tenure on the Board, he came to the School District offices on various occasions to speak with individuals. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 19 i. Ramler recalled a time in November 2019 that Gogolsky met with Superintendent Jones, after which Superintendent Jones went to Sroka's door and spoke with him. ii. Ramler did not hear the content of the discussion between Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky in November 2019. iii. ,She did not notice any meeting between Superintendent Jones, Sroka and Gogolsky. d. Ramler testified that she did not recall any discussion by Board members about the ERIP at the February 10, 2020 Board meeting. Had there been any discussion, Ramler would have noted it in the meeting minutes, which she did not. (ID — 13, p. 2). e. Ramler also testified that the Board voted to approve the ERIP at its February 17, 2020 meeting. i. The meeting minutes prepared by Ramler reflect that the Board passed the ERIP by a roll call vote of 8-0, with Gogolsky abstaining from the vote. (ID — 14, p. 3, ID — 14B). f Following the February 17, 2020 Board meeting in which the ERIP was passed, Ramler gave the document to Gogolsky for his signature as Board president. (ID — 14C, p. 3). 59. Sarah Parfitt ("Parfitt") has been a member of the Board since 2019 and has served as its President since December 2022. a. Parfitt testified that during the 2019-2020 timeframe, the Board held two meetings per month; one to discuss agenda items and another to vote on agenda items. b. Parfitt also testified that minutes were taken at the discussion and the voting meetings. i. Board members had the opportunity to review the meetings minutes for accuracy before voting on them the following month. c. Parfitt further testified that voting was either done by voice vote or roll call vote depending on the type of item up for vote. d. Parfitt testified that the subject of an ERIP for support staff members was brought to the Board by Superintendent Jones. i. Parfitt did not recall receiving financial information about the ERIP but did remember receiving information about the terms of the ERIP for eligible staff members and the individuals that were eligible for the incentive, ii. Parfitt testified that she was informed that two or three people were definitely interested in taking the ERIP. Gouolskx, 21-021 Page 20 iii. Parfitt did not have any discussions with Gogolsky about the ERIP. iv. Parfitt further testified that Gogolsky excused himself from all executive sessions in which the ERIP was discussed. e. Parfitt testified that she voted to approve the ERIP because it was in the best interest of the School District in that two or three people were interested and there would be financial gain to the School District. 60. Mycal Lawrence Jones ("Mycal Jones") was a member of the Board from 2017 through 2021. a. Mycal Jones testified that he attended twice monthly meetings during his tenure on the Board with executive sessions being held before each meeting. L Voting was either done by voice vote or roll call vote depending on the type of item up for vote. b. Mycal Jones testified that once the topic of an ERIP for support staff was discussed in general terms, the financials were provided so that Board members could make an educated decision about the ERIP. Although he recalled members abstaining from voting on certain agenda items, Mycal Jones could not recall any members abstaining from the discussion on those respective items. c. At the time he voted to approve the ERIP on February 17, 2020, Mycal Jones testified that he did not know how many support staff were going to accept the ERIP because the deadline to accept was approximately six weeks after the vote occurred. i. Mycal Jones testified that it was his belief that there was "enough people in favor to give it a yes vote." ii. He acknowledged to subsequently becoming aware that only one support employee was going to accept the ERIP. 61. Peter Halesey, Esquire ("Halesey") was the Solicitor for the School District in 2019-2020. In addition to School District, Halesey served as the solicitor for four or five other districts, and his law firm represented approximately ten districts. b. As the Solicitor, Halesey attended Board meetings, including executive sessions. c. In December 2019, Superintendent Jones raised the idea of an ERIP for the Support Staff Union with him. Gow1skv, 21-021 Page 21 Halesey testified that it was his understanding that Superintendent Jones had a directive from the Board to identify any cost saving measures he could find, including the possibility of ERIPs for the support staff and the professional staff. ii. Halesey testified that there may have been a concern that the criteria were too stringent and that not enough people would qualify for an ERIP for the support staff. iii. Halesey stated that he drafted the ERIP document based upon the information given to him by School District personnel, specifically Superintendent Jones, Sroka, and the union representative Lori Stripay. aa. Halesey explained that there were considerations other than financial when it came to whether to offer an ERIP. d. Halesey testified that there was no minimum number of employees required to accept the ERIP in order for it to be financially beneficial to the School District. i. He is aware that ultimately only Mrs. Gogolsky opted to accept the ERIP. ii. He testified that he was aware "through the grapevine" of another support staff employee, Karen Wolfe, who was non -committal during the passage process of the ERIP. e. Halesey testified that he had no contact with Gogolsky regarding the ERIP between December 2019 and the Board's approval of the ERIP on February 17, 2020. Halesey stated that he did not receive any information that Gogolsky was involved in the preparation of the ERIP proposal. ii. Ilalesey testified Gogolsky left the meeting room when the ERIP was discussed by the Board in executive sessions. f. Halesey testified that Superintendent Jones forwarded to him a letter from Mrs. Gogolsky regarding the possibility of Gogolsky remaining on her healthcare coverage for one month following retirement. i. The letter was signed by Mrs. Gogolsky. ii. Halesey stated that he offered to discuss the matter with Gogolsky, rather than Mrs. Gogolsky, because a Board meeting was upcoming and he knew he would see Gogolsky at the meeting. aa. He made the assumption that Mrs. Gogolsky had discussed the issue with her husband so he felt it was appropriate to discuss the issue with him. Goeolskv, 21-021 Page 22 iii. Halesey met with Gogolsky and Superintendent Jones prior to a regularly scheduled Board meeting in March 2020. aa. Mrs. Gogolsky was not present at the meeting. bb. He could not recall whether Paul Sroka or another Board member was present. 62. Cheryl Gogolsky ("Mrs. Gogolsky") is the wife of Gogolsky. a. Mrs. Gogolsky testified that she retired on June 30, 2020 after twenty-six years with the School District. She was a member of the Support Staff Union throughout her employment with the School District. b. Mrs. Gogolsky began thinking of retirement in the 2019 — 2020 school year. She stated that she had heard rumors about the possibility of an ERIP; however she did not discuss these rumors with Superintendent Jones, Sroka, or her supervisor at the time. c. Mrs. Gogolsky testified that after receiving a copy of the ERIP in her mailbox, she contemplated retiring at the end of June 2020. i. She discussed the ERIP with some of her coworkers. ii. Mrs. Gogolsky stated that her desire to retire was solidified after her brother died of cancer on February 3, 2020, Her sister had died from cancer at the age of 52. d. Mrs. Gogolsky testified that her husband was retired from the City of Jeannette. Gogolsky was receiving healthcare coverage through Mrs. Gogolsky's employment at the School District. ii. Healthcare coverage was a factor when she was considering retirement. iii. Mrs. Gogolsky testified that Gogolsky's retirement agreement with the City of Jeannette provided that she could go back on the City's healthcare benefits but that the benefits were not as good as those she received from the School District. e. Mrs. Gogolsky testified that she drafted a letter to Superintendent Jones and Sroka inquiring as to whether Gogolsky could remain on her health insurance for one month following her retirement. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 23 i. She did not recall whether she spoke with Sroka about the letter but she did recall receiving information in the mail about COBRA coverage for Gogolsky. ii. She testified that her inquiry became unnecessary because she later learned that her husband's Medicare benefits would start on July 1, 2020, rather than August 1, 2020, as she initially believed. 63. Karen Wolfe ("Wolfe") is a former support staff employee of the School District. a. Ms. Wolfe stated that she retired from the School District on June 30, 2021, after approximately twenty-nine years with the School District. b. Ms. Wolfe testified that she received a copy of the ERIP agreement in her office mail but she was not interested because she was too young and because her husband was still working. L She testified that she was eligible for the ERIP due to her age at the time. ii. She testified that no one from the School District approached her about whether she was interested in retiring under the terms of the ERIP. iii. She did not recall the date when she informed Superintendent Jones, Sroka, or anyone at the School District that she definitely was not going to avail herself of the ERIP. 64. Matthew Jones ("Superintendent Jones") is the Superintendent of the School District. a. He stated that he has been employed by the School District for 25 years. He has been the Superintendent since 2018--2019. ii. He acted as the substitute Superintendent in 2017 — 2018. iii. Prior to becoming the substitute Superintendent, he held a variety of roles for the School District, including, teacher, administrative assistant, assistant principal of the high school and middle school principal/director of education. b. Superintendent Jones testified that the School District is considered a very small school district. i. There are eighty-five professional staff and approximately 19 support staff. c. As Superintendent, he reports directly to the Board. i. The Board has the ability to hire and fire him. d. Superintendent Jones testified that he attends all Board meetings. Goaolskx, 21-021 Page 24 Prior to 2023, the Board held two meetings per month. Superintendent Jones testified that his first experience instituting an ERIP occurred during the 2019 — 2020 school year. The purpose of an ERIP is to incentivize some of the veteran staff with higher salaries the opportunity to retire early, with a financial benefit to the School District when the retiree is replaced with a less experienced staff person at a lower salary. f. Superintendent Jones testified that he thought of the idea of an ERIP for support staff after Sroka brought to his attention that there was a concern for finances in the School District. Sroka proposed eliminating several support staff and one principal as a way to save costs. ii. The School District had furloughed several staff and teachers during the 2017 — 2018 school year, so Superintendent Jones thought it would be a significant morale issue to eliminate additional staff positions in 2019 ---- 2020. iii. Superintendent Jones testified that rather than eliminate jobs, he believed a good first step would be to transition people through an ERIP, first for the support staff and then for the professional staff. g. Superintendent Jones receives occasional visits from School Board members but he did not recall a visit from Gogolsky being the impetus for his initial conversation with Sroka about an ERIP. h. Superintendent Jones testified that he discussed the idea of a support staff ERIP with Sroka in the fall of 2019 and asked him to put together some numbers about eligible employees. After receiving the information from Sroka, Superintendent Jones indicated in an email to Sroka that the next step was a sit and discuss with union representatives. (ID — 3). ii. Superintendent Jones did not recall whether a sit and discuss with union representatives ever occurred. i. Superintendent Jones testified that he put together a document listing the incentives, requirements and current number of employees assumed to be eligible for an ERIP due to age 62 or older. (ID — 5B). He put this information together based upon his own research and information received from the School District's HR system. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 25 ii. This information was presented to the Board at the January 13, 2020 meeting. (ID — 5A). iii. He did not recall any specific questions from Board members when he presented the ERIP but testified that any financial questions would have been answered by Sroka. iv. After receiving a "soft yes" in support of the ERIP for support staff, Superintendent Jones notified Halesey and union steward representative Lori Stripay and asked Solicitor Halesey to draft the ERIP agreement. (ID — 17). V. Superintendent Jones testified to his belief that there was at least some financial savings to the School District even if only one person accepted the ERIP. j. The Board passed the ERIP at its February 17, 2020 meeting. Superintendent Jones did not recall any specific discussion among School Board members. (ID -- 14A). i. Superintendent Jones confirmed that no ERIP plan can move forward unless it is approved by the Board. ii. He confirmed that Gogolsky abstained from voting on the ERIP. k. Superintendent Jones testified that Gogolsky played no role in the conception of the ERIP, the composition of the ERIP or the presentation of the ERIP to the Board. i. Superintendent Jones mentioned the idea of a support staff ERIP to Gogolsky when they were meeting about something else to which Gogolsky suggested that Superintendent .Tones check with the business manager from the Yough School District because they had done something similar for its support staff. ii. There was no additional discussion about an ERIP between Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky. iii. He acknowledged that Gogolsky did sign the ERIP once passed because Halesey included the signature line for the Board president. 1. Superintendent Jones recalled receiving a letter from Mrs. Gogolsky in which she asked to keep her husband on her School District health insurance for one month after she retired. (ID — 7). i. Subsequently, Superintendent Jones, Halesey and Sroka met with Gogolsky to explain why Mrs. Gogolsky's request could not be accommodated. ii. Mrs. Gogolsky was not present for the meeting. iii. They decided to meet with Gogolsky, rather than Mrs. Gogolsky, out of Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 26 deference to him as a Board member. m. Superintendent Jones testified that the year following the ERIP for the Support Staff Union, a similar ERIP was offered to the professional staff at the School District. i. Superintendent Jones was involved in the process of developing the ERIP for the professional staff. ii. He did not recall whether the professional staff ERIP required a minimum number of staff members to accept it. 65. Timothy Witt ("Witt") is the Solicitor for the City of Jeannette, a position he has held since 2018. He stated that he reviewed and is familiar with the four collective bargaining agreements that were in place in 2013 between the City of Jeannette and its police, firefighters, streets and sanitation, and administrative personnel. b. Witt explained that covered employees were eligible for healthcare benefits upon retirement until they reached Medicare age but such retirees could opt out of healthcare benefits and receive a monthly payment in lieu of healthcare coverage. c. Witt confirmed that the collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time of Gogolsky's retirement provided that "any spousal or dependent coverage provisions applicable to any City of Jeannette employees will also be applicable to this bargaining unit." (R— 1, p. 19). He agreed that this provision could be interpreted that any provisions regarding healthcare and continuation of healthcare benefits in the police, firefighters or administrative personnel contracts generally would be applicable to Gogolsky, including a provision that the City shall provide access to continued hospitalization coverage for each police officer and the officer's spouse only following the officer's retirement from the force. d. Although he initially testified that Mrs. Gogolsky would not be eligible to enroll in healthcare benefits under the terms of the streets and sanitation collective bargaining agreement, Witt admittedly was unfamiliar with an addendum to Gogolsky's retirement package with the City of Jeannette which allowed Gogolsky and/or his dependents to re -enroll in the City's healthcare plan at any time following his retirement. (R — 2). Solicitor Witt opined that this addendum was not a complete and unequivocal right for Mrs. Gogolsky to get back on the City's health insurance; however, he acknowledged that the document created a reasonable understanding on the part of Gogolsky that he could re -enroll his wife in the healthcare plan even if he was not able to re -enroll in the plan. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 27 66. Jason Bricker ("Bricker") is the Western Regional Director of Investigations for the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission. a. Bricker was involved in the Investigative Division's investigation of Gogolsky. i. The preliminary inquiry was opened on June 17, 2021 and was completed within sixty days. b. Bricker testified that when he interviewed Gogolsky, he disclosed that in late 2019, he had mentioned to Superintendent Jones and Sroka that other school districts were offering ERIPs to its staff and that Jeannette City School District should look into doing the same. i. Bricker testified that Gogolsky's involvement in the ERIP was limited to the comment about other school districts and the general comment that they should look into it. c. ID — 26B are Statements of Financial Interests that Gogolsky filed for calendar years 2016 through 2020. i. Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2016 calendar year SFI identified PMRS (Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System) as Gogolsky's only source of income. ii. Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2017 through 2020 calendar year SF1 identified PMRS and Social Security as Gogolsky's only sources of income. d. Mr. Bricker testified that Gogolsky subsequently filed amended SFIs for calendar years 2014 through 2020, which included additional sources of income other than what was included on his original SFIs. (R — 4). 67. Mark Gogolsky ("Gogolsky") has served as a member of the Board from December 6, 1993 through the present. a. Gogolsky admitted to inaccurately reporting his income on his SFIs from 2016 through 2020. i. Gogolsky filed amended Slits for calendar years 2014 through 2020 once he became aware that he had not completed them correctly. (R — 4). ii. The amended SFIs included the additions of the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough, Westmoreland County, as sources of income. (R — 4). b. Gogolsky testified that at the time his wife was considering retirement, it was his belief that his wife would be entitled to re -enroll in the City of Jeannette's health benefits based upon the addendum to his retirement agreement. (R — 2). Goao.lskx, 21-021 Page 28 c. Gogolsky testified that in January 2020, he was in Sroka's office to sign signature cards when Superintendent Jones stepped in and joined them. Gogolsky testified that after Sroka stated that it was going to be a tough budget year, Gogolsky informed them that he had been at a meeting at the Career and Technology Center where other business managers were talking about offering ERIPs. ii. Gogolsky inquired as to whether the School District should look into doing an ERIP too. iii. Gogolsky stated that he did not specify what staff they should look at for a possible ERIP. iv. Gogolsky stated that no one asked any questions after he made that statement. V. Gogolsky was unaware that Superintendent Jones and Sroka already had exchanged information regarding an ERIP for support staff personnel. d. Gogolsky testified that he never had a one-on-one meeting or a telephone conversation with Superintendent Jones regarding the idea of an ERIP for support staff personnel, either the conception or the drafting of the terms of the ERIP. e. Gogolsky testified that when the topic of an ERIP for support staff was first presented to the Board on January 10, 2020, he excused himself from the meeting and left the meeting room. i. Gogolsky also testified that he excused himself from the executive meeting that occurred on February 10, 2020, when the subject of the ERIP was discussed. f. Gogolsky testified that he abstained from voting when the ERIP came up for vote at the February 17, 2020 meeting. g. The ERIP offered to support staff in 2020 was the first time during Gogolsky's tenure as a Board member that an ERIP had been offered to support staff personnel. C. Exhibits 68. ID -- I is a November 6, 2019 email from Superintendent Jones to members of the School Board and Halesey in which he attaches the weekly update. Included among the weekly update items is the following: Jeannette Education has gathered some data in hopes of having an early retirement discussion. Mr. Sroka and I have reviewed their proposal and Mr. Sroka will be applying monetary values to their proposal for board review and discussion. Gam, 21-021 Page 29 69. ID — 2 is an email dated December 11, 2019 from Paul Sroka to Superintendent Jones in which Sroka details the savings to the School District if Mrs. Gogolsky and Karen Wolfe accept the ERIP. Total savings to the School District is noted to be $26,640.00, 70. ID — 3 is a December 26, 2019 email from Paul Sroka to Superintendent Jones discussing the employees who would be eligible for an ERIP. Sroka notes that "[w]hile the district stands to gain from this proposal there is nothing that will benefit 60% of the people involved and provide a reduced medical benefit to the remaining 40%." 71. ID — 4 is Superintendent Jones's response to Mr. Sroka's December 26, 2019 email in which Superintendent Jones states as follows; Thanks Paul. Given the information you've provided and based on that one scenario it's[sic] seems as if this would not [be] advantageous. There may be other options besides the single healthcare scenario. That was born out of a random thought process and perhaps the next step would be a sit and discuss with union representatives similar to how we handled the instructional staff. 72. ID — 5A consists of the minutes of the January 13, 2020 meeting of the Jeannette City School Board, which list "JCSD Support Staff Early Retirement Incentive" under items for discussion by Superintendent Jones. 73. ID — 5B is a document listing the incentives, requirements and current number of employees assumed to be eligible for an ERIP due to age 62 or older. The list contains the names of six support staff members, including Mrs. Gogolsky 74. ID — 6A is a financial analysis of savings to the School District if an ERIP is offered to support staff. The document was prepared by Sroka. 75. ID — 6B is the retirement offset of Mrs. Gogolsky's replacement, including such factors as sick leave payout and the difference in salary and benefits. The total savings to the School District is $12,930.00. 76. ID — 7 is a letter dated March 3, 2020 from Mrs. Gogolsky to Superintendent Jones and Sroka in which Mrs. Gogolsky inquires as to whether Gogolsky could continue on her healthcare benefits for the month of July 2020, after which Gogolsky would be eligible for Medicare. Mrs. Gogolsky offers to pay the difference between single coverage and husband -wife coverage. 77. ID — 8 is a letter dated March 12, 2020 to Superintendent Jones, the Board, and Sroka from Mrs. Gogolsky in which she notifies them of her intention to retire effective June 30, 2020. The letter also notes that the ERIP made her decision to retire much easier. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page M 78. ID — 9 consists of the minutes of the April 20, 2020 meeting of the Board which indicate that the Board approved the retirement of Mrs. Gogolsky by an 8-0 vote, with Gogolsky abstaining. 79. ID — 10 is a July 6, 2020 letter to Mrs. Gogolsky from Paul Sroka notifying her that the Board had accepted her retirement effective June 30, 2020 and thanking her for her years of service. 80. ID — I I consists of the minutes from the December 4, 2018 reorganizational meeting of the Board in which Gogolsky was elected Vice President by a 7-0 vote. 81. ID —12 consists of the minutes from the December 5, 2019 reorganizational meeting of the Board in which Gogolsky was elected President by an 8-1 vote. 82. ID — 13 consists of the minutes from the February 10, 2020 meeting of the Board which provide, in pertinent part, as follows: Action: F."DISCUSSION" Approval of Retirement Incentive Plan for Jeannette City School District Support Staff 83. ID — 14A consists of the minutes from the February 17, 2020 meeting of the Board which provide, in pertinent part, as follows: Action: G."VOTE REQUIRED" Approval of the Retirement Incentive Plan for Jeannette City School District Support Staff Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Retirement Incentive Plan for Jeannette City School District Support Staff Motion by Rager, 2"d by ParBtt, Gogolsky abstained from voting, due to a conflict of interest. Roll call vote 8-0, motion carried. 84. ID — 14B is the roll call vote for the motion to approve the Retirement Incentive Plan for the School District support staff dated February 17, 2020. Gogolsky is listed as having abstained from voting on the motion. This exhibit also contains a written memorandum signed by Gogolsky documenting his conflict of interest and Bled with the Secretary of the Board. The nature of the conflict is that Gogolsky has a family member that would be eligible for the ERIP. 85. ID — 14C is the Early Retirement Incentive Plan for the Jeannette City School District Support Staff signed by Gogolsky as President and. Sheila Ramler as Secretary of the Board following the vote to approve the ERIP on February 17, 2020, 86. ID — 16 is the seniority list for the School District support staff. 87. ID —17 is a January 14, 2020 email from Superintendent Jones to Halesey and Lori Stripay of the Pennsylvania State Education Association ("PSEA") notifying them that the Board had provided a "soft" yes to the support staff early retirement proposal and attaching the Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 31 terms and conditions of the proposal so that Halesey could prepare a document for Board review and approval at its February 2020 meeting. 88. ID — 19 is a series of emails between Superintendent Jones and Halesey regarding Mrs. Gogolsky's request to extend her husband -wife insurance coverage by one month to accommodate her husband until he turns Medicare eligible in August 2020. Halesey opined that healthcare insurance coverage should not be extended as requested by Mrs. Gogolsky. In response, Superintendent Jones suggested that they meet and discuss the decision with Gogolsky prior to the Board's meeting in a few days. 89. ID — 20 through ID — 24 are a series of legal bills submitted by Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, LLP, for legal services provided to the School District from November 1, 2019 through March 31, 2020. 90. ID — 25 is email correspondence between Superintendent Jones, Sroka, and Halesey concerning the draft of the Early Retirement Incentive Plan for School District support staff prepared by Halesey. 91. ID -- 26A is a certification signed by Sheila Ramler, custodian of records for the School District, attesting to the accuracy of records provided, i.e., Gogolsky's Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020. 92. ID — 26B are Statements of Financial Interests for Gogolsky for calendar years 2016 through 2020. a. Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2016 calendar year SFI identified PMRS (Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System) as Gogolsky's only source of income. b. Direct or indirect sources of income on Gogolsky's 2017 through 2020 calendar year SFIs identified PMRS and Social Security as Gogolsky's only sources of income. 93. ID -- 27 is a March 6, 2020 email exchange between Superintendent Jones and Sroka regarding Mrs. Gogolsky's request to have Gogolsky remain on her School District healthcare benefits for one month following her retirement. Superintendent Jones advised that they, along with Halesey, were going to meet with Gogolsky to discuss the proposal and asked Sroka to prepare a document detailing the anticipated cost for Gogolsky to continue on his wife's insurance, as well as the anticipated cost for Gogolsky to be covered by COBRA for the same month. 94. R-1 is a copy of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Jeannette, Streets and Sanitation Departments and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 30 in effect from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017. This agreement was in place at the time Gogolsky retired from the City of Jeannette. The collective bargaining agreement contains the following provisions: Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 32 In the event a union employee subject to this collective bargaining agreement is eligible and qualified for retirement prior to reaching Medicare age, then the City hereby agrees to continue the same hospitalization, medical and surgical insurance equivalent to that carried on the other City employees and union members until such retired member reaches Medicare age ... .Any spousal or dependent coverage provisions applicable to any City of Jeannette employee will also be applicable to this bargaining unit. (R — 1, P. 19). 95. R — 2 is an agreement dated July 8, 2013 between the City of Jeannette and Teamsters Local Union No. 30 (Gogolsky) with respect to healthcare benefits upon Gogolsky's retirement. This agreement provides as follows: Mark [Gogolsky] is currently on the opt -out provision of the contract (Article XVIII — Section H) and shall continue to receive payment unless he would decide to re -enroll in the City's Plan at anytime thereafter for coverage for himself and/or his dependents, until [M]edicare age (Article XVIII — Section F). 96. R — 3 is the Jeannette Police Officer's Benefit Associations' Consolidation Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Jeannette and the Jeannette Police Officers Benefit Association dated September 11, 2013. This agreement contains the following relevant provision: 6.10 POST RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURANCE — The City shall provide access to continued hospitalization coverage for each Police Officer, and the Officer's spouse only, following the Officer's retirement from the force.... (R — 3, p. 2). 97. R — 4 is a packet of documents containing Amended Statements of Financial Interests ("SFIs") filed by Gogolsky on May 4, 2022 for calendar years 2014 through 2020. Gogolsky's amended SFIs contain only the information that he was amending from his prior forms. Each of Gogolsky's amended SFIs only included information in Sections 01 (Name), 02 (Address/Telephone Number), 07 (Year) and 10 (Direct and Indirect Sources of Income). D. Stipulations 98. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Jeffery Frankenburger ("Frankenburger") would provide the following testimony under oath: He is the Deputy Executive Director of the State Ethics Commission. b. In his capacity as Deputy Executive Director, he reviewed the Investigative Division's file regarding this case. Goaolskv, 21-021 Page 33 c. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Gogolsky violated the Ethics Act. d. The Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on June 17, 2021. e. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. f. As is permitted by 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(c), on November 3, 2021, the Investigative Division filed an application for a ninety -day extension of time to complete the investigation. 99. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Dennis Pape ("Pape") would provide the following testimony under oath: a. Mr. Pape worked for the School District for approximately thirty years in the custodial/maintenance departments before retiring on October 2, 2020. b. Mr. Pape was a member of the Jeannette Educational Support Professionals Association (JESPA), the bargaining unit for cafeteria workers, secretarial/clerical, and custodians/maintenance personnel in the Jeannette City School District during his employment. c. Mr. Pape has no knowledge of how the ERIP that was offered in the 2019 — 2020 school year was established. d. Mr. Pape was not part of any continuing conversations with other members of JESPA about the desire for or the possibility of an ERIP being offered prior to learning about the 2019 — 2020 ERIP. C. During the 2019 — 2020 school year, Mr. Pape reported to Paul Sroka, then the Business Manager for the Jeannette City School District. f. During the early part of the 2019 — 2020 school year, Mr. Sroka asked if Mr. Pape would be interested in an ERIP, to which Mr. Pape responded that it did not apply to him because he would be turning 65 shortly. g. Mr. Pape turned 65 on January 23, 2020. h. Mr. Pape has no recollection of an ERIP being offered to members of JESPA until the 2019 — 2020 school year. 100. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Marlene Busato ("Busato") would provide the following testimony under oath: a. She was a member of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 34 b. The ERIP offered to members of the Support Staff Union during the 2019 --- 2020 school year was not her idea, nor was she approached by any person to raise the issue to the Board. C. She is no longer on the Board. 101. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Jennifer Rager ("Rager") would provide the following testimony under oath: a. She was a member of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year. b. The ERIP offered to members of the Support Staff Union during the 2019 — 2020 school year was not her idea, nor was she approached by any person to raise the issue to the Board. C. She is no longer on the Board. 102. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Tim Carney ("Carney") would provide the following testimony under oath: a. He was a member of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year. b. The ERIP offered to members of the Support Staff Union during the 2019 — 2020 school year was not his idea, nor was he approached by any person to raise the issue to the Board. C. He is still on the Board. 103. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, Tim Mortimore ("Mortimore") would provide the following testimony under oath: a. He was a member of the Board during the 2019 --- 2020 school year. The ERIP offered to members of the Support Staff Union during the 2019 — 2020 school year was not his idea, nor was he approached by any person to raise the issue to the Board. C. He remembers Gogolsky physically getting up and excusing himself from the discussion about the ERIP. d. He is still on the Board. 104. If called as a witness before the State Ethics Commission to provide testimony regarding this matter, David Valerio, Jr. ("Valerio") would provide the following testimony under oath: Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 35 a. He was a member of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year. b. The ERIP offered to members of the Support Staff Union during the 2019 -- 2020 school year was not his idea, nor was he approached by any person to raise the issue to the Board. C. He is still on the Board. III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of the Jeannette City School Board of Directors (`Board") from December 6, 1993 to the present, and as President of the Jeannette City School Board, Westmoreland County, Respondent Mark Gogolsky ("Gogolsky") was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations as set forth in the Investigative Complaint/Findings Report are that Gogolsky violated Sections 1103(a) and I I05(b)(5) of the Ethics Act: (1) When he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a member of his immediate family when he influenced and/or participated in actions of the School District resulting in early retirement incentive benefits being paid to his spouse, who was an employee of the School District; and (2) When he failed to .disclose all reportable sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2016 through 2020. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 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). The term "conflict" or "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Gowl,sky, 21-021 Page 36 The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Subject to the statutory exclusions to the Ethics Act's definition of the term "conflict" or "conflict of interest, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102, pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 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, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. A spouse is a member of "immediate family" as the Ethics Act defines that term. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1105(a) of the Ethics Act provides that SFIs shall be filed on a form prescribed by the Commission. Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act and its subsections detail the financial disclosure that a person required to file the SFI form must provide. Subject to certain statutory exceptions, Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate $1,300 or more. We shall now summarize the relevant facts. Jeannette City School District ("School District") is a third-class school district governed by a nine -Member Board of Directors (`Board"). Gogolsky has served as a Member of the Board since December 6, 1993. Gogolsky has served as President of the Board on several different occasions, most recently during the 2019 — 2020 school year. Re ardin the Early Retirement Incentive Plan Offered to Support Staff Includin Gogolskj's Wife, during the 2019_-20_20_School Year The School District was experiencing budget and morale concerns during the 2019 — 2020 school year. The prior school year had seen furloughs of employees, including a number of teachers and staff. After being advised of the upcoming budget difficulties and being presented with potential alternatives, including additional layoffs of professional staff, in November or December 2019, Superintendent Matthew Jones ("Superintendent Jones") presented to Business Manager Paul Sroka ("Sroka") the idea of an early retirement incentive plan ("ERIP") first for support staff personnel and then later to members of the professional staff. Superintendent Jones was concerned about how additional layoffs would adversely affect the morale of School District employees. Sometime in January 2020, Gogolsky informed Superintendent Jones that a nearby school district had introduced an ERIP for its staff due to budgetary concerns and that maybe the School District should look into doing the same. Gogolsky was unaware that Superintendent Jones and Sroka had already discussed the idea. Gogolsky, 21-021 Pag-e 37 Following their discussion in December 2019, Superintendent Jones instructed Sroka to review the information and put together a financial analysis pertaining to the number of eligible support staff employees and the respective savings to the School District. Sroka identified six support staff employees who would be eligible based upon age alone. Cheryl Gogolsky ("Mrs. Gogolsky"), Gogolsky's wife, was among those listed as potentially eligible for the ERIP. Mrs. Gogolsky had publicly expressed a desire to retire by the end of the 2019 — 2020 school year. After developing the financial frameworlt for the ERIP, Sroka expressed concerns that the number of eligible employees was too low to result in any significant financial benefit to the School District. In his opinion, a savings of at least $100,000 is necessary to affect any real financial benefit on the School District. After eliminating four of the six identified support staff employees, Sroka noted that the benefit to the School District if the other two employees decided to take the ERIP was approximately $26,640.00. Mrs. Gogolsky was one of the two remaining employees. Karen Wolfe ("Wolfe") was the other. Superintendent Jones presented the information about the support staff ERIP to the members of the Board at its meeting on January 13, 2020, There was little, if any, discussion about the proposed ERIP. Notably, the ERIP did not include any provisions for minimum participation for the plan to proceed. Subsequently, after having the opportunity to review the financial information as well as the terms of the ERIP drafted by Solicitor Peter Halesey ("Halesey"), the Board voted 8-0-1 to approve the ERIP for support staff members on February 17, 2020. The Board voted to approve the ERIP despite being aware that only two employees may be interested in availing themselves of this opportunity. Gogolsky recused himself from participation each time the ERIP was discussed by the Board. Gogolsky also abstained from voting on the ERIP and signed a conflict of interest memorandum. The ERIP was signed by Gogolsky as Board President and by Sheila Ramler ("Ramler") as Board Secretary. The deadline to accept the ERIP was April 1, 2020. Prior to malting her retirement decision, Mrs. Gogolsky inquired as to whether Gogolsky would be able to remain on her School District healthcare benefits for one month (July 2020) after her retirement. Gogolsky and his wife mistakenly believed that he would not be eligible for Medicare until he turned sixty-five on August 1, 2020. The School District refused her request after receiving a legal opinion from Halesey. After making the decision not to extend healthcare benefits to Gogolsky for one month following his wife's retirement, Superintendent Jones and Halesey opted to discuss the issue directly with Gogolsky out of deference to his status as a Board member and because a Board meeting was coming up in a few days. By letter dated March 12, 2020, Mrs. Gogolsky submitted her resignation effective June 30, 2020. On April 17, 2020, the Board voted to accept Mrs. Gogolsky's resignation pursuant to the terms of the ERIP. Wolfe was non -committal throughout much of the ERIP process and could not recall when she finally notified School District personnel that she was not interested in accepting the ERIP. Gogolsky, 21-021 Page 38 Reeardina Gogolsky's SFIs: Gogolsky testified that he filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020. Gogolsky failed to disclose the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough, Westmoreland County, as direct or indirect sources of income on his SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020. During the investigation of this matter, Gogolsky filed what he deemed "addendums" to his SFIs for calendar years 2014 through 2020. Each of the addendums filed by Gogolsky only included information in Section 01 (Name), 02 (Address/Telephone number), 07 (Year) and 10 (Direct and Indirect Sources of Income). Having summarized the relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Gogolsky violated Sections 1103(a) or 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1105(b)(5). As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process requires that we not depart from the allegations. Pennsy v. Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must be based upon clear and convincing proof. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1 I08(g). Clear and convincing proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue."' In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998) (Citation omitted). Per the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Kistler v. State Ethics Commission, 61.0 Pa. 516, 22 A.3d 223 (2011), in order to violate Section l I03(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee: ... must act in such a way as to put his [office/public position] to the purpose of obtaining for himself a private pecuniary benefit. Such directed action implies awareness on the part of the [public official/public employee] of the potential pecuniary benefit as well as the motivation to obtain that benefit for himself. Kistler, supra, 610 Pa. at 523, 22 A.3d at 227. To violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official/public employee "must be consciously aware of a private pecuniary benefit for himself, his family, or his business, and then must take action in the form of one or more specific steps to attain that benefit." Id., 610 Pa. at 528, 22 A.3d at 231. In considering the first allegation alleging a conflict of interest, we determine based upon a review of the evidence of record that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Gogolsky took action in furtherance of development of an ERIP for support staff members of the School District. It is undisputed that Gogolsky's conduct in connection with the support staff ERIP was minimal at best. To that end, the evidentiary record reflects: • Gogolsky never discussed the ERIP with any Board members or the Business Manager (Sroka); • Gogolsky left the meeting room every time the ERIP was discussed by the Board; • Gogolsky did not register a vote on the ERIP proposal, and the meeting minutes support that he abstained from voting on the proposal; and Go o]skv, 21-021 Page 39 • Gogolsky signed a conflict of interest memorandum which publicly announced his conflict of interest regarding the ERIP due to his wife's eligibility for the ERIP if passed. Although it is true that Gogolsky as Board President signed the official ERIP once it was unanimously passed by the Board, this was a ministerial act performed in accordance with his legal authority as Board President, similar to Sheila Ramler's signature on the document as Board Secretary. There was no exercise of discretion in this act. The only other evidence presented concerning Gogolsky's connection to the idea of an ERIP came in early January 2020 when Gogolsky returned from a meeting at the Career and Technology Centers. Gogolsky advised Sroka and Superintendent Jones that a nearby school district was offering an ERIP to staff and that maybe it was something the School District should consider to ease its budget concerns. The evidence, however, demonstrates that this conversation took place after Superintendent Jones and Sroka already had been working on the parameters for an ERIP for the support staff. Therefore, Gogolsky's after -the -fact suggestion is of no consequence to whether he used the authority of his office in the development of an ERIP which ultimately benefited his wife. Therefore, the entire crux of the conflict of interest allegation turns on the source of Superintendent Jones's idea of an ERIP for support staff. The Investigative Division asserts that the impetus for the development of a support staff ERIP was a late 2019 meeting between Gogolsky and Superintendent Jones, after which Superintendent Jones immediately went to Sroka's office and instructed him to put together the relevant financial information and the number of eligible support staff employees. Both Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky deny that any such conversation about an ERIP for support staff took place. Conversely, Gogolsky argues an insufficiency of evidence to support a finding of a conflict of interest, specifically, the lack of any direct testimony or documentary evidence that Gogolsky was responsible for the development of the ERIP. It is important to note that only one witness, Sroka, testified to his belief that the idea for a ERIP must have come from Gogolsky because Superintendent Jones came to Sroka's office immediately after meeting with Gogolsky and instructed him to put together the financials for n ERIP for the Support Staff Union. Sroka did not testify that Gogolsky presented the idea for the ERIP only that he heard about the idea for an ERIP from Superintendent Jones following a meeting with Gogolsky. No one other than Superintendent Jones and Gogolsky know what transpired in that meeting. Superintendent Jones was adamant that the idea for an ERIP for support staff was his and his alone. Equally as compelling was Gogolsky's testimony that he was not involved in the idea for or the development of the ERIP. To the extent that Sroka's insinuation differs from the direct testimony of Gogolsky and Superintendent Jones, we find the testimony of Gogolsky and Superintendent Jones to be more consistent and credible on this issue. We also are not convinced that Superintendent Jones offered false testimony out of fear of reprisal from Gogolsky. While it is true that Gogolsky is a longtime Board member with a considerable amount of authority and involvement in School District business and that Superintendent Jones reports to the School Board as a whole, there was no indication of fear or GoyolskX, 21-021 Page 40 anxiety when we observed Superintendent Jones's demeanor at the hearing. To the contrary, he appeared calm, relaxed and believable. It is paramount when there is a conflict of interest allegation that the Investigative Division demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that a public official/public employee used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of himself or an immediate family member. The first element requires clear and convincing evidence of a use of authority of office. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to prove that Gogolsky's late 2019 visit to Superintendent Jones began the chain of events leading directly to the support staff ERIP. Having failed to satisfy the burden on the initial prong of a conflict of interest violation, we need not address any additional arguments of the parties. Based upon the above, we hold that Gogolsky did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § I I03(a), as to the allegation that he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a member of his immediate family when he when he influenced and/or participated in actions of the School District resulting in early retirement incentive benefits being paid to his spouse, who was an employee of the School District, based upon an insufficiency of evidence. Finally, with regard to Gogolsky's SFIs, Gogolsky readily admits that he filed deficient SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020 with the School District. It was only after the initiation of the Investigative Division's investigation that Gogolsky filed "addendums" to his SFIs for calendar years 2014 through 2020. The addendums, which contain only partial information, are insufficient to satisfy the requirement for filing complete and accurate SFIs. Accordingly, we hold that Gogolsky violated Section I I05(b)(5) of the Ethics Act by failing to list two additional direct or indirect sources of income, specifically, the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough, Westmoreland County, on his SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020. Pursuant to Section I I09(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § I I09(f), we shall impose five reduced civil penalties against Gogolsky in the amount of $100.00 each, for a total amount of $500.00, for Gogolsky's deficient SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020. Gogolsky's argument that the omitted information was publicly available elsewhere, assuming the public knew where to look for it, is not persuasive. Indeed, it belies the very purpose of public officials completing SFIs, which is to strengthen the faith and confidence of the citizenry in its government and to ensure that the financial interests of its public officials do not conflict with the public trust. With that being said, the Commission also does not believe that there was any malintent on the part of Gogolsky when be omitted this information from his SFIs; hence the reason we choose to impose a reduced civil penalty rather than the maximum allowed by statute. Gogolsky shall be ordered to make payment of the aforesaid civil penalties in the total amount of $500.00 by no later than the thirtieth (301h) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, by forwarding to this Commission a certified check or money order in the amount of $500.00 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for deposit in the State Treasury. We further order that Gogolsky file complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020 with the School District by no later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, with copies forwarded to the Commission for compliance Gogolskv, 21-021 Page 41 verification purposes. Gogolsky is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation, or other payment from the School District3 representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid civil penalties. Non-compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: I. As a Member of the Jeannette City School Board of Directors (`Board"), Westmoreland County, and as President of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year, Respondent Mark Gogolsky ("Gogolsky") was a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Gogolsky did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation that he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a member of his immediate family when he influenced and/or participated in actions of the Jeannette City School District ("School District") resulting in early retirement incentive benefits being paid to his spouse, who was an employee of the School District, based upon an insufficiency of evidence. Gogolsky violated Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), when he filed deficient Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020 by failing to disclose all reportable sources of income, in that he failed to list the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough, Westmoreland County as sources of income on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020. 4. Notice of the deficiency of Gogolslcy's Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020 was previously served upon him in accordance with Section 1107(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1107(5). Based upon the totality of the circumstances in this case, five reduced civil penalties in the total amount of $500.00 are warranted, $100.00 for each of the five years he filed a deficient Statement of Financial Interests. 'The term "School District" is being substituted for the term "Township" that was mistakenly included in the original final adjudication, Order No. 1821. In Re: Mark Gogolsky, File Docket: 21-021 Respondent Date Decided: 10/4/23 Date Mailed: 11/13/23 ORDER NO. 1821 - A 1. Mark Gogolsky ("Gogolsky"), as a Member of the Jeannette City School Board of Directors (`Board"), Westmoreland County, from December 6, 1993 to the present and as President of the Board during the 2019 — 2020 school year, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), as to the allegation that he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary benefit of himself and/or a member of his immediate family when he influenced and/or participated in actions of the Jeannette City School District ("School District") resulting in early retirement incentive benefits being paid to his spouse, who was an employee of the School District, based upon an insufficiency of evidence. 2. Gogolsky violated Section I I05(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), when he filed deficient Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020 by failing to disclose all reportable sources of income, in that he failed to list the City of Jeannette and Penn Borough, Westmoreland County as sources of income on his Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020. We hereby levy five reduced civil penalties against Gogolsky in the total amount of $500.00, $100.00 for each of the five years Gogolsky filed deficient Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2016 through 2020. 4. Gogolsky is ordered to make payment of the aforesaid civil penalties in the total amount of $500.00 by no later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this Order, by forwarding to this Commission a certified check or money order in the amount of $500.00 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for deposit in the State Treasury. Gogolsky is ordered to file complete and accurate SFIs for calendar years 2016 through 2020 with the School District by no later than the thirtieth (30"') day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, with copies forwarded to the Commission for compliance verification purposes. Gogolsky is directed to not accept any reimbursement, compensation, or other payment from the School DistricO representing a full or partial reimbursement of the aforesaid civil penalties. 7. Non-compliance with Paragraph 3, 4, 5, or 6 of this Order will result in the initiation of an appropriate enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, t L6�5_- Michael A. Schwartz, Chair 4 The term "School District" is being substituted for the term "Township" that was mistakenly included in the original final adjudication, Order No. 1821.