Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1297 DixonIn Re: Walter Dixon File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Daneen E. Reese Frank M. Brown Donald M. McCurdy Michael Healey Paul M. Henry 02- 088 -C2 Order No. 1297 12/1/03 12/15/03 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 9 of 1989, P.L. 26, 65 P.S. §§ 401 et seq., as codified by Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investi9ation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegation(s). Upon completion of its investi9ation the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed and a hearing was waived. The record is complete. A Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings were submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement was subsequently approved. Effective December 15, 1998, Act 9 of 1989 was repealed and replaced by Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which essentially repeats Act 9 of 1989 and provides for the completion of pending matters under Act 93 of 1998. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under Act 93 of 1998 and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Chapter 11 of Act 93 of 1998. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 2 I. ALLEGATION: That Walter Dixon, a public official in his capacity as a Councilman for Wrightsville Borough, York County, violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 9 of 1989, 65 P.S. §401 et seq.) when he used the authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain, including but not limited to using borough equipment and personnel for work related to his personal and private business interests. II. FINDINGS: 1. Walter John Dixon has served as a councilman for the Borough of Wrightsville, York County, from January 1980 to the present. a. Dixon was originally appointed to council on September 16, 1968, to fill the unexpired term of Councilman Joseph Bromer and served until the end of 1975. b. Dixon has served as council president. 2. Dixon has been affiliated with the Wrightsville Municipal Authority since October 14, 1968, as council's representative to the authority. a. Dixon was voted as a member of the authority on December 14, 1989. 1. Dixon was appointed authority secretary /treasurer in 1995. b. Dixon assumed the position as authority General Manager in January 1997. 1. Dixon has been annually reappointed General Manager from 1998 to the present. c. Dixon is not compensated as a member or General Manager of the Authority. 3. Members of the Wrightsville Borough Council receive annual compensation of $600.00 for their service on council. 4. Dixon's $600.00 annual compensation is a councilman as confirmed by W2 Wage and Tax Statements issued to Dixon since 1998. 5. Dixon refused his salary of $600.00 from the Borough of Wrightsville for calendar year 2002. a. Dixon endorsed his paychecks for 2002 back to the borough of Wrightsville. 6. Walter Dixon is the owner of Dixon's Electric. a. Dixon's son has operated the business since 1996. 7. Dixon owns eleven rental properties in and around the Borough of Wrightsville. a. Dixon and his wife, Sarah Jane Dixon under the business name S & W Associates, manage the properties. b. S & W Associates is not registered or incorporated with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau. 8. Dixon is the sole owner of a coin - operated Laundromat located on Cool Springs Road, also known as Ninth Street in the Borough of Wrightsville. Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 3 a. Dixon previously was in partnership with Michael Post which ended on or about July 27, 1984. 9. Walter Dixon has filed Statements of Financial Interests as a member of the borough council and as a member of the municipal authority. Calendar Year 1999 2000 2001 10. Dixon filed amended Statements of Financial Interests with the State Ethics Commission on or about January 18, 2003, which disclosed his income and interests in Dixon Electric, Dixon Laundromat and S &W Associates. a. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: All Other Financial Interests: b. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Date Filed 03/04/2000 02/26/2001 09/03/2002 All Other Financial Interests: c. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: All Other Financial Interests: 1999 01/18/03 on SEC Form 1/03 Council /Authority None S &W Associates; Dixon Electric, Dixon Laundromat S &W Associates, Dixon Electric, Dixon Laundromat 2000 01/18/03 on SEC Form 1/03 Council /Authority None S &W Associates, Dixon Electric, Dixon Laundromat S &W Associates, Dixon Electric, Dixon Laundromat 2001 01/18/03 on SEC Council /Authority None S &W Associates, Electric S &W Associates, Electric Form 1/03 Dixon Laundromat, Dixon Dixon Laundromat, Dixon 11. Wrightsville Borough employs a full -time streets department which has consisted of both full -time and part -time employees. a. Jason Livelsberger had served as the roadmaster from 2001 until his resignation in March 2003. b. Russell Livelsberger is a full -time employee who previously served as roadmaster. c. Robert Tome was a part -time employee during 1999 and 2000. 12. The streets department currently consists of one full -time employee, and two part -time employees. Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 4 a. Currently, there is no full -time roadmaster or streets department supervisor for Wrightsville Borough. b. Russell Livelsberger is the employee with the most seniority, and is the only full - time employee. 1. He provides direction to part -time streets department employees. 13. Prior to March 28 2003, all streets department employees were required to report daily and receive direction from then roadmaster Jason Livelsberger. a. The road department was under the direction of borough councilman Edwin Pennel, the Streets Department liaison to council. b. Edwin Pennel does not directly supervise the streets department on a daily or weekly basis. c. Russell and Jason Livelsberger had been delegated the authority to complete daily assignments. 14. Since approximately 1998, Walter Dixon has been involved in overseeing the functions of the streets department. a. Dixon performs this function on an as needed basis as warranted. b. Council members are aware that Dixon monitors the streets department. 15. Since 1998, streets department employees Russell and Jason Livelsberger have on occasions met Dixon at Dixon's Laundromat located on Cool Springs Road in Wrightsville. a. Jason and Russell Livelsberger contacted Dixon at his Laundromat to solicit comments, suggestions or direction. 16. On occasion when meeting with Dixon regarding borough road assignments, the Livelsbergers would assist Dixon with private work at the Laundromat. a. This occurred during the time period from 1998 until August 2002. b. Some assignments would be given solely to Jason Livelsberger and others to Russell Livelsberger. 17. Russell and Jason Livelsberger performed general maintenance on equipment within Dixon's Laundromat, including but not limited to, the following: a. Removing and installing drive belts on washers and dryers Removing and installing motors on washers and dryers Removing and installing washer and dryer units General maintenance on washers and dryers b. Some of the work performed by the Livelsbergers for Dixon was done to enable Dixon to spend time on borough matters. 1. In 1999 Dixon performed electrical wiring work on borough generators in preparation for Y2K. 2. Dixon did all of the electrical work on the North Front Street pumping Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 5 station. 3. Dixon did the electrical work for the clarifier at the water plant. 4. Dixon did the electrical installation of two generators at the water and sewer plants. 5. Dixon wired the borough pole buildings. 6. Dixon installed all wiring, including the underground wiring from main panel to subpanel in the new borough building. 7. Dixon did electrical maintenance work at the office and street departments. 8. Dixon supervised the rebuilding of the Sewer Authority bungalow including wiring and plumbing. 9. Dixon repaired the school crossing light. 10. Dixon arranged for and traveled to Allentown for acquisition of the borough recycling truck. 11. Dixon plowed snow using his own equipment. c. Dixon asserts the value of his work exceeded $15,000.00. d. Dixon was not compensated for any of the services he performed or equipment he provided. 18. Jason Livelsberger estimated that he performed at least 50 hours of work for Dixon while simultaneously being paid as a streets department employee for Wrightsville Borough. a. This included repair /maintenance work at Dixon's Laundromat. b. Walter Dixon asserts that Livelsberger worked approximately 15 to 20 hours for Dixon. 19. The work performed by Jason Livelsberger at the direction of Dixon occurred while Livelsberger was on borough time. 20. Jason Livelsberger did not utilize vacation time or punch out on his time card while performing work for Dixon during normal streets department working hours 21. Jason Livelsberger also worked for Dixon on December 29, 2000, doing clean -up work following a fire at the Laundromat. 22. On December 28 2000, Dixon's Laundromat on North 9th Street caught on fire. a. Wrightsville Fire Department responded at 9:53 p.m. b. Jason Livelsberger responded to the scene to assist if needed. c. Dixon responded to his Laundromat shortly after the fire was called in to the fire department. Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 6 d. The fire was brought under control and extinguished at 11:05 p.m. e. Damage was contained to a specific section of the Laundromat. f. The Laundromat was closed for a short period of time, and then re- opened the following day, December 29, 2000. 23. During the extinguishments of the fire, Dixon and Jason Livelsberger discussed Livelsberger helping with the clean-up, and Dixon agreed Jason Livelsberger could help with the clean -up on December 29, 2000. a. Dixon believed that Livelsberger would provide services on a voluntary basis. 24. Russell Livelsberger, utilizing a borough truck Jason Livelsberger to the borough shed on the morning of December 29'", 2000 in order to punch in for the day. a. According to timecard records retained by Wrightsville for Jason Livelsberger, Livelsberger punched in at 6:27 A.M. b. Russell Livelsberger then dropped Jason Livelsberger off at Dixon's Laundromat, to assist with the clean -up. 25. At Dixon's direction, Livelsberger performed general clean up duties on December 29, 2000, including running ductwork from dryers that had been damaged by the fire. a. Livelsberger was on borough time when working at Dixon's Laundromat. b. Jason Livelsberger left the Laundromat at 1:30 at the end of the clean -up. c. According to timecard records retained by Wrightsville for Jason Livelsberger, Livelsberger punched out at 2:56 P.M. 26. Jason Livelsberger worked approximately 7 hours at Dixon's Laundromat. a. Livelsberger was earning $12.00 /hour in 2000. b. Jason Livelsberger did not take any personal or accrued time on November 29, 2000, as codified by his personal leave records. 27. Dixon asserts he paid Jason Livelsberger $90.00 for clean -up duties at the Laundromat on November 29, 2000. a. Dixon has no records of payment. 28. On occasions between 1998 and 2003, Jason Livelsberger was directed by Walter Dixon to pick up washers and /or parts at A Z Equipment. a. A Z Equipment is located in New Oxford, PA. 1. New Oxford is approximately 35 miles from Wrightsville. 2. New Oxford is a one (1) hour one -way drive from Wrightsville. b. Livelsberger was working on borough time when directed by Dixon to travel to New Oxford, PA 1. Livelsberger did not utilize personal or accrued time to perform these Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 7 hauling duties. c. Livelsberger performed at least 1/2 hour additional labor in relation to these trips. d. Jason Livelsberger was directed by Dixon to utilize a Wrightsville borough truck to transport equipment to and from A Z Equipment from Dixon's Laundromat. 1. Borough owned vehicles and equipment are to be utilized for official borough business and /or work responsibilities. e. Both occasions coincided with times Dixon was working on wiring borough generators and overseeing a borough construction project. 29. Two trips made by Jason Livelsberger occurred in 1999. a. 09/24/99: Pick up clutch assembly b. 11/23/99: Pick up two ram units 30. Jason Livelsberger spent approximately five (5) hours on two (2) trips to AZ Equipment. a. Two trips x 2.5 hours each trip = 5 hours. 31. Jason Livelsberger created a logbook starting in February of 2002 for the purposes of documenting work projects assigned by Walter Dixon which were related to Dixon's personal business interests. 32. Russell Livelsberger has been employed by Wrightsville Borough since prior to 1991. a. Russell Livelsberger served as borough roadmaster from 1991 until resigning in 2001. b. Russell Livelsberger remains employed by the borough as the only full -time road department employee. 33. From 1998 to 2003, Russell Livelsberger performed approximately 15 hours work for Walter Dixon while simultaneously being paid as a streets department employee for Wrightsville Borough. a. Walter Dixon did not compensate Russell Livelsberger for work performed for Dixon's personal business interests. 34. From 1998 to the present, Russell Livelsberger has performed general maintenance on equipment within the Dixon's Laundromat. a. This work would includes the following: Removing and installing drive belts on washers and dryers Removing and installing motors on washers and dryers Removing and installing washer and dryer units Installation of change machines Repair of soap dispensers 35. Russell Livelsberger during regular working hours as a road department employee would offer to help Dixon perform work at his Laundromat, which offers Dixon accepted and thus directed Russell Livelsberger to perform certain work. Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 8 36. Between January 2002, and February 12, 2002, Russell Livelsberger was directed by Dixon to fix a soap machine and dryer pulleys in Dixon's Laundromat while on borough time. a. Russell Livelsberger worked on this project for 3 hours. 37. Walter Dixon is a member of Trinity Lutheran Church in Wrightsville, PA. a. In or around February 2002, Trinity Lutheran Church was celebrating its 150 anniversary. b. Walter Dixon took the responsibility to originate a billboard that was to be placed in front of the church property advertising its anniversary. 38. During February of 2002, Russell Livelsberger and Robert Tome (a part -time borough employee) were present when Dixon completed a billboard for Trinity Lutheran Church and although on borough time, agreed with Dixon that they would help load it on a pickup truck and deliver it to the church. a. The billboard preparation and construction was completed at the borough shed. b. Russell Livelsberger and Robert Tome did not punch out for the borough while conducting this work. c. Russell Livelsberger and Robert Tome did not take personal or annual accrued time for this project. d. Russell Livelsberger and Robert Tome were not paid by Dixon for performing this work. e. The transportation of this billboard was done utilizing a borough truck under the direction of Dixon. 39. Russell Livelsberger and Robert Tome spent approximately one (1) to two (2) hours each assisting with the Trinity Lutheran Church anniversary sign under the direction of Dixon. 40. After the church celebration, and after a third party contractor had cleaned up the church site, Dixon instructed Russell Livelsberger to have a borough employee pick up the leftover plywood on the site for use by the borough in the future. a. Russell Livelsberger instructed Robert Tome to pick up the plywood. b. Robert Tome did not punch out for the borough while conducting this work. d. Robert Tome did not take personal and /or accrued time for this project. e. Robert Tome was not paid for this work by Dixon. 41. Jason Livelsberger's average hourly rate of pay between 1998 and 2003 was $11.95. 42. Jason Livelsberger was paid approximately $298.75 by Wrightsville Borough while simultaneously performing personal work for Walter Dixon. 1998 to 2002 25 hours @ $11.95 /hour $298.75 Dixon, 02- 088 -C2 Page 9 43. Russell Livelsberger was paid at least $246.60 by Wrightsville Borough while performing personal work on behalf of Walter Dixon. 1998 to 2002 20 hours @ $12.33 /hour $246.60 44. Robert Tome was paid $49.50 by Wrightsville Borough in February 2002 while retrieving the plywood from the church property at the direction of Dixon through Russell Livelsberger. a. Tome worked approximately 5.5 hours and was earning $9.00 /hour. 45. Dixon contracted with Ammon Stoltzfus in around January 2001 for repair yvork at his private, in- ground swimming pool, located at his residence at 312 South 6L Street in Nrightsville, PA. a. This repair work involved a complete restoration of the interior lining of the pool, which included removal of concrete and wood. b. During the repair of Dixon's pool, it was discovered by Stoltzfus Construction employees that they were without the proper cutting tools to extract the rebar- enforced concrete that lined the pool. 46. Wrightsville Municipal Authority owns a Stihl brand demolition saw. a. This saw is utilized for cutting pavements, blacktop, cement, and other substances. b. The saw has interchangeable blades, depending upon cutting preferences. 47. Stoltzfus employees utilized the authority's demolition saw for one full day, cutting rebar- enforced cement and other materials at Dixon's swimming pool. a. Stoltzfus employees were provided the saw by Jason Livelsberger. 48. The demolition saw was returned to the Municipal Authority in a damaged condition. a. The diamond tips on the cutting blade were destroyed, rendering it useless. 49. Stoltzfus Construction did not reimburse the borough or authority for the damage to the blade, or the rental of the demolition saw. 50. The cost to the authority to replace the saw blade was $127.50. 51. Dixon was not advised by Stoltzfus or any borough employees that the authority demolition saw was used on his home project. 52. Dixon did not direct or authorize Stoltzfus or any borough employee to use the borough equipment on his home project. 53. Dixon has served as a borough councilman for over 22 years. 54. Dixon has been associated with the Wrightsville Municipal Authority since its inception in 1968. 55. For over 35 years Dixon has contributed his services as an electrician and his equipment on many occasions to assist in meeting the needs of the borough. Dixon 02- 088 -C2 Page 10 56. Dixon never asked for or was given any compensation for the services and equipment he donated to the borough. 57. Dixon believes that his donation of time and equipment over these years well exceeds any time spent by a borough employee on his behalf. III. DISCUSSION: At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent, Walter Dixon, hereinafter Dixon, has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, Act 9 of 1989, Pamphlet Law 26, 65 P.S. § 401, et seq., as codified by the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., which Acts are referred to herein as the "Ethics Act." The allegation is that Dixon, as a Wrightsville Borough Councilman, York County, violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he used borough equipment and personnel for personal and private business interests. Pursuant to Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. The term "conflict of interest" is defined under Act 9 of 1989/Act 93 of 1998 as follows: Section 2/1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public f of ce or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. "Conflict" or "conflict of interest" does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 P.S. § 402/65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Dixon has served as a Wrightsville Borough Council member since 1980 and as the uncompensated general manager of the Wrightsville Municipal Authority since 1997. In a private capacity, Dixon owns Dixon's Electric, 11 rental properties in the Wrightsville Borough area and a coin - operated Laundromat in the borough. Dixon 02- 088 -C2 Page 11 Wrightsville Borough employs one full -time employee and two part -time employees for its street department. Jason Livelsberger was roadmaster from 2001 to March of 2003, Russell Livelsberger has been a full -time employee and Robert Tome was a part -time employee in 1999 and 2000. Although the street employees had previously reported and received direction from the full -time roadmaster, Dixon has been involved in oversight functions as to the street department since 1998. From that time, the Livelsbergers on occasion, would meet Dixon at his Laundromat and in some instances assisted with private work there. Some of the private work done for Dixon by Jason Livelsberger (Jason) involved removing and installing drive belts, motors, washer and dryer units, and performing general maintenance. Some of the work completed enabled Dixon to spend time on borough matters. Although Jason estimates that he performed at least 50 hours of private work, Dixon asserts the time only amounted to approximately 15 to 20 hours. Nevertheless, such work by Jason was done at Dixon's direction during borough working hours. In one instance when the Laundromat caught fire, Jason worked approximately 7 hours at the Laundromat to do clean -up work for Dixon including running ductwork that had been damaged by the fire. On other occasions, Dixon directed Jason Livelsberger to pick -up washers or parts for the Laundromat which was done during borough work time. From 1998 to 2003, Russell Livelsberger worked approximately 15 hours while simultaneously being paid as a borough street department employee. He also performed general maintenance services on equipment at Dixon's Laundromat during regular borough working hours. When Dixon's church celebrated its 150 anniversary, he took responsibility as to the placement of a billboard in front of the church. Two borough employees during borough business hours agreed to help Dixon load the billboard on the pick -up truck and deliver it to the church. The amounts that the borough paid its employees while they were doing personal work for Dixon is set forth in Fact Findings 42 -44. When Dixon entered into an agreement with a contractor for repair work on his private inground pool, the contractor did not have the proper cutting tools to extract rebar enforced concrete. A demolition saw from the municipal authority was used by the contractor on Dixon's pool project. The demolition saw was returned to the authority in damaged condition with the diamond tips on the cutting blades destroyed. However, Dixon did not authorize the contractor or any borough employees to use such equipment on his home project. Lastly, Dixon, through the years, contributed his services as an electrician and his equipment to assist in borough projects without asking for or receiving any compensation for such services or equipment. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations. The Consent Agreement proposes that this Commission find that Dixon unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when, as a result of the authority of his office, borough personnel performed work as to Dixon's private interests. Dixon agrees to make payment of $700.00 to Wrightsville Borough through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this order. In applying Section 3(a )1103(a ) of the Ethics Act to the stipulated facts, there were uses of authority of office by Dixon. But for the fact that Dixon is a council member with oversight functions over street department employees, he would not have been in a position to Dixon 02- 088 -C2 Page 12 direct borough employees during business hours to assist at his private Laundromat or at his church. Such actions constituted uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. The uses of authority of office resulted in private pecuniary benefits to Dixon consisting of the services provided to him by the borough employees without any cost to him. Parenthetically, we note that Dixon in turn provided many services to the borough without any charge for his services or equipment. Accordingly, Dixon unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized borough personnel for his private business interests. See, Johnston, Order 1200. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Dixon is directed to make payment of $700.00 to Wrightsville Borough through this Commission within 30 days of the issuance of this order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Dixon, as a Councilman for Wrightsville Borough, is a public official subject to the provisions of Act 9 of 1989 as codified by Act 93 of 1998. 2. Dixon unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized borough personnel for his private business interests. In Re: Walter Dixon ORDER NO. 1297 File Docket: 02- 088 -C2 Date Decided: 12/1/03 Date Mailed: 12/15/03 1. Dixon, as a Councilman for Wrightsville Borough, unintentionally violated Section 3(a)/1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he utilized borough personnel for his private business interests. 2. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Dixon is directed to make payment of $700.00 to Wrightsville Borough through this Commission within 30 days of the mailing date of this order. a. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair